Hansard Transcript 1986-Nov-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) spoke to me earlier and brought to my attention that this is an important national day for the Polish people. I had indicated to him that it might be appropriate if he had an opportunity to bring this to the attention of the House and allow other members to comment on it. We are still doubtful about what the proper procedure is.

I noticed when you called the first order, Mr. Speaker, that the member rose. I think it was his intention to ask for unanimous consent to raise this important matter. I hope you will give consideration to the possibility of doing that.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure all members have heard the request. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Newman: Today I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Polish Independence Day. Yesterday, November 11, was a day on which we paid tribute to the sacrifice of those brave men and women who gave their lives in the defence of their country. For Canadians of Polish heritage, that day has added significance. It is Polish Independence Day.

After the occupation forces were expelled from Poland in 1918, a free, reunited and independent Polish state was established on November 11. For Polish Canadians, November 11 means freedom, the freedom they continue to hope for in their native land.

We are reminded by the anniversary of Polish Independence Day that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and that true peace must be built on the principles of freedom, liberty and democracy for all people in all nations.

By their observance of that day, Polish Canadians keep alive the hope and the struggle for a free and independent Poland and ensure that Canadians continue to appreciate how fortunate they are to live in a society that is based on the principles of liberty, justice and tolerance for all.

Mr. Shymko: I join the member for Windsor-Walkerville in commenting on the very special day that was celebrated yesterday by all Canadians as Remembrance Day.

To many communities, such as the Polish community, it was a very special day indeed, when they remembered those of their forbears who fought for the independence of their homeland in the midst of a war that was supposed to end all wars some 68 years ago. The elimination of the former czarist empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire had brought to fruition the creation of many independent states for many peoples in eastern and central Europe.

It is indeed a special occasion when the Polish communities, not only in Ontario and Canada but also throughout the world, celebrate this very special day. It is also a reminder to all of us in Ontario and in Canada how quickly liberties we take very often for granted can be crushed by the oppression of regimes and governments that believe in the law of force rather than the force of law. For as long as we will be privileged to represent free constituents in a free society, we should remember these special occasions.

A couple of weeks ago, we spoke on the anniversary of the independence of the Czech and Slovak people, which occurred some weeks before Remembrance Day in the conclusion of that terrible war. We will be celebrating and commenting on the anniversaries of many communities in Canada which remember dates that did occur in 1918, at the beginning of that year and following the Peace of Versailles.

As we witness the tragic recurrence of oppression that has taken over countries such as Poland following the Second World War, we see their liberty was very short, some 20 to 22 years between the First and Second World Wars. As we watch the crushing of the free trade union, Solidarity, and as we watch the unwavering spirit that continues to hope and fight for freedom, human rights and national liberty, we give them both moral and political support in our resolutions in this free society that some day they will be able to enjoy liberty, justice and peace with the rest of humanity.

Mr. Rae: As the previous members have said so eloquently, November 11 is a day which marks a milestone in the history of Poland, but it would be unfair to the history of that great country to talk only about the events of 1918 and the birth of the modern nation of Poland out of the czarist empire.

No country and no culture have been more overridden, conquered, divided, subjugated, misruled and misdirected by the efforts of empires to the south, east and west to dominate that great country. Yet, if we look at the history of the past century, it has been the history of the courage of the Polish people and the ability of the Polish people to continue to express themselves, despite this extraordinary history of oppression, war, subjugation and great hardship, and also, if I may say so, of the triumph of a truly marvellous culture and civilization.

Together with my colleagues from the New Democratic Party, I am very proud of the fact that the first Polish words spoken in this Legislature were spoken by a member of our party, Dr. Janos Dukszta. We are very proud of Ed Ziemba's contribution to the famous debates in 1975, 1976 and 1977, which marked that. I am very proud of our association as a party, particularly with respect to recent events in Poland. I am proud of our support, the support of the free trade union movement in this country, for the Solidarity movement in Poland and of the continued very strong feelings, not only among Canadians of Polish descent but among all Canadians, for the independence, integrity and democracy that we know must one day triumph once again in the great country of Poland.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I know the honourable member would not in any way want to provide information that is not fully correct. I hope you will permit me to tell him that the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who was elected in 1959, was making comments on the Polish situation in Polish when the member for York South (Mr. Rae) was lying in his bassinet in the embassy in Mexico City.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South: in regard to the bassinet?

Mr. Rae: If you want to talk about facts, I will certainly accept the correction from the very charitable and dignified House leader, who once again has elevated the tone of the debate with his interjection, as befits the performance of the dean of this Legislature, who indeed was here long before any of us was born. We certainly appreciate that comment.

I am prepared to stand corrected on the basis of the factual situation with respect to the contributions of the member for Windsor-Walkerville. Where I was when the member was elected and where I have been since is a matter of record, which I think throws question on the rhetorical, overblown flim-flammery which has just come from the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Before we get into too much flim-flam, the next order of business will be members' statements.

13:42

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN

Mr. Gordon: Almost a year has passed since the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the then Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), announced they were uniting with the federal government in the immediate creation of a $5-million economic recovery plan for the Sudbury region. Now, after a cold and bitter Sudbury winter and a wet summer, with area unemployment still running at 15 per cent and a welfare deficit of $1 million, last week administrators of this immediate program, for no apparent reason, echoed their former remarks and resurrected their $5-million plans. All this government has done with this type of stalling tactic is to make the business and political communities in Sudbury increasingly sceptical of this government's motives.

This announcement comes without the government having put a penny of that $5 million towards job creation and, ironically, it comes on the heels of another layoff by Falconbridge, which has offered financial assistance to the recovery plan. Especially alarming about this so-called recovery is the fact the government has renewed its demands for new and innovative business plans without revealing any specifics. The government knows Sudbury businessmen have been adopting new and innovative approaches for years. They have had to, just to stay alive while the government sits on its hands promising all manner of financial aid.

Can the Premier (Mr. Peterson), as Minister of Northern Development and Mines, please enlighten me and the hard-working and anxious people of Sudbury, when is that $5 million going to be put to its intended use?

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: In his statement to the Legislature on November 5, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) attempted to create the illusion that he was getting tough with companies that violate Bill 70. He very carefully used weasel words. Let me quote: "The number of cases referred to legal branch for possible prosecution was 276. This is an increase of 155 per cent." The words you have to look at are "possible prosecution," not actual prosecutions.

It is interesting that on February 20 of this year I asked the Minister of Labour to provide me with the number of actual prosecutions against workers and the number against corporations. I did not get an answer. I wrote to the minister on March 7 and I am still awaiting an answer. On May 13 I raised this matter in the Legislature to find out who was being prosecuted. On July 13 I wrote the minister again, asking to find out who was prosecuted in this province. I am still waiting for the answer, despite the fact I am told that information is available and is sent out monthly to the various district offices.

What is so strange about this minister is that while he talks tough, nothing happens. The minister said some time ago there would be no repeat orders. There were roughly 85,000 orders last year. There are no repeat orders shown this year because that designation of repeat orders in the annual report of the Ministry of Labour has been removed. We will never know whether there are repeat orders. He has simply removed it from the ministry's own report.

KING CLANCY

Mr. Sargent: On behalf of a lot of people in Ontario, it would be very timely to express the feelings of all members of this House on the passing of King Clancy and to pay tribute to a great Canadian.

About 20 years ago, when Syl Apps was a member of this Legislature, he made arrangements with Harold Ballard for members of the House to play hockey in Maple Leaf Gardens at no charge. During all this time, King Clancy would often visit the dressing rooms to sit around and tell a few lies with us.

I know I speak for all of us here and all the people in Ontario who love good, clean sport when I say he was a hell of a guy. He was always available to speak for sports funding at sports banquets across the province at no charge. It was a labour of love for King Clancy. He loved the people, the game of hockey and good sportsmanship. In his words, he never met a man he did not like. He would not want any flowery speech at this time, but I think it is enough to say to King up there, "Thanks, King, it was wonderful to know you."

In the morning, King Clancy will be lying in state at Maple Leaf Gardens from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, and the service will be held at 1 p.m. at St. Michael's Cathedral.

Mr. Rowe: I am pleased to rise today to join the member for Grey-Bruce in paying tribute to a great man, the vice-president of the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey's unofficial goodwill ambassador. Francis Michael Clancy inherited the nickname King from his father. It was a name he lived up to in the true meaning of the word. He was a great man and leaves all of us with pleasant memories of his many contributions and of his character.

My colleagues and I know all members of the House join with me in expressing our sincere sympathies to the Clancy family and to all those in the hockey world.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. McFadden: On November 3, I asked the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) to release to this House a study carried out by his officials setting out the tax assessments that would apply to individual properties in Toronto if the government's market value assessment scheme were imposed. The minister refused to release those figures.

The taxpayers in Toronto have the right to know what will happen if the provincial government gets its way and market value assessment is imposed. One thing we do know is that many people will face significantly higher taxes. Reports released to date by the provincial government indicate that property taxes will be increased on 83 per cent of the homes in ward 10 and 75 per cent of the homes in ward 11 in the city of Toronto. More than half the home owners will face increases in excess of 20 per cent.

Market value assessment as proposed by the province will create a real hardship in older neighbourhoods that home owners have worked hard to maintain for decades. These home owners, many of whom are senior citizens, should not now be undermined and threatened. As a consequence, I urge the government to leave Toronto alone and stop its subtle and not-so-subtle tactics to force market value assessment on the city.

LAND TRANSFER

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I rise to express my happiness with the decision of the cabinet to enter into an agreement with the city of Windsor to swap lands along the river front for some lands the Ontario Land Corp. currently owns in my riding. I must express my disappointment that I had to learn about this through the press rather than having the courtesy of a notification from the minister.

This will be a major development for the community and will result in 34 acres of land in downtown Windsor being added to the park land that already exists in the city. It will spark additional tourism. I expect the park land development will include such things as cafés, an amphitheatre, passive recreational park land and perhaps a marina development.

All the people in the city of Windsor will be very happy with this development. It is a major economic boost to our community. I only hope the land that has been transferred in the east end to Canadian National through this deal will not go simply into high-income housing, but that there will be a mix in the development of housing so the needs of the entire community will be met in that area. There is a huge amount of land that CN will be taking over. I hope we will have a mix of low-income housing and housing to meet other needs of people in our community.

In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to former mayor Bert Weeks and the current mayor, David Burr, who had a lot to do with today's announcement.

BLOCK PARENTS

Ms. E. J. Smith: The Lieutenant Governor has again seen fit to honour a London citizen for her outstanding service not only to Ontario but also to Canada. Ms. Gertrude Rose has been honoured by the Lieutenant Governor for her outstanding service. Along with a group of other London women, including Margaret McGee, she started Block Parents 18 years ago.

Everybody in this House and, indeed, this province is familiar with the Block Parents signs that stand in the windows of so many homes to make all children feel secure to and from their schools or places of play. Of the 1,100 communities that have joined Block Parents, 300 are in Ontario. We in London are proud that people from our community started this fine organization. We thank the Lieutenant Governor for recognizing this service and thank these very strong women for starting it.

Ms. Rose is the only volunteer serving on the committee of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) dealing with crime prevention. I am happy to honour her today.

13:52

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FLOODING

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I wish to take this opportunity to update the House on the flooding situation along the Great Lakes.

As members know, strong westerly and southwesterly winds last weekend caused high lake levels and waves that led to some flooding along Lake Erie, Lake Superior and Lake Huron and along Georgian Bay. I am pleased to report, however, that this flooding was not as severe as originally anticipated, in part because the high winds were gusting, which limited the extent of the flooding.

On Monday, I toured the Port Colborne-Port Dover area, where there was some flooding. Later that day, I flew over flooded areas in the Collingwood-Parry Sound area.

Staff from a number of ministries are providing assistance and helping deal with this situation wherever possible. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is providing low-interest loans to owners of private property to allow them to undertake protective works or to repair damaged structures. The Ministry of Natural Resources is providing a technical advisory service to property owners who want to repair shoreline damage. The ministries of Transportation and Communications and Agriculture and Food are assisting with specific repair projects.

Members may recall I advised the House last April that I had appointed my parliamentary assistant, the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), to head a committee to study long-term solutions to shoreline management along the Great Lakes. This summer, committee members set up more than 20 public meetings, which were attended by 1,500 people. They collected information and opinions about the management of the Great Lakes shoreline. This committee has just completed its report, which I expect to table in the House before the end of the month.

I know members appreciate there is nothing we can do to control the extreme water level fluctuations in the Great Lakes. What we can do, and what we are doing, is to look for ways to minimize the damage and hardship caused by those high water levels. I expect to be returning to this House shortly with some proposals that will allow us to deal with the long-term problem of shoreline flooding.

Mr. McCague: I would like to respond to the first gas statement the Minister of Natural Resources made today. We were pleased he visited the area and noted the serious flooding conditions, particularly in my area of Georgian Bay. What he says here today is of little consolation to those people whose properties have suffered tremendous damage.

He recites what he is doing, and I will acknowledge his people in the Ministry of Natural Resources are offering good advice to property owners; but then he turns it over to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and tells us he has money to help these people. In a call to that ministry this morning, I found it is out of money already. It is out of money, and the minister is making big noises about the low-interest program he has. There was $100,000 approved for Wasaga Beach. There are applications for $1.1 million and the minister does not have even the $100,000 to help them. What is he going to do for the property owners?

Mr. Harris: I also want to refer to the first gas statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources. It is very intriguing, and I would like to refer to one section where the minister says, "I know members appreciate that there is nothing we can do to control the extreme water level fluctuations in the Great Lakes."

Perhaps the minister has not been listening to the Coalition of Great Lakes Residents -- when we look at both sides of the border, there are up to one million people -- and the representations they have been making to this government, to the government of Canada and to the government of the United States, and does not know the disappointment they have felt, particularly with this government in Ontario and with this minister.

The minister knows there are many things that can be done and should be done; many of them have been pointed out to him. The Wainfleet township report came out with a series of recommendations, all positive, all endorsed by this party, that the government should be acting on. That report has been in the minister's hands now for more than a year.

As well, plan 25N has been put forward, has been proposed and has been circulated in a serious way for about a year and a half now. The minister and members of his caucus have attended meetings. Maybe he should talk to the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), because he has heard of many positive things that can be done.

For the minister to come here in this House and say, "I know members appreciate that there is nothing we can do" is an absolutely misleading statement. Members know there are many things he can do. The member for Essex South knows there is a lot he can do. I am surprised he is not on his feet responding to the minister's statement and objecting.

A lot can be done, and it is time the minister got off his feet and did it.

Mr. Rae: I want to respond to the statements made by the Minister of Energy and Minister of Natural Resources who, like Gilbert and Sullivan, is one and the same person.

First, I will comment on the statement that the Minister of Natural Resources made with respect to the flooding that has taken place over the last week.

I am only sorry my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) is not here, because he has done a superb job on behalf of his constituents with respect to this problem. He and I had a meeting last year that involved dozens of people along the shores of Lake Erie talking about the extent of the problem. In due course, the minister's comment on page 3 of his statement, "I know members appreciate that there is nothing we can do to control the extreme water level fluctuations in the Great Lakes," will perhaps be an appropriate epitaph for the political career of the minister. A statement by a politically responsible minister in 1986 saying there is nothing the government can do with respect to a problem of flooding is an utterly disgraceful abdication of responsibility in the face of a natural disaster.

There are civilizations, such as that of the Egyptians going back 4,000 years, that have had to respond to the problem of flooding. It would be ludicrous to suggest nothing can be done to control the problem of flooding. It can be controlled. One can go back to China, to the Euphrates, to the Ganges. One can go back through the history of mankind. The history of mankind is the history of those civilizations that have attempted to deal with the problem of controlling flooding. Tell the Dutch. If the minister had been responsible for the natural resources in Holland, that entire nation would still be under water. That is the reality of what we have been left with by the minister. That is not good enough.

NATURAL GAS PRICING

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: On October 30, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced further steps towards the deregulation of the natural gas industry in Canada. Today I will outline to the Legislature the probable impact on Ontario of these actions. On October 31, 1985, the governments of Canada, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, entered into an agreement on natural gas markets and prices. On November 1, 1985, I reported to the House on that agreement.

On December 3, 1985, I announced the steps the Ontario government was taking to implement that agreement, even though we were not a party to it. That agreement made it possible for large users of natural gas to buy gas directly from the gas producers to obtain lower prices. A number of large users have taken advantage of this arrangement, either specifically or by using the opportunity of direct purchase, to negotiate price discounts with their gas suppliers. However, for most gas users in Ontario the agreement froze prices until November 1, 1986. The agreement contemplated that prices in gas supply contracts with Ontario-based distribution companies would be renegotiated by November 1. I am pleased to report that this renegotiation has been completed.

Reductions in the wholesale price of natural gas are being put in place in Ontario markets. Last year's agreement also contemplated that federal and provincial regulatory boards would establish transportation rates to facilitate those developments. I want to pay tribute to the chairman, the members and the staff of the Ontario Energy Board for the expeditious and constructive way in which they are adjusting the regulatory framework in Ontario to this new environment.

The agreement also anticipated that the National Energy Board would review its gas export tests and procedures to ensure they were consistent with changing market conditions. The federal board undertook this review and relaxed the protection of Canadian needs to create greater access for natural gas producers to the export markets. The Ministry of Energy participated in this hearing and opposed any reduction in the protection of future Canadian requirements. These and a number of other regulatory changes were to be made by November 1, 1986, but a major responsibility for adjusting to natural gas deregulation was assigned to the private sector: gas distribution companies, pipeline companies and gas producers. These companies have renegotiated the prices in their contracts.

In recent weeks, however, gas producers and the government of Alberta sought additional changes in the regulation of the quantities of gas available for export and export prices. After officials of the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources informed officials of the Ontario Ministry of Energy that the federal government was contemplating further changes to export policy, I wrote to the federal minister. I indicated that Ontario cannot support yet another relaxation of Canada's gas reserves test, which puts future supplies for all Canadians at risk.

Ontario also objects to any weakening of the adjacent-border test for gas export prices. On October 24, I met with the federal minister personally and discussed our concerns with him. Following that meeting, he wrote to me outlining his responses to those concerns. I am tabling with this statement copies of my letter to Marcel Masse and his letter to me on this subject.

In a speech in Calgary on October 30, Mr. Masse publicly announced his actions regarding natural gas exports. However, in letters made public by Mr. Webber, the Alberta Minister of Energy, further light is shed on the minister's intentions. Mr. Masse announced that he had asked the National Energy Board to carry out a further review of the natural gas export procedures. In his Calgary speech, Mr. Masse also emphasized that the National Energy Board has the sole legislative responsibility to protect reasonably foreseeable domestic natural gas requirements. He also stated that the government of Canada did not intend to amend or interfere with the board's mandate in this area.

Let me assure the House that in the past Ontario has also looked to the National Energy Board to protect the needs of gas users in Ontario. When gas shortages were widespread in the US markets in the 1970s, all Canadian gas users relied on the National Energy Board to ensure that pressure from the US gas market, which is 10 times greater than ours, did not distort prices and supply security in Canada.

We rely on the National Energy Board to be independent and to protect the reasonably foreseeable requirements of Canadians, whether or not those requirements are reflected in current contracts. That has been the National Energy Board's approach to this matter in the past.

However, I must alert this Legislature to the fact that in a letter to the Alberta Minister of Energy, Mr. Masse indicates he does not support the approach the National Energy Board has taken to protect the future needs of Canadians. In this letter he suggests the needs of Canadians should be protected only to the extent that natural gas requirements are reflected in natural gas supply contracts.

This statement in the letter to Mr. Webber came as quite a surprise to me. Such a position was not mentioned to me in our meeting or in the federal minister's subsequent letter to me; nor were these views, expressed in his letter to the Alberta minister, consistent with the assurances in his speech in Calgary regarding the independence and responsibilities of the National Energy Board in gas export matters.

I will be seeking further clarification as a result of this somewhat contradictory state of affairs, but let there be no confusion about Ontario's position. We seek continued protection of all Canadian requirements that are reasonably foreseeable. The needs of future Canadians and future Canadian businesses are foreseeable today. Although those needs cannot be contracted for today, they must be protected. As in the past, we are expecting the National Energy Board not to allow additional gas exports unless there is natural gas that is surplus to the present and future needs of Canadians and we are relying on the board's responsibility and independence in this area.

The Ministry of Energy will participate in the board's review and will insist upon the protection of the needs of Canadians. To provide honourable members with a complete background package on these issues, I am tabling today the statement of the federal minister, his letters to the chairman of the National Energy Board and his exchange of letters with the Alberta Energy minister.

On October 30, Mr. Masse also announced the end of the federal regulation to ensure that the price of Canadian gas sold in export markets not be less than the price in the Canadian market adjacent to the point of export. This will be replaced with an export price monitoring policy. This action may result in the unacceptable situation of Canadian gas being sold at a lower price to a US user than that a Canadian user pays just across the border. The possibility that an industry in Buffalo, for example, would pay less for Canadian gas than a competitor in Hamilton is clearly intolerable.

Finally, the federal minister has announced that he will introduce legislation to clarify the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board to deal with what is known as the double-demand-charge problem. This is a welcome change.

Let me conclude by indicating that I commend my federal counterpart for his initiative of greater consultation on these matters than in the past and for convening a conference of energy ministers in January. I will be seeking an early opportunity for the federal minister to assure Canadian natural gas users that their future needs for this important and nonrenewable energy form will be protected.

Mr. Andrewes: I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy. I am glad he has taken that hat from the shelf and dusted it off. We have not heard much from him in that capacity these days. The words in his statement are those of a pussycat compared to the fire and brimstone we heard from this minister a year ago.

In paragraph 3 of the first page, the minister indicated he announced a year ago his moves to implement the natural gas policy of the federal government even though he was not a party to those discussions. He is almost apologizing for his absence from the table. However, his objections to the protectionist aspects of the natural gas policy, in contrast to his other statements and the other aspects of the agreement, do not appear to be in keeping with the stance taken by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at recent first ministers' conferences where his words and efforts were in the so-called national interest. I suggest that the minister is perhaps taking away some of the credibility from the speculation of Douglas Fisher and others about the Premier's political future.

All this rhetoric is an apology for not being at the table when the discussions were being held. We urge the minister to correct this. We urge him to earn and demand the respect that Ontario should have in those discussions because the economic future of this province depends on it.

Mr. Rae: Further to the minister of flooding and of gas, on his statement with respect to natural gas deregulation, I have been reminded of my past today by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). In my more recent past, I was present when it was the Liberal Party of Canada that authorized the building of the so-called prebuilt pipeline out of Alberta into the United States, which started and increased the pressure for exports to the United States.

This country has the Liberal Party of Canada to thank for the sellout of those resources, starting back in the 1980s, and we are now bearing the fruit of that sellout by the Liberal Party of Canada. I was there. I remember that debate very vividly.

The minister's job on behalf of the consumers of this province is to make sure that it is the consumers of this province who get a reduction that corresponds to the reduction in price that is supposed to be going on in the free marketplace the minister is advocating.

I would like the minister to stand in his place today and say the consumers and home owners of this province, and not just the big industrial users, have benefited from deregulation. He cannot show that it has happened. The minister has not done it yet. It has not happened yet because the Liberal Party of this province is listening to the big guys, the big utilities, the big users. It is not listening to the little people. It is not listening to the people who need to get gas at a competitive price. It is listening to Consumers' Gas and the big guys, to the monopolies. It is not listening to small business or to the home owners who want to get that kind of break.

This is the kind of response we expect from a Minister of Energy in this province. We expected the Minister of Energy to be insisting on a place at the table last year, to be saying Ontario required a place at the table because we cannot trust Brian Mulroney and the Tories to defend consumers. It has become clear we cannot trust the Liberal Party of Ontario to defend consumers, who still have not seen the benefit they deserve from this deregulation, which should be producing lower prices.

YOUNG LEADERS TOMORROW PROGRAM

Hon. Ms. Munro: I have the great pleasure of rising today to announce the provincial launch of an exciting new program which will bolster the management skills of our young people and strengthen Ontario's community organizations.

The Young Leaders Tomorrow program is a special two-year program sponsored by my ministry in co-operation with the Ontario Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres. It will provide 880 young people aged 15 to 24 with one-year internships on the boards of directors of multicultural and cultural organizations in 22 communities. In addition to their board experience, these young people will also receive 40 hours of valuable leadership training.

Public libraries, art galleries, multicultural organizations, native and francophone groups, theatres and dance companies will be eligible to appoint a young leader to the board of directors or executive committee of their organization.

By dovetailing the energy and enthusiasm of youth with the experience and wisdom of boards and committees, I know we have a winning combination. The success of the two pilot projects my ministry introduced last year in Thunder Bay and Ottawa is proof of this. Young leaders and community organizations worked hand in hand on projects and events. The young leaders gained tremendously valuable experience. Decision-making, planning and management skills were developed. Boards of directors gained from fresher perspectives and new opinions.

In the next few weeks, the Young Leaders Tomorrow program will be inaugurated through a series of local community announcements in the following locations: Burlington, Kingston, London, Ottawa, Peel region, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Toronto and Windsor.

Ten new programs will be offered throughout Ontario for the 1987-88 year.

I am very pleased to lend my full support to the Ontario Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres in conducting Young Leaders Tomorrow. This co-operative venture is part of my ministry's community partnership approach in the delivery of our programs.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I notice in the lower east gallery a former member for London South, John Ferris. Please join me in welcoming him.

REMARKS BY PREMIER

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for oral questions, I would like to inform the members that last Wednesday the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) rose on a point of order concerning remarks made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson). I said I would have a look at the remarks made. I have carefully reviewed the record for that day.

Our standing orders provide in rule 9 of section 19(d) that members shall not impute false or unavowed motives to another member. As the Speaker does not enter into debate, it is important that members observe the rules of debate and draw the Speaker's attention to possible infractions of these rules. It is also important that when infractions take place, members rectify the situation so that order and decorum in the House are restored.

However, upon my review of the record, I cannot find where remarks of the Premier referred to by the member for Sudbury would be described as being out of order and technically not referred to him. Therefore, I must conclude the member does not have a point of order.

14:18

ORAL QUESTIONS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Speaker: The member for Fort William.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mickey for leader.

Interjections.

Mr. Hennessy: Maybe it would be an appropriate time to run for the leadership.

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister should be aware of the ongoing efforts to save the Great Lakes Forest Products waferboard mill in Thunder Bay and the 150 jobs at the mill. For example, the mill union, following recommendations of the Rosehart report, has agreed to negotiate a new contract with the company. The government now has had nearly three months to review the Rosehart report. The union has done its part, but the government's bungling of the softwood tariff issue has put 1,000 jobs in the north at risk.

Will the minister tell us when he will be providing financial assistance to help modernize the mills and to help get those 150 laid-off employees back on the job?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The number of employees laid off and the potential layoffs are a great concern to this government and to me as the minister. At present, those matters are under consideration.

Mr. Pope: The member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) has brought to the minister's attention a very serious problem that has been sitting there for three months. We have brought to his attention a number of cases in northern Ontario where bush workers and millworkers have been laid off, principally because of his bungling of the Washington tariff case. What is he going to do in Washington and Ontario to help the 150 laid-off workers from the Grenville Martin mill in Sault Ste. Marie?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Had the member been here last week, he would have known that last week the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) did accompany Pat Carney to Ottawa. We are continuing our discussions with officials from the United States Department of Commerce. We will continue to fight this issue to the end to see that it is resolved properly.

Mr. Pope: If the minister is fighting so hard to protect the Ontario lumber industry and Ontario jobs, why did he not file a notice requesting a hearing prior to the final determination on the tariff case in Washington?

He had until early November to file a notice under the provisions of the preliminary determination in order to stand up and fight for Ontario workers and Ontario industries. He did not file a notice; he will not be a party to the final determination hearing on December 1 in Washington. Why is he refusing to fight in Washington for Ontario workers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We are continuing to fight for the people of Ontario, especially those affected in the north. We are following the process. We are working with the federal government and the other provinces concerned and we are certainly doing our share.

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

Mr. Partington: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister takes much pride in the way he is dealing with the environmental crises facing this province, but in the face of his so-called pollution abatement programs we still have major pollution problems in our own backyards.

How can the minister justify a cutback of $1.5 million in municipal transfers for sewage treatment programs at a time when the amount of such transfers should be increased substantially?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Brock would know that within a particular fiscal year there is an opportunity, when pressures arise in one specific area, to provide additional funds to municipalities which may be in a position to utilize them for either the purposes of providing drinking water or more often dealing with sewage problems.

As the former Minister of the Environment, who is here today, would tell the member, there are a number of municipalities which make applications for funds and the ministry puts them in on a priority basis as they relate to the actual pollution problems that exist in a specific area. We then find out that a number of municipalities, for their own reasons, do not decide to proceed within a specific year.

When they do not decide to proceed, we are then able to move down the list to other municipalities that indicate an interest in obtaining those funds. The member will find the experience has been over the last several years that all the municipalities that are able to utilize funds and would be eligible for such funds are in a position to have those funds available to them.

Mr. Brandt: The minister is well aware that the city of Toronto has put before him a remedial plan of action to extend storm sewers in the city of Toronto and also to expand on holding tanks in the east Beaches area in order to reduce the amount of pollutants that are currently entering the natural environment.

Why did the minister not agree to participate in funding the study that it is proposed will be undertaken with respect to that plan and why did he not commit even more dollars to reduce the amount of pollution, which is directly related to the lack of separation of storm and sanitary sewers? He must recognize that there is no more effective way to clean up the environment than the way that has been suggested by my colleague in relationship to the question I am raising with the minister now.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I always enjoy the opportunity to be lectured on how to run the Ministry of the Environment by the former Minister of the Environment, who has had a good deal of experience in this matter. In fact, I consult him from time to time about matters of this kind to draw on his experience. Sometimes I accept his advice but more often than not, as a member of a new government, I do not accept it.

In specific reference to his question, the member will know our government has put forward a substantial amount of additional money related particularly to what is generally called beaches cleanup but really deals with environmental and pollution problems within Metropolitan Toronto and its various municipalities. In addition, I have discussed with the federal minister at the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers the possibility of obtaining additional funding, or new funding in this case, from the federal government.

I have indicated a clear willingness to accelerate our program. The municipality is on side, the province is on side and we are waiting for the member's friends in Ottawa to put forward their money. We can accelerate this program to a very great extent. The member identifies important ways of dealing with the pollution program. That is, in some cases --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: -- by the separation of storm and sanitary water, but in most cases it is the idea of holding tanks and other mechanisms to retain the water, which --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: -- I think could be very effective.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Brock.

Mr. Partington: The minister is trying to pass off his responsibility for sewer and water financial support to the federal government. The report on the Welland Canal and the Twelve Mile Creek cited municipal sewers as being major causes of pollution. When will the minister face that problem and come up with substantial additional funding for much-needed sewer projects for municipalities around the province?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is correct in identifying the fact that we have spent a substantial amount of money. He knows, for instance, that a study has been undertaken under the auspices of the Ministry of the Environment. We are providing $750,000, and the municipalities some additional funds, for a $990,000 specific study to pinpoint the actual sources so we can eliminate those sources of pollution of the Twelve Mile Creek.

In addition, on behalf of the government of Ontario, I had the opportunity to present a cheque for $180,000 to Dr. Ian Brindle, Dr. Michael Dickman and Dr. Arthur Houston, who are working on the Twelve Mile Creek and the old Welland Canal. We have increased overall Ministry of the Environment funding from $314 million in 1985-86 to $361 million in 1986-87.

I know the member will find that my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has been sympathetic and helpful in providing funds to fight pollution in this province at a rate that simply could not have been comprehended in the past when the previous government was busy spending its money on other priorities.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier about the auto pact and its role in the free trade discussions with the United States. If the government of Ontario has been on top of all these discussions and has been fully consulted, can the Premier explain why the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was desperately on the phone to the New Democratic Party research office on Friday trying to get hold of the memorandum telling where the federal government was really going?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are aware that a lot of stuff is bootlegged out to the member's people, and we want to go to the fastest source possible to get some of this information. That memo, which I gather was sent to Mr. Broadbent in a brown envelope, we assumed was in the member's hands. We assume that any time Mr. Broadbent speaks, the member speaks as well on the very same issue.

I do not want to make light of a very serious issue. We were not aware of that memo, which may or may not be influencing the discussions. Our views on that matter are extremely clear, as are the member's. I assure him I will continue to pursue the line we have pursued in the past.

Mr. Rae: What is the line? We are entitled to know. We have now been told the view of the federal government. To quote from the words of the memorandum: "There remains a widespread belief that the auto pact safeguards are still central to the health of the industry. This misconception is an obstacle to necessary change in automotive trade rules."

The Premier will know that on Friday in the House of Commons, in response to several questions from members of our party, Mr. Wilson never at any point gave the assurance that the auto pact was not going to be on the table in the discussions. I wonder how the Premier can possibly square that failure on the part of Mr. Wilson with his own comment in the Legislature on June 3 in response to questions from me on this very subject, in which he said: "With respect to the question about the auto pact...there was a very firm assurance from the Prime Minister last night that he would not raise the auto pact." That has clearly been broken now.

What does the Premier intend to do now to speak up and defend Ontario's interests just at the time when it is crystal clear that those interests are going to be sold out by the Tory government in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have the very same concerns that my honourable friend has on this matter. He should not ask me to stand in this House and justify Mr. Wilson, a leaked memo from someone or other, what Mr. Reisman has done or anything else.

Mr. McClellan: What is your position?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My position is the same as it was when I discussed it with the member some time ago, the same position I put forward very forcefully to the Prime Minister, to my colleagues, to the trade negotiators and to anyone else who will listen. Very simply, it is that the auto pact should not be on the table under any circumstances.

Mr. Breaugh: It is clear from the contents of that memo that, whether the Premier knows it or not, the auto pact is on the bargaining table now. What is he going to do to end these talks before our auto industry goes down the drain?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the member is asking me to walk away from the table tomorrow, if that is his suggestion, then I am interested in hearing his views. This is something we are watching. We are putting forward our views on the matter in a very forceful way. The federal government knows our position. I cannot speak to every little memo in the hands of the federal government, nor would I try to justify them. I am sure the member understands that. There are hundreds of memos written.

Mr. Breaugh: Never mind the memos.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Perhaps the member does not share my view, but I take the Prime Minister at face value when he says it is not on the table. That is very clearly my view, and I assume it is the member's view. I am not sure it is the view of my friends opposite. That is where we stand, and the member knows it.

Mr. Rae: The Premier must be the only man in Canada who takes Brian Mulroney at face value at this stage of the game.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions about insurance. A member of my research staff phoned a number of insurance companies across the province, asking what kind of rate he would be quoted if he were a 21-year-old living away from his parents and driving a four-cylinder 1985 Plymouth Reliant K car with four doors. We phoned five insurance companies in Windsor, several in Hamilton, Sudbury and Toronto, all across the province.

What does the minister intend to do about the fact that the majority reply that call received was that the individual, with a clear driving record for three years, would qualify only for the so-called Facility Association rate, which the minister knows is the rate that is supposed to be confined to so-called high-risk drivers? What does the minister intend to do to stop our young people from facing insurance costs of $2,800, $3,000 or $3,200 a year to be able to drive cars in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the leader of the third party for that question. He should know we have been in discussions with the insurance industry to do away with the rating based on age, marital status and sex, and that we have to develop a database that will rate drivers strictly on their experience and accident record. That is something we are working on.

Mr. Martel: How many years are you going to work on it?

Mr. Rae: By the time the minister ends up working on it, those drivers who are under 25 will be over 50 and may have an entirely different set of experiences with which to qualify for insurance.

Specifically, what is the minister going to do now for all those drivers who have been told there is no insurance for them? For example, one insurance broker, once he was told the age of the driver, said he had no market for people under 25. Another person said the rates would be the strict facility rate and no other. Another insurance broker in Toronto said, "You have to have five clean years of driving if you are under 25, and nobody else will qualify."

What does the minister intend to do for those tens of thousands of people who are being referred to the Facility Association rates quite unfairly, who are being charged rates of $2,500, $3,000 or $3,500 a year? He says he is working on it. He has been working on it for months on end. The insurance companies are continuing to rip off consumers day after day, and he is standing here simply apologizing for those insurance companies every day of the week.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The problem of the Facility Association is very complex. The Facility Association is there to provide insurance for those hard-to-place drivers. What has been happening is that some insurance brokers, rather than send their customers to another broker, are referring them to the Facility Association. I am not happy with that solution, and we have talked to the Facility Association. It is not the problem of the Facility Association; it is the problem of some of the brokers who refer their customers there rather than advise them to seek insurance elsewhere.

Again, insurance is available. People have to shop around to get it; it is an area we are working on.

Mr. Rae: When the minister says in this House, "The insurance is there to get; all you have to do is shop around," he is insulting every single young person who does not have a parent under whose policy he or she can qualify. It is a direct insult because their experience utterly belies what he has just said in this House. The only shopping around they can do is to go from one company that will charge them $3,000 to another company that will charge them $3,200 or another company that will charge them the benign rate of $2,850 a year.

When is he going to stop this colossal ripoff and stop standing in his place apologizing for the insurance companies, who are consistently ripping off the people of this province with their exorbitant rates?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Contrary to the accusations of leader of the third party, I am not defending the insurance industry. I am saying the marketplace is there. There are people who are getting insurance. If they shop around, they can find it.

EMISSION DISCHARGES

Mr. Dean: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Last January, when the Chipman plant in Stoney Creek had an accidental fire and subsequent gas emission, it was discovered that the Ministry of the Environment had no equipment available enabling it to determine whether toxic gas had escaped into the air and that the ministry relied on equipment provided by the Chipman plant itself. The minister will recall that at that time he gave this House an assurance he would look into this inadequacy of his ministry.

In the light of that assurance, can the minister tell us why, when a similar incident took place yesterday at the I. Waxman and Sons Ltd. metal processing plant in east Hamilton, his officials again did not have the appropriate equipment and were forced to admit they were uncertain of what gas was being emitted until an air monitoring unit was sent in from Toronto?

14:40

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is my understanding that the equipment was available on this occasion. There are about three different pieces of equipment. There is something called a TAGA 3000, which is a very large machine that costs $1 million. It has to be calibrated before it can be utilized. It can be brought in on occasions of this kind. For instance, it was used for the situation in Mississauga.

Mr. Stevenson: Good heavens. They have a machine that has to be calibrated before it is used.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It does. Some pieces of equipment can be used immediately, and some require to be calibrated before they actually go in to look at the potential substances one will be dealing with.

Mr. Stevenson: You are a walking genius.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know the PhD across from here will lecture us --

Mr. Speaker: Interjections are out of order. Please answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There is also a unit called the MAMU, which is a smaller mobile piece of equipment, that is utilized. In addition, there is a third piece of equipment, which we purchased as a result of the situation the member refers to. He will recall the evening we had the public meeting. I drew it to his attention. It is mobile in that it can almost be carried on a shoulder. It is very effective at determining what gases might be around in that situation. It is my understanding that our crews were on the scene. We had someone from the Ministry of the Environment there within about 20 minutes and that equipment was brought in.

Mr. Dean: I thank the minister for the ancient history lecture. Although I recall distinctly what the minister said about the reasons inadequate equipment was available last January, that does not solve a problem that occurs now, approximately 10 months later. The fact is that although the incident yesterday started at about 10:30 a.m. and there was prompt notification of all parties concerned, which I was pleased to see was an improvement on behalf of the company, the fire department, the police and the health officials, there still were no results as to the --

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Dean: It is coming; hold it, Mr. Speaker. There were no results from the ministry tests until after 6 p.m. That was more than six hours later. Only at that time were they sure what they should do with it. We now have had two such incidents in which the ministry was incapable of ascertaining the extent of the danger to the residents of Hamilton-Wentworth. The minister must agree that an industrial area such as ours in Hamilton-Wentworth needs the appropriate air testing equipment, whatever it is, to be readily available, to be available right away; it means the ministry's air testing unit should be kept in --

Mr. Speaker: Order; the minister.

Mr. Harris: You promised it six months ago, 10 months ago. It is still not --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is not correct. As usual, he is interjecting without knowledge of the specific issue in this case.

Certain pieces of equipment such as the TAGA machine have to be calibrated before they go in. Other pieces of equipment can be put into action much more rapidly.

Mr. Harris: Ten months ago you promised you would have it there, and you still do not have it. You have done nothing since you have been there.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is inaccurate; indeed it is available. I can also indicate to him that we are dealing with a different circumstance in this situation, compared with the Chipman situation, for instance. In this circumstance, the zirconium would create a nontoxic zirconium oxide, according to experts in that field. We do have this equipment. The equipment was brought in. As the member knows, the evacuation that took place was simply a precautionary measure. It was not ordered by the Ministry of the Environment. It was a precautionary measure as we wish to be overly cautious as opposed to being underly cautious in matters of this kind.

Mr. Mackenzie: On the same topic, it is not a question of what we have in the way of monitoring devices on the scene. Yesterday's chemical fire at I. Waxman and Sons on Centennial Drive North in Stoney Creek raises a serious question with respect to our ability to respond quickly to a potentially deadly situation.

Regional police, firemen, the medical health officer and ministry personnel responded quickly and were prepared to make decisions. The problem was that attempts to find out the toxic content of the smoke and how to deal with a zirconium fire met with a recording and nothing else. Decisions were made based on the federal Department of Transport's hazardous materials handling guide.

Who are the responsible authorities we are supposed to contact, and will they be available when faced with a crisis such as this?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, the member is quite correct in assuming the Ministry of the Environment has a role to play in this regard and should be contacted and should be in a position to provide the kind of assistance that is necessary to the local authorities such as fire departments. In some communities, and I think in many of the larger communities, the fire departments are now in a position to determine a lot of the answers the member is referring to.

However, I understand Boris Boyko, for instance, who is the regional director for that region for the Ministry of the Environment, was on the scene working with the local authorities and dealing with whatever information we could gather at the time.

Mr. Mackenzie: I was on the scene for part of the incident as well, and I am wondering when we are going to have a complete inventory of all the chemicals and toxic substances stored by the various companies and municipalities and who will be responsible -- I ask the minister once again -- on a 24-hour basis to advise on the potential threat of the material burning or the chemicals that may be released and how to deal with the material.

It took several hours to bring down the dry materials from the Mount Hope airport and find they did not work and then to use water on the fire. There was a complete lack of information. Calls to the federal office simply brought a telephone recording on November 11.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: My ministry did give information to the fire department, for instance, about the potential for an explosion if water were mixed with the hydrogen, which could create an explosion.

In relation to the other question, which is a longer-term question I know the member has had an interest in, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) introduced in the Legislature a bill that deals with the right to know for those substances that are being used. That kind of legislation, which the member has been interested in for a number of years, would be very advantageous to us in terms of having available, not only for the workers in the plants, and that is exceedingly important, but also for the civil authorities in that area, the information required on each of these substances. When that bill passes in this House that will be reality.

ACID RAIN

Mr. McGuigan: The Minister of the Environment will welcome a tough question from this side of the House. Citizens of southwestern Ontario are concerned about the effects of US-generated acid rain on their health, their crops and their buildings. We see dramatic results on galvanized steel buildings, and we worry about the insidious results on our health, our livestock and our crops.

I understand the United States Court of Appeals struck down an order to the US Environmental Protection Agency that would have placed curbs on the production of acid gas in the US Midwest. I understand the minister has asked for a rehearing of the case. What action is he taking to back up this position he has taken?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The court case to which the member refers is one that was very disappointing to New York state particularly. I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Attorney General of New York, Robert Abrams, because he had been deeply involved in the court case.

We were encouraged when the lower court was prepared to make the ruling that various states would have to reduce significantly their sulphur dioxide emissions from their coal-fired plants. Unfortunately, this was appealed and the US Court of Appeals turned it down.

As a result, we had discussions with some of the states in the US, particularly northeastern states which are impacted adversely by acid rain, and decided we would launch an appeal. The state of Maine is exceedingly interested in this, as are New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey and others. We intend to pursue that through the court system in the form of an appeal.

14:50

Mr. McGuigan: The minister has the US Environmental Protection Agency and the midwestern states to fight in this, particularly Ohio and Kentucky. What chance does the minister really think he has of winning this?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Whenever one goes into court, there is no guarantee. The lawyers in the House who smile probably know better than I what chance there is. I think we have the weight of public opinion on our side for one thing, and with the resources of the other states we have some strong allies -- New York state, Maine, Vermont and the other states I mentioned. I think we have some good allies.

We have to go back into court for two reasons: first, because we want to win the legal battle; and second, to indicate clearly to our friends on the other side of the border that we are prepared to pursue these matters along with our allies, the environmental groups on the other side and the various states, to attempt to get the kind of decision we think is justified. As I saw it, the decision from the United States Court of Appeals was based on a procedural technicality and really seemed to fly in the face of some of the US laws. We intend to pursue that. I cannot guarantee the outcome. The judges and the courts make those decisions, but I am pleased to pursue it on behalf of this province.

HOSPITAL WASTE

Mr. Andrewes: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. He will be glad he came today. Given the recent court decision that dismissed the action brought by the Ministry of the Environment against Wellesley Hospital and St. Michael's Hospital on charges of illegally dumping pathological waste and the previous acquittal of two other hospitals on similar charges, can the minister offer his logic for pursuing this prosecution?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know there are some who would prefer that we not pursue prosecutions on environmental matters; and I am not saying that of the honourable member, I do not want anyone to mistake the fact that I would not say the member himself. However, a number of people out there do not want to see us pursue a lot of these situations. They would prefer us simply to make some noise about them and not do anything in particular.

However, in this specific case, the ministry officials, both from the investigations and enforcement branch and from the legal department, made the determination that they had gathered sufficient evidence to proceed with the prosecution. The very fact that we as a ministry have decided to do that is a matter of a legal decision.

As a minister, I do not interfere in the prosecution cases. I do not determine who shall be prosecuted and who shall not be prosecuted. I do not say we should stop prosecutions or that we should initiate them. I simply have a broad policy that where the investigations and enforcement branch believes there is sufficient evidence to proceed in court, it should do so. It did so in this case, but the specific judge did not agree. We are now contemplating looking at the transcripts and determining whether an appeal would be appropriate.

Mr. Andrewes: This is one case where perhaps the minister should exercise some judgement and have a look at the whole circumstance. The judge in this case, His Honour Judge Dnieper, in passing judgement, said, "How these charges came into being is beyond me." He also cited the ministry for failing to examine properly and to preserve evidence and for the highly questionable qualifications of witnesses it brought before the judge.

Would the minister agree that his actions have not only cost the taxpayers and the hospitals considerable amounts of money, but he has also now seriously jeopardized his credibility as minister and the credibility of his ministry in future prosecutions?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would not agree with the member in that regard, nor will I interfere in this case to give political orders to stop an investigation or an appeal. I believe very strongly that it is the role of the minister to stay out of the prosecution end of things because it could really place a minister in a conflict-of-interest situation if the minister on a political basis, for instance, were to determine who should be charged and who should not be.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister just said he was going to re-examine it.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No. I said that we as a ministry -- not the minister but MOE, the Ministry of the Environment, the legal people in the ministry, the investigations and enforcement branch -- are at present looking at the potential decision.

Mr. Harris: It is not your fault, you had nothing to do with it. When they screw up, you have nothing to do with it. It is not your fault.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Nipissing may well be pleased when those in a position of breaking the environmental laws win a case in court. If he wants to say that, let him say it. That is exactly what he is saying.

Mr. Andrewes: Did they break the law here?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The members opposite did not want to prosecute. There is a new regime in Toronto at present, a regime which believes that when there is evidence to proceed with a prosecution, it will do it.

WOMEN EMPLOYEES

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues, who in a speech about a year ago told women in Ontario they should stop excluding themselves from jobs traditionally held by men. We would like to know what advice the minister has for Nancy Bailey, a fully licensed carpenter employed by the Toronto Transit Commission?

In September, she was transferred out of her job in the carpentry section to take a new position as a bus cleaner. She has to take a cut in pay and has been transferred to a department where bidding rules make it practically impossible for her to pursue her career as a carpenter. The move was triggered not by a slowdown in carpentry but by a requirement in the collective agreement that the employer offer permanent jobs to temporary employees who have a year of service. I wonder whether the minister can tell us what victims should do.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Being asked to give advice so quickly on facts and circumstances with which I am not familiar is difficult, but if this woman works in a plant that is unionized, which I gather to be the case, she will have to understand that the terms of the working conditions are effected by the collective agreement that has been negotiated by the trade union acting on her behalf, a vigorous and well-known one in this case, and her employer. If she is unsatisfied with those terms, she will have to participate more actively in the bargaining process or, if she believes the terms have not been equitably applied to her, file a grievance. In short, the collective bargaining agreement effects and disposes of her rights in this circumstance.

Ms. Gigantes: It is interesting that the minister, having first told women to go solve their problems, now turns and says it is the union's fault. The union in this case is supporting Nancy Bailey.

Tonight the minister is going to announce the winners of the Ontario Achievement in Employment Equity Awards. I hope he gets the winners checked out properly, because it is apparently pretty easy to get snowed in this business.

Nancy Bailey's picture was published on a leaflet put around by the TTC, showing what a glorious and equal opportunity employer it is. Furthermore, the TTC says in its annual report that it has increased the number of managerial and professional positions held by women by 14.5 per cent. Try to find the name of a woman on its list of management people. When will the minister follow through on his leader's commitment during the election campaign that he would, in forming a government, require that affirmative action programs be instituted in the public sector of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: That was a long question which led down a lot of alleys and byways. Let me begin at the beginning. First, I never indicated to the women of Ontario that they would have to look after themselves, which was the preamble to the question.

Second, it is of no account that the union in this case supports Miss Bailey. The fact is that the difficulties she confronts are a function of the collective bargaining agreement, of which the union is one of the authors.

Third, as everybody knows, in circumstances of this type everything should be done, either through collective bargaining or through incentives, to encourage employers to develop employment equity programs. That, not something else, is what the awards dinner this evening is designed to honour -- those employers in Ontario who have responded to that kind of initiative and who have started employment equity programs designed to ensure that this kind of situation will not be replicated.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr. Partington: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will know that recently one soft drink manufacturer has increased the deposit on its 750-millilitre glass containers to 40 cents from 30 cents. Does the minister support this move?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can indicate to the member that I support those moves that are designed to attract the greatest return possible on those containers. Where it relates to a competitive position, as it relates to commercial for instance, I guess it is not for me to comment on the commercial end of it, but any initiative that is taken on any occasion that would have the effect of returning more bottles to the place from which they came is one that must be supported.

Mr. Partington: The retailers have indicated that the 40-cent deposit will be a deterrent to purchasing returnable bottles. The manufacturer said in such a case he will supply the retailers with alternative containers. This will also discourage returnable bottles. If this occurs, will the minister guarantee this House that he will monitor the practice closely to be sure that his recycling law requiring soft drink companies to sell at least 40 per cent of their product in refillable containers each year is enforced?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The answer to a somewhat complicated question --

Mr. McClellan: Are you trying to monitor or not? Yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has a question. I will let him wait for his opportunity to ask the question. I am not the one asking the question; I am answering the question.

Mr. Speaker: I hope so.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a detailed question and I am trying to answer it in the most detailed fashion.

We always want to watch this carefully, through the recycling advisory committee that has been established in conjunction with the regulation on pop containers, which sat for four years without any decision prior to us coming into office. The member will remember that. We have that recycling advisory committee there. All of the key players in the industry provide me with excellent advice on how to proceed in these matters. As a ministry and as the advisory committee, we monitor extremely carefully all of the new initiatives that are being taken by the various players in this game to ensure that none of the activities they undertake is going to violate the regulation but is going to promote the return of those bottles.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I have a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions. It concerns a letter dated August 5, which was sent from the manager of the Facility Association to the Ontario Motor Coach Association. Two copies of it were sent to the senior people in the ministry. He was replying to the motor coach association's request to the minister for public auto insurance such as they have in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Defensively, in writing, he provided figures, and I quote, "The loss suffered by the BC and Manitoba public insurance corporations over the last five years is $512 million for BC and $26 million for Manitoba" -- not underwriting loss, but the loss.

Given that Canadian underwriters' statistics show, as does the annual report, that the profits of BC were $511 million during those last five years and Manitoba profits were $92 million and they have not lost money in any year, what has the minister or his ministry done to correct that dishonest information?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The information the member comments on did not come from the ministry, it came from the insurance industry. If he has any quarrel with that, he should take it up with that body.

Mr. Swart: I am not surprised the minister has not corrected that misinformation. He uses the same variety. Does he recall that in a reply he made to me on October 14, as quoted in Hansard, he said, "From the latest figures available for 1985, for every $1 of premium that was taken in on automobile insurance, $1.31 was paid out in claims"? He said the same thing to my leader the other day.

Will he now deny that the $1.31 was not paid out in claims but included the huge cost of claim settlements? Will he deny that his contrast does not include the huge return, amounting to $137 billion last year, that the insurance companies received from their investments, so that the figures he gave have no meaning?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Welland-Thorold stands in his place all the time and tries to foist on this House a secondhand socialist solution to insurance. If he is going to deal with the problem, how about dealing with it in the proper way? He says $1.31 is not the proper amount because there is a lot of income that comes from investment.

If this government were in the insurance business, the only thing it would be doing is paying out claims against premiums. There would not be any investment income, unless the member calls the consolidated revenue fund investment income.

SALE OF LANDS

Mr. Partington: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In February, during an in camera meeting and contrary to a staff recommendation, the town of Vaughan council decided by a vote of four to three to sell 14 acres of land for $2.75 million. Opposition to the sale by both local ratepayers and town staff was based on council's failure to expose the property to public sale or to obtain what was felt to be the fair market value for the land.

Will the minister accede to the request of local ratepayers, who have petitioned the minister and been in touch with him for some seven months, and call for an inquiry into the propriety of this sale, pursuant to section 180 of the Municipal Act?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I can assure the member that staff are still looking into it. He might think seven months is a long time, but the ministry is concerned about the event. Very shortly, I will get back not only to the member but also to the council involved with a resolution or a decision.

Mr. Partington: The information that an investigation was under way was communicated in August. Can the minister tell us when he will conclude the investigation and tell the residents of Vaughan that the matter will receive a full and complete public scrutiny through a public inquiry, as envisioned by the Municipal Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member is quite right. It is still under investigation. I do not have a full answer to give him at present. While it is under investigation, I cannot meddle in their affairs.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Why did his ministry approve the sale of Rest Haven Nursing Home in St. Thomas to Caressant Care St. Thomas Nursing Home on September 6, when that sale will grant Caressant Care a monopoly of nursing home beds in St. Thomas and is contrary to the policy of his ministry, as he has enunciated it several times?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I will take a look into the circumstances of that sale and get back to the honourable gentleman. Presumably, there was disclosure of the details of what was being proposed by the sale, but I do not know whether the sale actually occurred in terms of purchase of shares or whether there was a transfer of assets or how it was handled. I will advise the member fully about the particulars of that sale.

15:10

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister should know that when his party was in opposition, members of his caucus, in particular the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), opposed this type of sale, where the residents are really what is being purchased. Caressant Care bought Rest Haven Nursing Home and then moved all the residents from Rest Haven to Caressant. That is really a purchase of human beings as an asset in the nursing home system.

How could his ministry possibly have approved this sale? There was no consultation with the local municipality, the residents or the residents' family members; there was simply an approval by his ministry that will grant Caressant Care a monopoly in this community.

Hon. Mr. Elston: As I indicated to the honourable gentleman, I will look into that transaction and get back to him with the details of what is happening. Having taken a look at proposed amendments, a copy of which the member provided for me about a week ago and which are now being discussed with a number of interest groups around the province, the member will know that steps are being taken through those proposed amendments to deal more specifically with questions of public interest about which this question is addressing some concern. I will be pleased to provide more details to the honourable gentleman at a later time.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Beef producers under tripartite stabilization are sending in their $6.60 a month and stating the number of cattle purchased, and the next statement coming back to them is showing no payment, no pay-ins and no cattle purchased. Why is his administration of this program so screwed up?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I suppose that is the opinion of the honourable member who posed the question. I am not very sure there are many who share that opinion, but if there are some inadequacies in the administration of the program, the member can be assured I will look into them. I will pursue it this afternoon. However, this is the first time it has been brought to my attention that there is something wrong with the administration of the program.

Mr. Stevenson: I am not sure what is wrong with the telephone connections over there, because many beef producers in the province right now are calling and asking how they can get out of that program, they are so fed up with the operations. In some cases the forms are arriving on the 14th of the month, and beef producers are being asked to get them back into the office by the 15th ready for the next month's statement. The system simply is not working, and I ask the minister to check into it to see what the heck he is going to do about it.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I certainly will check into it, but I have probably travelled this province to a far greater extent than the honourable member who posed the question has, and I can honestly say the beef producers of this province have not come to me to outline the problem, nor has the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, which is the chief spokesman of the cattle producers of this province. As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with the OCA executive just a week or so ago. Never once was any mention made of inefficiencies or inadequacies in the administration of the tripartite program -- not one mention.

RENTAL AGENCIES

Mr. Philip: I have a new question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware that, according to Paul Tuz, the president of the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Toronto, approximately 5,000 people are dissatisfied with the service provided by the rental agencies operating in Metropolitan Toronto? If so, what is the minister going to do to prevent tenants who are looking for accommodation and have no place to live from being ripped off by these companies that are preying on their particular condition?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not aware of that particular concern expressed by Paul Tuz. If it is a matter of rental housing, it may more appropriately be addressed to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling). If they are agencies that are registered under my ministry and under the Business Practices Act, that is something I will investigate. If the member will bring to my attention the issue he is talking about, I will be happy to pursue it for him.

Mr. Philip: The problem is that there is no registry under either the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations or the Ministry of Housing. Customers have complained that these agencies simply clip newspaper advertisements, that they send them to accommodation that is nonexistent, that landlords who have not listed accommodation with these agencies are on their lists, that the lists are out of date and that the tenant who is looking for accommodation and who has paid good money cannot get the deposit back when the agencies do not find him any accommodation.

When will the minister announce to us that he will protect the consumers in this province who are being ripped off by these agencies by bringing in the kind of bonding or licensing system that other jurisdictions, such as New York state, have?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will be pleased to look into this matter and get back to the member.

SHORELINE PROTECTION

Mr. McCague: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. During the past 20 years, many millions of dollars have been spent in the Collingwood-Wasaga Beach area to protect land for the use of tourists, citizens and residents. Is the minister going to put more funds into the shoreline protection fund so this resource can be protected?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I will be before Management Board of Cabinet shortly asking for an additional $1.5 billion to --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am sorry; it is $1.5 million. I do not want to give the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) a heart attack. That is much better. It is better to absorb the shock here than at Management Board.

This $1.5 million will address requests of the municipalities that have been asking for additional funds.

Mr. McCague: Will the minister allot that $1.5 million to the requests in my area, or will he raise his sights and ask the Treasurer for much more money?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I will be asking for $1.5 million. We will look at all requests and we will address them as necessary.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Education. On June 23, I asked the minister a question in this House about the heritage languages program. I would like to read from Hansard. At that time the minister said, "I am reviewing ministry policy." He said that in late summer he would be able to tell me what ministry policy was and whether he was going to change it. Can the minister tell us what fruit his review has borne?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I appreciate the honourable member's question. We are still looking at various aspects of the heritage language program. As the member knows, this government is strongly committed to that program. We are allocating something in excess of $10 million to the continuing education budget of the Ontario Ministry of Education. Some 71 or 72 school boards are offering courses and programs involving 51 heritage languages.

I appreciate the member's concern that we do more. I will keep him posted on future developments in this very important area of public policy. I repeat that from this government's point of view this is something we feel very strongly and positively about.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With the indulgence of the members, I want to take this opportunity very briefly to note, in his presence, the news involving our colleague and friend the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), who has in recent times announced his plans to leave this assembly.

As one of his colleagues from eastern Ontario, I want to take this opportunity, following upon his announcement in the national capital this past Monday, to wish him well in his new career and to tell him how very much I have enjoyed his lively and spirited participation in the life and times of the province and this Legislative Assembly. I wish him all the very best in the career he pursues upon leaving here.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE COSTS

Mr. Turner: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, carrying 601 signatures. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We demand to know why the Ontario health insurance plan is willing to pay thousands of dollars more of the taxpayers' money for surgery in the United States of America when it can and has already been carried out in Canada, albeit experimentally in both countries?

"The device in question is an automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or an AICD. What can we do for the future patients who need this type of surgery and cannot find the funding, private or otherwise?

"The answer seems to be to send them out of the country, causing emotional stress to them and their families and a lot of extra cost to the taxpayers."

The petition is submitted by Francine Teresa Woodhouse and her husband Barry Woodhouse, 3 Coyle Crescent, Lakefield, representing the 601 undersigned petitioners.

I am happy to support the petition.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to present a petition on behalf of citizens in my constituency who use the Phyllis Griffiths Neighbourhood Centre. Members may recall that the other day, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) expressed the concerns of the centre over its ability to get liability insurance. The centre has cut out its family gym night, baby-sitting services and other kinds of programs and fitness programs. It is signed by a number of people in the community and basically says:

"I understand the quality of the Phyllis Griffiths Neighbourhood Centre programming has suffered because of the lack of insurance coverage. I urge the provincial government to address the liability insurance crisis immediately."

And so do I.

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Haggerty: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Attached is a petition to oppose the present form of Bill 7 and to remove the amendment which includes the words `sexual orientation' from the bill."

This is from concerned citizens of the city of Niagara Falls.

Mr. Guindon: I have a petition from the Knights of Columbus, Ste. Thérèse Council 8459. It is addressed to myself and the government and reads as follows:

"The Catholic Bishops of Ontario, gathered in plenary session in Toronto, September 29 to October 1, are opposed to the present form of omnibus Bill 7 now before the provincial Legislature.

"La section 18, numéros 1 à 5, qui amende le Code des droits humains de l'Ontario empêchant la discrimination selon l'orientation sexuelle de la personne, est inacceptable.

"The church and the Judaeo-Christian tradition carefully distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour. For the church, homosexual behaviour or lifestyle is contrary to Christian morality, and any law that leaves the door open to such a lifestyle will cause great harm to society."

"Le bill 7 ne fait pas cette distinction cruciale. En effet, la véritable ambiguïté de l'expression `orientation sexuelle' , par elle-même, porte à des applications totalement inacceptables, et si le bill 7 est passé tel qu'il est, il rongera le statut des familles normales en égalant leur statut légal à celui des unions homosexuelles.

"I deplore the attempt to pass Bill 7 without that widespread consultation and discussion which will permit the citizens of Ontario to express their will concerning it.

"Donc, je demande en toute urgence au gouvernement de retarder toute action au sujet de ce bill 7, jusqu'à ce que les consultations aient eu lieu."

This is signed by 332 residents of Cornwall.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition signed by 30 residents of southwestern Ontario. It reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE 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 Pr24, An Act to change the name of the Institute of Management Consultants of Ontario to the Institute of Certified Management Consultants of Ontario;

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting London Life Insurance Company; and

Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented its report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Breaugh: This report deals with the premature disclosure of a draft report of the select committee on energy. It makes five recommendations on how this may be dealt with in the future. In a nutshell, it essentially says we cannot do very much about this unless we have some investigative powers and suggests that perhaps the Sergeant at Arms can assist us with that. It also makes a recommendation that committees themselves should have the obligation to take a look at how such reports are disclosed prematurely. Finally, it makes a recommendation or two on the use of in camera meetings. I commend this to members' consideration.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented a second report.

Mr. Breaugh: It is apparent to members on my committee that there is some overlap between committees of the Legislature. This is an attempt to begin the process of sorting out that overlap. The most obvious conflict is between the Board of Internal Economy, which does some financial considerations of the assembly, and our committee, which has replaced the standing committee on members' services. It is not anticipated that a great deal of activity will take place at this time, but this is meant to be kind of a preliminary statement whereby those lines of responsibilities may be withdrawn and replaced with something more suited to the needs of the members. We hope to instigate that debate.

15:30

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Swart moved that pursuant to standing order 37(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that being the crisis of insurance in this province, particularly a postponement for at least another year of any remedial action on insurance, including public no-fault insurance.

Mr. Speaker: The notice of motion was received prior to 11:30 this morning, so it was received in time and complies with standing order 37. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes as well as to representatives from other parties.

Mr. Swart: This motion comes before us today obviously because of the statement last Thursday by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter), which effectively postponed any remedial action, even a report, for one year. The action will now probably be 18 months or two years away. His statement contained not a single word of any remedial action that would be taken on the very serious insurance crisis that we have in this province.

To this time, in the 18 months to two years that this crisis has existed, the minister has refused even to investigate the most fundamental issues in this crisis. He was requested over and over again in this House to require the insurance companies to justify their increases, which over the past two years have amounted to at least 35 per cent -- and probably closer to 45 per cent -- in auto insurance and 300 per cent in liability insurance.

He has refused to do that, even though the insurance companies had the highest profits in their whole history for the first six months of this year.

He has refused even to examine in depth the major alternative of a public auto insurance system, even though a select committee of this Legislature ordered such a study back in 1978. That select committee showed the tremendous benefits of a public plan. It showed, for instance, that in the private system here in Ontario 41 cents of every premium dollar was used up in expenses by the private insurance companies. In the three western plans, it was only 21 cents on every dollar. It also showed many other benefits.

It is true that every independent study that has been done about the public insurance system, particularly the public auto insurance system in the west, has shown that it is tremendously beneficial. The minister here has even refused to investigate the rates. The only figures he brings before this House are figures supplied to him by the insurance industry, which have been proven wrong over and over again.

Even today he could not deny that the figure he used as the amount paid out in claims included the claimed expenses of those insurance companies. There was not that much paid out in claims to the public. The figure did not include the huge profits of the insurance companies.

He has refused to proclaim section 371 of the Insurance Act, which has been on the books for many decades and which would require the superintendent of insurance, after due notice and a hearing before him, to order an adjustment of the rates for automobile insurance whenever it is found by him that any such rates are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory or otherwise unreasonable.

Surely all those factors apply to the situation today, with the exception of the one that the rates are inadequate. They are certainly more than adequate.

The minister must know the horrendous situation which exists in insurance in this province. There are increases in liability insurance of 300 per cent, and there is the dropping of liability insurance, which of course is not proclaimed across this province, by many small businesses. Operations have been ceased or been cut back because of high insurance rates. Those liability insurance rates have been so high that three major organizations -- hospitals, school boards and municipalities -- have decided to go on their own, convinced that they are being ripped off by the insurance companies. The minister refuses even to investigate whether the insurance company rates are unreasonable.

Clearly, these things cannot wait. This House must and should have the opportunity today to tell the minister that it wants action now. It wants fundamental reforms in the system in this province and it wants him to quit his stalling.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members have comments?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not have enough energy to argue with the honourable member if he is not ready to speak. The subject of insurance policy is very important. The member is proposing that we set aside the business for the day, business that may or may not be important. We in the government feel it should go forward and that it should go forward today.

I notice that the member, who is prepared to set aside the business to discuss the emergency situation dealing with insurance, has resolution 40 in his name in Orders and Notices that calls for appropriate provincial policy to be implemented by January 1, 1988. We are in 1986. I am not sure what the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) considers to be an emergency. This subject of insurance and increasing rates and what the government should do about it has been debated in this House during many weeks, and will certainly be debated in the future, in general discussion in response to bills and in questions that the member and others put to the appropriate ministers on a number of occasions. The idea that this is an emergency today simply is not correct. That does not in any way detract from the fact that it is an extremely important issue.

In the unlikely event that the House decides this debate will go forward, the member knows that action will clear this place out as if a skunk had walked in and he will be left with a few others who have been assigned to this. He will have the luxury of making his own excellent presentation on this subject, which we have heard a number of times in the past. It gets even better as he repeats it. He will work himself into another of his famous lathers, and that is something to look forward to as well. The minister will make one of his excellent responses. It will be moderate, well informed and under circumstances where, when the New Democratic Party members send Hansard out to a variety of their relatives, they will have a chance to see what the position of the government is.

I have a funny feeling that there is not much I can do about this, but I do not consider it a matter of real urgency; neither does the member for Welland-Thorold, who in his own resolution does not even want action before 1988. I personally feel that while it may be entertaining to hear a rerun of these views, it would be much better if we went forward with important legislation such as the amendments to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, which is also before us en français, and a variety of other important pieces of legislation. I defy anybody to say the Line Fences Amendment Act is unimportant because I will send that answer to my relatives in the farming community.

Mr. Harris: I rise to indicate our party's support for this emergency debate proceeding today. Before I get to the specific issues and some of the reasons I support it, let me respond to the government House leader's comments about the important business of the House that is before us, which he says is more important than the insurance crisis in Ontario.

We have all read Orders and Notices for today. It includes at least four bills that were first introduced by the previous government. They were considered so important they have sat there for more than a year and a half. It includes a large number of housekeeping items.

I do not know whether the government House leader knows what the horse latitudes are, but I would like to explain to him what they are. It is a term that was much more popular during the days of sailing ships.

There is a region of latitude in the northern and southern hemispheres where there are no prevailing winds. When sailing ships got trapped in these calm areas they used to throw things overboard in an effort to lighten the load and help them through the area of no wind. They would throw livestock overboard, particularly the horses. That is a little history lesson for the minister. That is the name; hence the term "horse latitudes."

I suggest to the government House leader that his administration, which was reported to be driven by a fresh breeze through the halls of Queen's Park, now has hit the horse latitudes. It has run out of new initiatives. It is stuck in the horse latitudes. It has priority business to deal with in today's Orders and Notices, more important than any insurance crisis.

The minister has referred to it and he can send it out to all my rural areas: Bill 23, the Line Fences Amendment Act; Bill 58, the Time Amendment Act -- I apologize to the House leader for the third party -- and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act. All are worthwhile initiatives, but if the government House leader is telling us these are his and his government's priorities, then he surely has hit the horse latitudes and has started throwing things overboard.

15:40

Let me deal briefly with the insurance crisis. No party has been more active in trying to promote solutions to the insurance crisis that is challenging Ontario than this party, on behalf of which I speak right now. It is a crisis that is affecting all facets of Ontario life. There is no activity that has not suffered. There is no organization that has not found either insurance premiums increasing or that insurance is simply not available at all.

This government has had plenty of time to act. A year ago, when the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) first sat as Leader of the Opposition, his very first action and first order of business was to ask the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to take action against the rising cost of insurance. On that day, the Leader of the Opposition was asking his question on behalf of the busing industry, but as we know, costly insurance has hit more than the bus companies over the past year.

Members of this caucus have asked this government to take action on behalf of many groups, school boards, municipalities and their recreation departments, volunteer and service organizations, fall fairs, small businesses and individuals. We have been front and centre on this issue, but we have not seen any action from this government to date.

It appointed a commission. The commission's report did not deal with premium increases and the report itself has not yet been acted on. There has been no legislation. There has been no debate. There has been only rhetoric and evasion from the minister in question period.

If the government will not take the time to debate this issue, the opposition will. We will debate this issue and we will debate it today. Last night's television newscast predicted increases in automobile insurance for next year equalling more than 30 per cent over premiums paid in 1985. This morning's Globe and Mail relates how the poor taxicab drivers are suffering from enormous insurance hikes. It is unacceptable.

This government should stand up for Ontarians. This government should show some responsibility and some leadership. It has done nothing to contact the reinsurance industry. This government has done nothing to curb the spiralling costs that are driving insurance out of the hands of many Ontarians.

We cannot afford to have drivers on the road with insufficient coverage. This is happening. We cannot afford to have businesses operating without sufficient liability insurance. This is happening in Ontario. We cannot afford to have social and recreational programs squashed because insurance is unavailable and unaffordable. We need action. We need it now and we support this motion for debate today.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Swart has requested an emergency debate in a motion. I have listened very carefully and I am certain all members have listened very carefully to the points made for and against debate. However, the standing orders state I must place the question, shall the debate proceed?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: Obviously, I am pleased the debate is going to proceed this afternoon. I reiterate that it is necessary. I point out to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that the resolution on the order paper is an entirely different resolution. It is that public auto insurance be implemented not later than January 1, 1988. That is not what we are discussing here today and he knows it.

I want to make it clear at the beginning that when we talk about the public no-fault insurance or about no-fault insurance in general, we are not singling out a no-fault without tort. We say that tort should remain over and above the limited no-fault that is provided, the adequate no-fault that is provided.

I want to start up where I left off in calling for this debate. The Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) has been guilty of massive negligence in the insurance problem. He has been guilty of slavish subservience to the insurance companies and of rejecting the motorists' welfare and the welfare of business and of a wide range of volunteers and public organizations. He has neglected the welfare of all of those who need insurance to function in our society.

He has been an apologist for and a defender of the insurance companies. He mentioned a figure previously, saying that $1.31 is paid out in claims. They did not pay out $1.31 in claims at all. He is parroting what the insurance companies said and he knows it. Casualty and property insurance companies have never made less than a six per cent return on equity, even in the depths of the recession.

He has refused to do any premium comparison or policy comparison between the public plans and those here. Again, he has used figures that do not portray the true situation between those western plans and here regarding the difference in premiums. They are substantially lower out there.

I will quote a few figures from independent sources, not from an insurance company, as the minister does, and not even from the New Democratic Party. The Globe and Mail back on January 6 of this year quoted comparison figures. In Windsor, it is $804 for the same kind of car and the same insurance coverage as in Toronto, where it is $722; in Kitchener, $636; and in Ottawa, $598. It quotes rates in Regina as $457, and in Winnipeg, where they have the two public plans, as $450. That is an independent source.

The Winnipeg Sun during the last provincial election out there gave a comparison of rates. It shows that, for instance, in Dauphin a person driving a 1978 Datsun pays $229; in Winnipeg, he pays $273. This is for pleasure, an adult driver. In Toronto, it is $484; in Ottawa, $376; and in Kenora, $474. It also shows that if this same person is 18 years of age, in Dauphin he pays $229; in Winnipeg, $273; in Toronto, $2,200; in Ottawa, $1,868; and in Kenora, $2,356.

My leader in this House just recently gave figures for 1983 comparing the premiums paid in the west with those paid here; that is the last year they show, because that is how far behind we are in this province in getting in the figures. In those western provinces, the rates in 1983 were 37 per cent lower, if you divide the total number of automobiles into the premiums paid for auto insurance. In the last two years, there have been no increases in rates in those western provinces. We have had at least a 35 per cent increase here. There is no question that it is an understatement to say the rates in those western provinces are now, on average, less than two thirds of the rates we have in this province.

The minister says, "Let competition look after this." He says it should be done here. Just let competition look after it and everything will be okay.

I have a letter here from the Co-operators Life Insurance Co. , signed by Janice Trask, who is the elder underwriter for the Co-operators Life Insurance, to a person who has been cut off insurance. In the letter, dated May 20, 1986, she said, "The rates are based on a uniform industry system and the rules and rates are the same regardless of the company providing the service." That is the kind of competition we have here at present.

15:50

I suggest there are massive problems to be resolved which simply cannot wait for another year or 18 months. In fact, I doubt very much if the minister is even going to deal with those problems, because the statement he made in the House the other day related to one thing: should we have no-fault insurance with tort, or should we have no-fault insurance without tort?

That is not the only problem we have to resolve. We also have excessive premiums and escalating rates generally. I have a newspaper clipping here that says Serge LaPalme, president of the Gore Mutual Insurance Co., predicted that rates of this date, October 15, will rise an average of eight to 12 per cent on top of the 17 to 20 per cent already applied this year. There is a doubling, tripling or quadrupling of premiums to tens of thousands of people in this province for frivolous reasons and the minister knows that.

I had a call last summer from a young woman who had been in a shopping plaza. She had a 1985 Corolla or some such car. She was waiting to park down the line while another car came out, when another car backed out and backed into the side of her car. The damage to her car turned out to be about $800. Her name is Rena Matsumota; she does not mind her name being made public.

The woman in the other car said: "It is all my fault. I will tell my insurance company so that you do not have any costs." However, when she went to her insurance company, she was told, "It is a parking plaza; therefore, we have an agreement on a 50-50 split. Even though it was the other woman's fault, we will have to pay half. We will have to pay $400 towards your car repairs."

That woman's premium was between $800 and $1,000. She had not lost points before, and she had not been involved in accidents before; she now pays a premium of $2,634 because her insurance company paid out $400. I could give another dozen examples such as that.

There is the arbitrary cancellation of policies. There is a growing number of people driving without insurance. At least 200,000 are driving without insurance at this time. There are inadequate no-fault compensation levels. All new drivers, regardless of age, are paying substantial penalty premiums. A number of good, young male drivers are victimized through rates three to five times the average, and they cannot get jobs with trucking companies, bus companies or towing companies because those companies cannot get insurance. Because the minister has taken no action on this, he is relegating those young people to be unemployed in our society.

If the minister wanted to take some action, he knows he has the power now to increase the no-fault rates. He does not have to wait for a year to determine whether he is going to have no-fault with tort or no-fault without tort; he can deal with all these matters now. The simple facts are that he does not have the will to do so, he is in the pockets of the insurance companies and I think this Legislature should tell him to get out and get on with the job.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Last week I referred to the leader of the third party and said he was riding a private hobby-horse on insurance. I would designate the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) as a one-trick pony. His one trick is insurance and his perception of where it is.

One of the things he should look at before he starts making all these comparisons is that there was a difference in insurance rates before the western provinces got into the insurance business. In Manitoba it cost $92.85 to insure an average driver in 1968, whereas in Ontario it was $116. There has always been a difference. It does not matter whether the government or the private sector is running it. There is a difference even in Ontario, and it is all based on claims experience and things of that kind. To keep beating the drum and saying it is cheaper to get insurance in Manitoba -- it is not in British Columbia, but it is in some parts of BC -- than it is in Ontario is not news. It has always been that way, and it has nothing to do with the fact that the government is running it.

Last week, when I announced that the Honourable Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne will examine the consequences of the implementation of a no-fault automobile accident insurance scheme, I emphasized that before making a decision that would affect every member of this driving public -- and it is important to know that -- we insist on knowing the benefits of a no-fault system and whether the advantages would outweigh any disadvantages.

That does not mean that, once we have done that, approaches will be mutually exclusive and we will not be doing anything else. We are talking about one aspect of the insurance problem, the issue of no-tort and no-fault. It is also interesting that the member for Welland-Thorold got up today, and for the first time I have heard, put forward a suggestion that maybe we should look at a plan that has a threshold and that there should be some tort. He does not say exactly how it should be, but he suggests it may be something we should look at. We agree, but how does one impose fully blown a plan without having someone investigate to find out what is the best plan for Ontario?

In his report on insurance, Dr. Slater clearly recognized the need for further analysis and work before determining the best design and delivery system of a no-fault automobile insurance system. In the member's motion standing in his name, motion 40, he says the Slater task force has failed to propose recommendations. When I made my announcement, the member made some very disparaging remarks about this being "son of Slater." I do not have his exact quote, but he asked why we would have another study when Slater has already told us what the recommendations are and where it is to go. Yet in his motion he says Slater did not address it, and we agree. What Slater said we should do is to look at a no-fault system. That is exactly what we are doing. We are looking at one, with the terms of reference the member saw, with a view to implementing them. We have to examine what it is we are going to implement.

The ensuing response to Dr. Slater's report, while bearing greatly on the advisability of a no-fault system, leaves us still of one mind in recommending that further study is needed. What are the implications and ramifications going to be, and what is the cost? As I pointed out last week, the construction of a no-fault automobile insurance program is complicated; it requires much thought and a lot of hard work.

One of the other glaring faults Dr. Slater found is that there is the abysmal lack of a database. To implement any kind of system, one has to have an effective database. As Dr. Slater pointed out, it is extremely difficult to compare existing no-fault systems fairly. Unfortunately, it is an apples-and-oranges situation. Distribution and commission arrangements differ. Premium levels and investment, reserve and accounting policies all vary from one model of no-fault to the next. Claims and risk experience and court awards will differ between jurisdictions as will the overall statistics and statistical databases.

The member for Welland-Thorold would have us believe that a no-fault automobile insurance scheme would instantly mean lower insurance rates. We have not yet received any evidence that a no-fault insurance system, publicly or privately run, would lower premium costs in Ontario. That is something we have to find out.

Premium levels reflect claims payments. Claims payments are affected not only by frequency of accidents but also by their severity. Factors that can influence both frequency and severity of accidents include density of traffic, weather conditions, types of vehicles and the legislative and legal environments.

16:00

Premiums are not lower in Manitoba or British Columbia because they have government insurance but because premiums in those provinces have always been lower. That has been based on their claims records. We must also remember that the Saskatchewan government insurance program has benefited from government subsidy. The Saskatchewan government insurance program suffered losses of $28.5 million in 1979 and $10 million in 1980, which wiped out a surplus accumulated since 1946, making the corporation technically insolvent. The government had to advance $72 million free of interest from the Crown Management Board.

An automobile insurance system with artificially low premiums would undoubtedly require government subsidization. I seriously doubt that the people of Ontario would support such a system.

While no-fault automobile insurance would not mean lower insurance premium rates, it could result in a greater percentage of injuries being compensated, and it could bring stability and predictability to insurance and reinsurance markets. For these reasons, it is certainly worth while to examine the feasibility of a no-fault automobile insurance system. The mandate given to Mr. Justice Osborne is broad enough to ensure a thorough examination of the advantages and disadvantages of such a system.

As I said to members last week, no-fault automobile insurance may turn out to be the best alternative to the current system, but this government is not prepared to make such a move blindly. We insist on knowing the full ramifications of such dramatic change.

I can say to the member for Welland-Thorold that while we are looking on the one hand at a no-fault system -- we are looking at the present no-fault provisions in the standard contract to see what we can do about the schedule C benefits; that is something we are addressing -- we are also addressing many of the other areas, contrary to what the member said. We have already announced various things we are doing, and there is nothing to prevent us from continuing to do that. It is not the case that once we proceed with this it is all we will proceed with. We are working on a schedule to make sure the people of Ontario are well served.

We also have to make sure that if there is going to be a deficit -- and I suggest that if the automobile insurance business is turned over to government hands, somewhere along the line the Treasury of Ontario is going to have to subsidize it, which will mean the people of Ontario who do not drive cars will be paying for those who do -- we are certainly behind a scheme whereby we have a user-pay system. This is something we want to investigate.

I also suggest we are not blindly going ahead -- just because I think it is wrong for the government to be in the insurance business. In our mandate to Mr. Justice Osborne, we told him to look at the possibility of having the government deliver this service. If he can make the case, I will certainly entertain it. That is something we are going to work on. That is something the people of Ontario deserve. They deserve a thorough investigation, a well-reasoned, scholarly approach to it, so we know exactly what we are getting into, whether there is going to be a benefit, whether it is going to be cost-effective and whether it is going just to trade one bad system for a system that may be even worse or at best comparable.

These are the things we want to look at. We have an obligation to do that, and that is what we are going to be doing.

Mr. Ashe: In rising to participate in this debate, I find myself in a very unusual position. I have some sympathy for the member on my left, the member for Welland-Thorold, and the very important issue, which is in critical condition, he brings before us today. When I find myself in bed with the socialists at any time on any issue, I have to re-examine my position closely, that is for sure. I personally am one who feels in most situations, including this one, that the private sector should solve the problem.

Having said that, I also find myself agreeing with some of the responses made by the minister, but only in a very limited way. I think he and his ministry staff have had their heads in the sand on this whole issue. We have a crisis within the general insurance industry and the liability insurance industry, including automobile liability. We have a crisis right now -- and we will probably still have a crisis if those people remain as the government. We do not have a crisis in 1988; we have a crisis in 1986.

The minister is doing nothing to solve the problem now. He has appointed a one-man commission to look at one issue, albeit a very important issue. I agree with him it is not something we want to jump into without any reasonable review or study. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Maybe the continuing tort system is the correct way to go. I am one of those who feel that ultimately we will come up with something that has no-fault to a certain limit but still has the option of tort over and above a certain number. I am not putting myself forward as an expert to know what that sawoff should be, but I hope it is something that may come out of the study.

I do not think it should take a one-man commission a year, when he is not tied down, other than by his advisory committee, to having to get groups from all over the province together on a regular basis. If he puts his mind to it and has the time made available for him, and I appreciate he has other responsibilities, much less time would probably be much more suitable, and he can come up with just as good or possibly even better recommendations for the minister to consider.

Half a year sounds much more appropriate to me; frankly, a year is too long. That means the minister gets the report in late November 1987, then it is Christmas and it gets put aside. After that, the people in the ministry will look at it, and the minister will get to it in the spring. Before anything is out of it, we will be into mid-1988, and that is just too far away.

What are some of the issues of today? The member for Welland-Thorold put out some numbers. There is no doubt we can all track down and bring back a flock of numbers of very unfortunate increases within the whole liability insurance field that are completely unfair, whether they are associated with automobile insurance or general liability insurance.

We have all heard of boards, commissions, agencies, nonprofit groups, municipalities, school boards, even fall fairs, that have had to cut back on activities. Last week, I brought an example to the minister of a children's services agency that has had to restrict having any recreational activity that was deemed to be physical in nature by way of a sporting activity because of the liability insurance question. It is not right that the correct and proper activities of boards, agencies, commissions, school boards and organizations that deliver services to our people should have to be tailor-made activities in which they can or cannot participate because of concern over liability insurance.

I know the minister is wont to say, "I do not know of anybody who cannot get insurance." That is the most ridiculous and ludicrous answer we have ever heard. He says, "All you have to do is call my ministry and we will get you some insurance." I am sure in most cases that is so -- in my understanding not in all cases, but in most cases -- but that is like saying to a pauper, "You can take advantage of all the riches of this great country tomorrow." We know for most people tomorrow will not come.

I will use a very simple example. If an organization is used to spending $100 for coverage and it operates a rather small budget, for it to be able to get insurance for $3,000 is no facility at all. They cannot afford it. It is like saying they cannot have it, even though the minister says, "It is available to them, although I cannot guarantee at what price." That is not the answer.

16:10

There is no doubt at all that the answer is to get into the problem. One area where I agree with the member for Welland-Thorold is that of looking at the financial statements of insurance companies. I happen to have a little bit of a background in the insurance industry, although not in the general insurance industry. I have been associated enough with general insurance agents over the years to be somewhat familiar with how the industry has operated, at least in the past. I am sure it has not grossly changed. To look only at premiums in and claims out is ludicrous.

That is like saying to the bank, "You look at your deposits and you look at how much you loan out and those are the two numbers." One has to look at what the assets are earning, whether they be deposit-type assets or invested assets that start with the shareholders. That is the picture of the financial worth and the return of the company.

If somebody has to hold $100 million worth of reserves, does that mean that the investment income on $100 million should not be considered as part of the operation of that company? That is out and out ludicrous. Investment income is part of the business of operating an insurance company. If it were just a matter of someone sitting at a desk and digging the premiums out here and paying the claims out there on a day-to-day basis, we would not need companies at all. We would need only somebody to set up a desk wherever was convenient in the local shopping mall. A sign would be put up over it saying, "Information Centre" and "Premiums and Claims Handled Here." That is all there would be to it.

It is not quite that simple. I appreciate and accept that. However, the problem is that we have something we have to deal with today. We have people of all ages who are at the point where they cannot afford to drive a car. When somebody phones me and tells me that, and I ask, "What was your driving record?" if he says, "I had a couple of accidents and I got some points, and they called me in for an interview for bad driving," I frankly do not have a great deal of sympathy for him and I tell him that. I try in a nice way.

However, when people call you who have had no accidents, no impairments other than a couple of parking tickets on their record, and they say, "For my premium, they are now asking me for $2,100, $2,300 or $2,700 to drive a car," how can you answer that the system is deemed to be fair? It is not fair.

Mr. Callahan: Those are taxi drivers.

Mr. Ashe: I am not talking about a taxi driver. That is maybe where the member should be. His talents may be better put to use than they are here. In any event, this is the problem that is here today. We have to look at the root of the problem if we are going to solve it. The whole system is not right from day one. To look just at one issue of whether there should be no-fault insurance as compared to the tort system is one, albeit in a financial sense significant, part of the automobile liability question. I understand and accept that.

However, there is a lot more to the basic problem of how insurance operates. Has the minister, for example, tried to get together with the reinsurance industry? Has he gone abroad, along with colleagues of other provinces and, one hopes, from the federal government, to show that Canada is different in its system to North America in total?

There is no doubt that he knows and I know that is part of the problem in the reinsurance costs, and it is the people of Ontario, his taxpayers, ratepayers and voters and my taxpayers, ratepayers and voters who are getting stuck in the meantime. We have to get at the source of the problem and we have to solve the problem. Frankly, appointing a one-man commission to report a year from now is just scratching the surface. We have to get at it right now.

Mr. Philip: While the consumers of Ontario face an escalating crisis in the costs of their insurance, this minister's answer is to have a study on top of a study. To the working people in my riding, an automobile is a necessity; it is not a luxury. Many of them travel to Mississauga, Peel or Brampton to work. Many of them are shift workers who travel at times when public transportation is not available.

I had a call from a woman the other day who said to me she finished work at 2 a.m. Not only is transportation not available, but also if it were available, she would feel very much concerned about walking a long distance alone at that hour of the morning from the end of the transportation line to where she lives.

I had a businessman the other day who shared with me the fact that his liability insurance jumped by some 500 per cent in one year. I had a call from a woman only Thursday who told me about the insurance company and the arbitrary manner in which it acted to raise the family's insurance on the grounds that her son had taken a driver training course at school and obtained a driver's licence. Even though the family had decided they could not afford to have him drive because of the additional insurance cost, the insurance company raised the insurance anyway, on the grounds that he might decide to use the car without permission.

If you look at the minister's arguments -- this minister who allows the insurance companies to act as his ventriloquist -- you see the arguments are without any kind of foundation. In the minister's study on the study that he is now looking at, he wants to look at whether some kind of no-fault insurance will be of benefit to the consumers.

The experience in other provinces has shown that does not on its own have any kind of effect. Indeed, the experiences in some provinces are purely that the enactment of no-fault may increase premiums rather than decrease them.

The minister also claims there is no proof that government-operated insurance schemes are more efficient and less costly to the consumer, but an independent study, the Woods Gordon study, concludes exactly the opposite. In table 5, it concludes that in terms of government spending, the total estimated operating cost as a percentage of premiums earned is 21 per cent compared to 41 per cent for the private system. That is a spread of 20 per cent. If you add to that the return on investment, then we are talking of an additional 15 per cent to 20 per cent, depending on the going interest rate to the consumer at the time.

The minister talks about the taxpayers subsidizing the government-run systems. I challenge the minister to give us an example. There is only one example in all the systems in Canada where one could show a direct subsidy by any provincial government, and that was when under the Social Credit government in British Columbia made a one-time-only contribution.

In fact, page 91 of the Woods Gordon study says, "As a result of their findings, the committee is inclined to the conclusion that there are no significant hidden subsidies or free rides that would materially distort the financial information under consideration."

In other words, the Woods Gordon study, which the minister should have read and which I know the minister has read, is being completely ignored by this minister. He is trying to tell the public something that is simply untrue, that is simply fallacious and that is denied by Woods Gordon. It is the old story that if you tell a lie often enough and frequently enough then it will be believed by the public. That is simply wrong.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: What is the date of that report?

Mr. Swart: Why do we not have a new one? It has been 18 months. Why do we not have a new one?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: I challenge the minister to come up with any evidence that in any of the western provinces at present the public system is being subsidized. The evidence we have tabled -- and the Globe and Mail and every other independent group that has studied it has concluded the same -- is that the government-run and government-operated plans are substantially less expensive to the consumer. I challenge the minister to show us to the contrary.

I know when I have a sure vote. When I go to the door and somebody says, "I just came here from Saskatchewan," or, "I lived in British Columbia," or, "I lived in Manitoba;" I talk to him about automobile insurance and I know he is going to vote for the New Democratic Party. He has had that kind of experience.

Mr. Runciman: What kind of government do they have in Saskatchewan?

Mr. Philip: What kind of government? When members of the Social Credit party in British Columbia, who ran an election campaign against public automobile insurance, got in, boy they did not abolish it. They knew it was popular with consumers. They knew it was popular with the voters and did not have the guts to go with their own election promises to abolish it.

If it was so bad, why did they not abolish it? Why did they not keep their election promise? The fact is, they knew they could not discredit it. They knew it is so much cheaper than under private plans. If members of the Conservative Party in this House were as concerned about the consumers as they are about acting along with the Liberals in protection of the large insurance industry, they would realize that.

16:20

If we look at the kinds of things that are happening in this province, we can see the kinds of complaints I get. If the member had done his homework in Brampton, he would have listened to the same things from his own constituents: excessive premiums and escalating rates; arbitrary cancellation of or refusal to renew insurance; discriminatory rates applied for frivolous reasons; penalization of all drivers in a household because one of the drivers happens to have acted irresponsibly or had an accident; and victimization of young male drivers with good records by rates three or four times the average. A growing number of people are driving without insurance in this province. That is happening as a result of the inaction of this Liberal government, which acts as nothing but a spokesperson for the insurance industry.

The minister knows what would work. He has only to look to the west and see. This minister is so inactive on every consumer group that he does not even have the courage to bring in good-Samaritan legislation. What would be hurt? It would not even hurt his friends, the insurance industry, which acts as his ventriloquist, to bring in good-Samaritan legislation, but he cannot even bring in something as simple as that to help the consumer in the smallest way possible.

We must develop a system in which Ontario could establish a public-operated universal program. It would create jobs in Ontario because the money that would come in in the form of premiums could be used for investments in this province, not taken out of the province in the way the multinational insurance companies do, but actually invested here to create new housing, to create jobs in the construction industry, to provide mortgages to our people who want to buy homes or to provide loans at reasonable interest rates to businessmen who want risk capital and want to expand. All of this creates jobs in this province, but instead, this minister wants to stand back, let the multinational companies take the money out of the province and to hell with the working people.

The people of this province are tired of a government that talks and does not act. A study on a study on a study may be satisfying to the insurance industry; it may be satisfactory to the minister, who does not act on anything.

The one thing the minister could at least be honest and do is to change the name of his ministry. He has done absolutely nothing to protect the consumer on anything since he became the minister. He has to be the most useless minister who has ever been appointed on that side of the House. He should call his ministry --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member's time has expired.

Mr. Offer: I cannot say I have had the pleasure of listening to the previous discussion by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip). He talked about what the people of this province are tired of. I can assure him the people of this province are tired of someone ranting and raving without one shred of evidence, without one shred of information and without the courage to say that we have valid questions to investigate before we move forward, because the people of this province want this government to move forward in a responsible way. This government and this Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations are doing that.

We have heard much rhetoric about what the government has not done. We have heard from certain members of this Legislature that there has been no action. They talk about the report of the Slater task force, which was initiated by the Minister of Financial Institutions. I am sure it was an oversight by the member for Welland-Thorold and by the member for Etobicoke, but that commission was created by the Minister of Financial Institutions.

When we discussed at some length the problem with respect to insurance and how it transgresses the borders of Ontario and Canada, the ministry and the minister immediately instituted a hotline for organizations attempting to obtain insurance. We should never forget that a third action taken was the market assist program or Ontario Liability Insurers, a pool of insurance companies that offers policy limits of $1 million for Ontario-based risks.

Interjections.

Mr. Offer: The response from the members opposite seems to be dwindling in its vocal nonsupport.

We have also seen a fourth response in the promotion of the use of reciprocal exchanges for such groups as municipalities, hospital associations and the legal profession as an alternative to traditional methods of insurance. The Ministry of Financial Institutions has produced a comprehensive information package on what reciprocal exchanges are for those who might find such a concept to their advantage.

I imagine that a fifth action has been overlooked, the introduction of legislation to establish a compensation fund to protect policyholders of nonlife insurance companies that become insolvent. I imagine there was an oversight when they neglected to indicate that this minister and the Ministry of Financial Institutions has provided a $2.85-million loan guarantee through the Ontario Development Corp. to provide funding for the startup costs of a Canadian insurance exchange.

I imagine there was a slight oversight when there was a failure to indicate that the powers of farm mutuals are to be expanded in forthcoming amendments to the Insurance Act, which will provide additional insurance capacity in the market. An export liability pool is an eighth initiative to provide insurance to those exporting to the United States, which we expect to be operational soon. The pool was encouraged and assisted by this government.

We understand that the problems surrounding the question of insurance are of a universal and far-reaching nature. We understand it is necessary to recognize that the insurance industry is closely and inextricably bound up with the international community. I say to the member for Welland-Thorold and to the member for Etobicoke that not to admit and recognize that concern is to do a disservice to the motion they themselves brought forward. I do not mean we should be any less concerned because of the mere fact that this is an issue of international scope that transgresses borders, and not only those of Ontario and Canada. However, it would be a disservice to the people of this province not to come to grips with that fact. This is nothing other than reality.

We talk about the Slater task force. We must always remember that the Slater task force, which may have generated the most interest in this province, called for some form of no-fault automobile insurance. We understand that the recommendation was to move to a no-fault or partial no-fault insurance system delivered through private insurance companies and not through the government. The main reason for this recommendation was the task force's concern with the longer-term implications for the equity, efficiency and affordability of the present system and the steady increase in average settlements and awards for bodily injury.

16:30

It is worth noting that Dr. Slater did not suggest a no-fault automobile insurance scheme would lower insurance premium rates. Dr. Slater did not say that. The member for Welland-Thorold and the member for Etobicoke said that. We have not received any evidence that a no-fault insurance system, publicly or privately run, would lower premium costs in Ontario. However, this minister and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations have decided this question demands further investigation, and not to do so would be to do a disservice to the people of this province. Not to take a look at the intricacies and the complexities of no-fault insurance would be a disservice not only to Ontario but also to each and every person who makes up this great province. The minister understands and accepts that responsibility, and for that the people of this province are well represented.

It is interesting that when we take a look at what this one-man commission will be doing, the terms of reference are: looking at the adequacy, time limits and fairness of compensation to accident victims; the effectiveness of a tort system; the implications of removing tort liability; the cost savings and effectiveness of a no-fault system; the appropriate design of a no-fault automobile insurance system; the desirability of a modified no-fault system; the basis for determining compensation for injury or death in a no-fault system; dispute resolution and appeal processes for claims in a no-fault system; the need in a no-fault system for a catastrophic claims fund or further mechanisms; the private versus public delivery of a no-fault system; and, indeed, the role of government in any proposed no-fault system.

I believe the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the minister feel that before one moves towards that type of system, not only should the government be very clear on the answers to those questions but also the people of this province should know what the answers to those questions are. The actions of this minister are responsible and are meeting the challenge of an insurance crisis across not only this province but also this country, and they will be applauded by many in this province.

Mr. Hennessy: I notice our previous speaker said the present investigation is needed. How long do we want to investigate the matter of the higher insurance cost in northwestern Ontario? We can investigate these things to death. The first thing we know, people will be losing their businesses and people will no longer have work.

It is difficult to operate in northwestern Ontario, because everything is dearer. The price of a car is dearer. The price of goods is dearer. The only thing that is unreasonable but the same price as in southern Ontario is the beer, and that is operated by a monopoly. If we look at it, the people in northwestern Ontario are the ones who are really suffering when it comes to insurance rates.

The one-man commission was mentioned. It is like anything else. I am pretty sure anybody in the government can realize that if you are looking at an insurance policy and know what the cost is to insure your home, car or whatever it may be, you can tell whether the costs are out of your range. You do not have to be an expert in that field.

A lot of people come into my office or write in complaining. They are concerned and are trying to find out whether there is any help for them with regard to increases in their premiums of maybe 100 per cent. Then the insurance companies have the monopoly in saying, "We are very sorry, but we are not going to insure you any more." If the fellow is driving a truck or a taxicab for a living, he is therefore out of business and destitute to some extent.

As far as I am concerned, the insurance companies have too much power. Anybody in this House could be sent a notice tomorrow morning by his insurance company, saying it is not going to insure him, and if the word is passed around, he cannot drive his car.

With all due respect, many people are coming into my office complaining about the high cost of insurance for housing, for cars and for business. How are people expected to start up businesses if they have to pay out astronomical sums to insure them? The government is trying to help small businesses get started, and I commend it for that; but once they get started, they do not have enough money to take care of their policies to insure their employees or to take care of their liabilities for fire and theft, which is necessary. That makes it very difficult.

As a member from the northwestern area, I am speaking for the city of Thunder Bay and the people in that area. The people up north are being hosed to some extent, because they are paying a lot more money for all the products they use. If someone buys a car in northwestern Ontario, it will cost $1,000 more than for the same car in southern Ontario. People have to pay more for any product they buy, whether it is food or materials. No matter what it is, the price is always marked up, because they charge us the freight. Insurance is going up for the same reason. How can people in northwestern Ontario survive on the money they are making with insurance rates going up?

I am speaking for the people of Thunder Bay and the people of northwestern Ontario. I ask the minister to take this into consideration and see whether he can bring us something that would save the working man in northwestern Ontario.

Ms. Bryden: We are having an emergency debate today because we have an insurance crisis in Ontario, not only in auto insurance but also in liability insurance, casualty insurance and the insurance policies public bodies such as hospitals, municipalities and school boards have to buy.

I was surprised when the Treasurer got up and said, in discussing whether an emergency debate was needed: "There has been lots of discussion of the insurance issue. Why is the mover of motion" -- the member for Welland-Thorold - "getting into a lather about it?"

I think it is time the Liberal government over there got into a lather about a crisis that has been with us for more than two years. It has been in power for 16 months of those two years. The Liberals are acting very much like their predecessors, the Progressive Conservatives, who did nothing in this field. While they were in power, they even brought in legislation that would have allowed the superintendent of insurance to control rates and prevent the sort of ripoff that has been going on in the past two years. However, the clause they brought in was never proclaimed; so it was purely lipservice.

I am afraid that is all we are getting from the new Liberal government. It is a do-nothing government on this issue. It was fast on election promises but slow on delivery. The reason seems to be that it is quite content to let the insurance companies go on ripping off the consumers in the way they have been for the past two or three years.

For instance, most kinds of insurance have been offered at skyrocketing prices, doubling, tripling, quadrupling -- whatever the traffic will bear. We have compulsory insurance in this province, which means everybody has to buy it. But if there is no control over rates, it gives a complete carte blanche to the private insurance companies to charge whatever the traffic will bear.

16:40

Not only does it give them the opportunity to overcharge and to increase their profits, but it also gives them the opportunity to discriminate against people. They discriminate against young people on the ground that they are under 25. They pay no attention to their driving record. They simply say that if you are under 25, you pay an exorbitant insurance rate. The rates vary from more than $1,000 to $3,500 for young people. Some of them are not offered any insurance at all unless they have been driving for five years and have a clean driving record. That means a young person of 16 would have to have five years of driving before he could even qualify for insurance. What is he supposed to do in those five years? "He can get insurance through his father" is what they say.

The other thing it allows these companies to do is to put in arbitrary rules for checking past performance, even checking speeding tickets and traffic tickets and considering rate increases there. It allows them to put in requests for tied sales, which means you cannot get insurance from them unless you buy property insurance or some other kind of insurance from them. It allows for arbitrary cancellations. There is no right of appeal. You have to shop around and find an insurance company that may accept you under its own conditions.

To find out where the public stands on this, I put a question on my last riding report, which came out in November 1986. The question was, "Should Ontario adopt a public auto insurance plan?" Most of the replies are in by now. Of those who responded, 74 per cent said yes, only 14 per cent said no, and 12 per cent were undecided. Thus, it is clear the public is aware that the only answer to the current insurance crisis in the auto industry is a public insurance plan similar to the ones in effect in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. All these plans were put in by New Democratic Party governments.

The interesting thing is that none of those plans has been taken out by other governments that have come to power in those provinces. The minister commented that the main reasons for the differences in rates are different traffic conditions or different densities of population. However, there seems to be a more fundamental difference in administration costs and the elimination of profits, and that difference is the real cause of the differences in rates between those provinces and Ontario, where we have a crisis.

I refer the minister to a study made for the select committee on auto insurance in 1978, which found that the administration costs between a government insurance system and the private system in Ontario were as follows: "Under a government system, the total estimated operating costs as a percentage of premiums earned were 21 per cent. Under a private system, they were 41 per cent. They were almost double. One can see that the reasons for the difference in rates are far more than just differences in traffic conditions or coverage.

What is the nature of the present crisis? Besides the skyrocketing prices I mentioned, public bodies are facing huge increases in liability insurance. For example, the Ontario Hospital Association has reported to one of the minister's studies that its liability insurance was $3.5 million in 1983-84 and $20.5 million in 1985-86, and it estimates it will be $41 million in 1986-87. That is part of the crisis.

More people are driving without insurance. Taxi owners are finding it very difficult to get insurance. There is an increase in discrimination against drivers for frivolous reasons, the kinds of things for which a policy should not be cancelled.

What is it costing the people of Ontario? It is costing thousands of dollars in extra premiums. It is costing accident victims thousands of dollars in lower awards. As my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold pointed out, it is costing young people an opportunity to get driving jobs because they cannot pay for the insurance costs once they get their drivers' licences. It is also causing the cancellation of many sports activities and a curtailment of recreational activities, amusement rides and things of that sort, because the premiums for liability insurance have gone up by as much as 10 times in some cases. In spite of all this, the insurance industry enjoyed the highest profits in its history in the first six months of 1986.

It appears a crisis is upon us. There is a need for action by the government. We are very disappointed it is just putting off for another year determining whether the no-fault insurance system should be with or without torts. As my colleague mentioned, our party favours no-fault insurance with the right to tort claims over and above whatever the no-fault insurance produces. That is the fair way to go about it so that somebody who has an unusual case can go to court and perhaps get extra money.

There is an overwhelming demand in this province for public auto insurance and for public insurance in other fields to cut out the ripoff that is going on by insurance companies. I am surprised the government is representing only the insurance companies on this issue.

Mr. Callahan: I find it very interesting that this debate has been generated on a very serious issue -- there is no question about that -- by the opposition parties, the Conservatives and the New Democrats, yet when I look across the floor I see six Conservatives and five New Democratic Party members in the House. It is clear they must consider it to be an extremely important issue. I find it rather reprehensible that they would play smoke and mirrors with the people in their constituencies.

One of the things that has failed to be identified here is not the question of premiums; it is the question of --

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The member obviously cannot read. He does not realize there are committees sitting, including the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which is no doubt investigating conflicts of interest by members of his party.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Callahan: The member for Etobicoke would know a lot about that, because he seems to raise it every time a pencil is dropped on the floor.

It is too bad the New Democratic Party does not run this province, because every solution it has is so simplistic. It is, "Let the government assume the cost of doing this, that and the other thing."

I was surprised to hear from my friend the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe). I never suspected he was a socialist. Hearing what he had to say, it is obvious he is in bed with the socialists. He wants the government to pick up the entire cost. I am waiting to hear from my friend the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory). I notice he is absent from the chamber. The suggestions by the New Democratic Party would probably turn his stomach, and he cannot be found to debate this issue.

16:50

I do not wish to deal with this with levity, because it is a very serious problem. However, the way the New Democratic Party puts it, this issue suddenly arose as a result of the Liberal government taking office. Clearly, rather than playing smoke and mirrors with the people out there who are being affected by increased premiums, it is important to deal with the question of how much coverage they can get. The issue should be put in proper perspective. This is a worldwide issue. To have a knee-jerk response to it, as was done by the previous Conservative government, is not appropriate.

Let me give some examples of knee-jerk responses by that Conservative government. They brought in prejudgement interest. If we look at prejudgement interest, to a large degree it has resulted in very massive awards. In addition, there is the gross-up cost, and I do not see the Conservatives' kissing cousins in Ottawa -- Mr Wilson is specifically responsible for that issue -- dealing with the question of income tax and how it affects the grossing up of judgement. In my community of Brampton, the award that was made of about $6 million to a large extent was the gross-up cost, the prejudgement interest that resulted directly from the knee-jerk reaction of the previous government.

The present government is a responsible government, not one of smoke and mirrors. We are prepared to address the issue through the Slater commission and subsequently through Mr. Justice Osborne, who is a very learned jurist and a person, I submit, who clearly has the credentials to determine some of the other issues that arose out of Mr. Slater's report.

I can remember the member for Welland-Thorold objecting even to Mr. Slater looking at the issue, because the member had a very simplistic approach to it: "Minister, let the government run it and let the people out there, the taxpayers, all of them, whether they drive a car or not, pay the cost of it." That is a very simple answer. I wonder what the member for Welland-Thorold is going to do when the insurance issue is finally resolved. He will have to find some other issue on which to be a knight in shining armour on a horse.

The real issue is the question of the maximum coverage. That did become a very significant issue in my riding in terms of the $1 million that the Young Women's Christian Association was able to obtain. This government took very positive steps; it made available $1 million. In this day and age, perhaps $1 million is not very significant, but this government did react to cure the short-term question. The long-term question did not develop over six months or a year; it developed over a very long period of time. We cannot have a knee-jerk reaction to it.

It may be politically sexy for members to tell people in their riding, "We are on a white charger, and today we are going to have an emergency debate that is going to cure everything." If I thought for one minute this emergency debate instigated by the two opposition parties and suspending legislation, such as Bill 51 and various other pieces of legislation that are for the benefit of the public at large, would do that, I would say: "Great. I am happy to participate in it. I wish you Godspeed."

Surely to heaven the people out there who are watching this debate have to feel very sheepish about their politicians raising this as an issue, as a cure-all or quick fix. There is no quick fix. If there is a quick fix, then we have to think back and see whether it was properly thought out.

Mr. Justice Osborne, as a very learned jurist, is going to have the opportunity to look at the question of whether we should eliminate tort. A lot of people suffer as a result of the present system, which is tort-responsive because it is an adversary system. That means asking who has the best lawyer and whether that lawyer is able to present the case well. Some people do not even bother to sue; they are immediately visited by an adjuster, and the whole thing is ironed out.

This is not a simple issue, to be treated lightly or in a frivolous way, but that is exactly the way the opposition is treating it. They see a political opportunity in approaching this issue on television in this emergency debate. They think all the people out there watching them are foolish enough to believe this emergency debate is going to resolve the problem.

I suggest the best resolution to this issue is going to be a considered report by Mr. Justice Osborne, in which he may come up with recommendations, and I suspect he will, being the learned jurist he is, for dealing with the automobile insurance problem as well as the entire tort scheme. Let us face it, when you go before a tribunal in a litigious situation, you do not realize that the judge knows there is an insurance company behind the offender. A jury might not know about it, but if a case is being heard by a judge alone, he knows there is insurance, and it is a question of the deepest pocket. I suggest that is part of the problem, but not the totality.

We have to put some regularity back into this system so people can reinsure and so the reinsurance industry will not be frightened silly by major disasters -- Chernobyl, a plane crash or whatever -- or even the high interest rates that were in existence at one point when they were competing for premiums because they wanted to invest that money. It will not be done by a quick fix, and if anybody in this Legislature suggests it can done by a quick fix, then the electorate should look at it very carefully. Such members are playing with a very important issue in a political way; in fact, they are not telling those people what is honest and fair.

These people are concerned; there is no question about that. The concern raised here about people being employable is a significant one. The question of municipalities and volunteer organizations being able to function is a very important one. When people stand up in this House and suggest, "Well, here is an easy way to do it," I think that is dishonest and does not approach the issue in a caring, receptive, thoughtful way, as this government is approaching it.

When all is said and done, and when we have all the reports in, we will have a change in the system that will serve Ontario, not just for today -- which seems to have been the Band-Aid approach used by the Progressive Conservative Party in the past -- but for today, tomorrow and into the 21st century.

Mr. Runciman: As I listened to the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), I wondered about his past profession and whether that has had any impact on his views in respect to tort reform and no-fault insurance. I suspect it has. Some might suggest conflict of interest might enter into the picture, but I would not go that far.

Mr. Barlow: You would not suggest that.

Mr. Callahan: I do not do that sort of stuff.

Mr. Brandt: What kind of stuff do you do?

Mr. Callahan: Nothing.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just as we suspected.

Mr. Runciman: I find it interesting to hear the catcalls going back and forth across the chamber between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. It is more than passing strange. You have to wonder what the NDP really gained from the accord, aside from a loss of credibility.

Mr. Barlow: I am sure they wonder about that too.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The debate is on automobile insurance.

Mr. Runciman: I am heading that way. The obsessive hatred of the member for York South (Mr. Rae) for anything Tory has led those lemmings to the precipice, and they are going to go off it in the next election.

The member for Brampton was talking about smoke and mirrors. He is right; there is some of that here, a lot of window-dressing, certainly on the part of the members of the NDP. They feel a government-run no-fault scheme is a winner for them politically, and they are trying to get as much mileage out of it as they can. I personally do not think it is.

Mr. Wildman: I wonder what Grant Devine thinks about it.

Mr. Runciman: Grant Devine? Once you are into those things, I admit it is sometimes difficult to get out of them in a rapid fashion, but I suspect his government may get out of them over time.

The minister's reaction to this -- establishing another task force -- is a political move. Some might describe it as an astute one; I do not know at this stage of the game. He is simply pushing off a hot potato for another year or so as something his government will not have to deal with, he hopes. In any event, I do not believe this issue is the winner that the members of the NDP seem to think it is.

I am confining my remarks to no-fault insurance. I was more than slightly concerned about the emphasis of the Slater task force on the automobile insurance industry. When the Slater task force was established, it was to deal with a liability crisis in Ontario and on this continent, and the emphasis placed on no-fault seemed to me, and to many others, to be inappropriate.

17:00

Over the past four or five years, the number of calls to my office in terms of auto insurance premium complaints could be counted on one hand. Admittedly, they have increased in the past couple of months. We have had a number of concerns about rapid increases in rates, and I believe the industry is not acting wisely in this situation. I think one of the members of the third party indicated some of the increases it is projecting. The head of the Insurance Bureau of Canada was projecting significant increases as well.

The industry is playing into the hands of the socialists in this province by coming forward with those kinds of increases. The motivation behind them is perhaps less than honourable. They feel it is adding fuel to bringing in a no-fault program in Ontario. They are very misguided if they feel it is going to have that impact. What may happen is that they are going to increase pressure along the lines advocated by our friends to the left, and that would be unfortunate for consumers and small-business people in this province.

There are a lot of problems out there. I think one of the ways the minister erred when he established the Slater task force was that he gave it such a tight time frame within which to operate. I think it was three months. He said, "Come back with your recommendations in three months."

We have to give credit to Mr. Slater and his colleagues for doing an excellent job in that limited time, but if they had been afforded more flexibility in developing their recommendations, we in this province and in this assembly might have been much better served.

Slater could have come in with some interim recommendations that the government could have acted on immediately, but over a longer time he could have come in with much more significant direction for the government in terms of dealing with the widespread liability insurance problems in this country and in this province specifically.

Some of those have been talked about. Manufacturers are having extreme problems with excess liability. A manufacturer in my riding, Nitrochem, has told me about its problems in getting excess liability insurance. The company indicated it was looking at $15,000 to $20,000 to have a firm come in just to take a look, appraise the company and assess a figure. Even at that stage, they did not know what kind of coverage they could expect and whether it would be affordable. Those kinds of problems are out there creating great difficulty for many of our small manufacturers, especially in fields such as the chemical industry. We have to be addressing those in a more rapid fashion than we have up to this stage.

Export liability is another major problem. The parliamentary assistant mentioned that a pool is in the process of being developed, but again we get into the question of not only availability but also affordability. When we talk about liability pools, we are usually looking at insurers of last resort, and very frequently insurers through liability pools are unaffordable for many small businesses. We have to take a look at addressing that as well as the availability. We have to ensure the liability insurance for exporters is affordable as well as available.

We could mention other areas: day care centres, truckers, bus and transit operators, professional groups, directors and officers -- we have read a great deal about that recently -- hospitals and volunteer and charitable organizations.

There is one thing I am curious about. The Ontario Law Reform Commission was given a mandate to look at tort reform some time ago, and nothing has happened. It seems to me this is an area where the minister, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) or whoever, should have been giving clear direction to the law reform commission to speed up the agenda for looking at tort reform and get its recommendations into the government within a set period, rather than leaving it out there and saying, "The Ontario Law Reform Commission is looking at tort reform; we have some other body making recommendations on tort reform."

Why not pull those recommendations in as quickly as possible, perhaps refer them to a committee of the Legislature -- the standing committee on administration of justice might be the most appropriate one -- and have a committee of this Legislature dealing with tort reform recommendations? We could bring them into this Legislature, with all-party agreement, we hope, and get them through this House as quickly as possible to address those concerns.

We have talked about them. The member for Brampton was talking about some of them. There is the Family Law Act. He mentioned the prejudgement interest and gross-up problems. The Brampton case is the one that is cited, but it is under appeal and we do not know what the final outcome will be. However, there are concerns out there about these things.

We have to take a look at providing strict penal provisions for fraudulent or vexatious claims. Another area is collateral benefits and double recovery, the bifurcation of trials and implementation of a system of mandatory arbitration for trials. Although that may be redundant because of pre-trial conferences, we think it is something that should at least be looked at and studied. Joint and several liability was another area we talked about, and I recommend the government take a look at that.

Another thing we talked about was the reinsurance industry. When I was serving as critic of the Ministry of Financial Institutions, my advisory committee took a look at the idea of establishing a group of government individuals, industry individuals and concerned consumer advocates to work out a policy and a plan and to approach the reinsurance industry in London to try to convince it of the changes taking place in this jurisdiction and the differences between Ontario and other jurisdictions within North America. There are some clear and significant differences and changes that are under way now, and we should be making sure the reinsurance industry abroad is aware of those changes.

Mr. Mackenzie: Once again, I am pleased to rise and speak in the emergency debate on the need for a public auto insurance plan in Ontario. I cannot help but be amused -- I am not sure whether that is the right word -- when I hear the member for Brampton and the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) attack the third party. Invariably, the best attack they think they have is to hurl the epithet "socialist" at this party.

Mr. Runciman: It has worked in the past.

Mr. Mackenzie: That is what counts, I guess. The accuracy of what they are doing does not matter.

I think back to the debates over the years on pensions in this country. I cannot remember an issue where more often, when we pushed for pensions, the charge was that somehow or other this was socialist legislation or, when we got the first $20-a-month old age pension in Canada at the time, that it was the work of that small socialist band federally.

There was the Ontario health insurance plan battle right across this country, when Mr. Robarts said we would have to drag it in over his screaming and kicking body -- over his dead body, virtually -- before we would get it in Ontario. The charges we have heard from some of the large contingent of right-wing members in the Liberal caucus, and always from the Tories, are that somehow or other it is socialism, the same arguments we had when we brought in OHIP. Would anybody today say there is something wrong with OHIP or it is something we should get rid of because it was a socialist idea?

They probably said the same thing about public education a long time ago, although I have never gone back over the debates. Of course, if it is anti-free-trade, which may also affect people in this country, we are ne'er-do-wells, doomsayers or some other such expressions that come from these members. It is not a real debate on the merits of an issue or whether people want it or need it; it is an attempt to find some derogatory slogan they can throw at people. I think it ill behooves either of them in their comments.

I am also rather amazed that we have a situation in this province where car insurance companies have more power to decide who is going to drive in Ontario than do the police or the law. That is exactly the situation we have with the kinds of actions that can be taken and the rates that can be charged, or, in many cases, the refusal to insure people.

17:10

I do not know how many calls the members of the other parties are getting; we have three files on them. What I brought in with me is just part of one of the three files. I did not particularly pick the worst cases, but I picked three of the most recent cases that have hit my office.

Before I cover these three cases, let me go over a case I have raised before in this Legislature. This is the kind of complaint we are getting from young people and, as some of these cases will show, from older people in Ontario.

There is a young woman -- I have raised her case before -- who works with me in my office. She is 26. She was driving a 1970 Firebird. She has since upgraded her automobile, but at the time this was raised, it was a 1970 Firebird, in rather good condition for a 1970 car. It had two doors and eight cylinders. She drove it very little.

Going down to the bus depot to catch the bus here or taking her mother out to the Lime Ridge Mall was the extent of the driving -- strictly alone; no record; strictly personal; strictly pleasure; very limited driving. She was paying $187 every six months for $1 million in public liability; there was no collision insurance on the car.

She got her notice on January 8, 1986, saying her new premium was going to be $355 for six months. Her $374-a-year charge was going up to $710 a year. She could not find anything else that was any better. When she came in and mentioned the increased cost she was going to have and what they were charging her for the very limited driving she was doing, we got on the phone. I had her call the Manitoba auto insurance plan.

The minister likes to say the accident and collision rates differ in some of the western provinces and that is why there are some of the big differences in price. That does not happen to be true, but I thought Winnipeg was a good comparison with the city of Hamilton.

We phoned and gave them the details: a 26-year-old woman; no accident record; limited pleasure driving -- you cannot really identify "limited driving" -- no business driving; the make of the car, a 1970 blue Firebird; two doors. The price they quoted her for one year, including $200-deductible collision, which she does not get now, was $145. In comparison with $710 for liability only, in a city comparable to Hamilton she could buy Manitoba public auto insurance for $145.

I do not know what to tell people when they call. I do not know what to tell a young man who called me about three or four weeks ago. He was a first-time driver, 22, with limited education. The best price he picked up in my city was $3,700. As my leader said today, charges of $2,000, $2,500 and $2,800 are common for new, young, first-time drivers.

A letter was forwarded to me by a federal Conservative member in our area, Mrs. Shirley Martin, regarding a constituent who called her about the tremendous increase that had just been levied in insurance and the problem with a small accident. She simply told her constituent it was a provincial matter, not a federal matter. The federal member could not do anything for her, but said she should write to the provincial NDP member -- I am not even in the federal member's riding -- since he might be willing to take up her case. This is a federal Conservative member on a public auto insurance deal.

The constituent raised a number of issues. She said:

"On drunk drivers, they can have their record cleared by the insurance company in three years, while a sober citizen has to wait five years. This is not right. The insurance companies have to be controlled. I have driven for 12 years and my husband for 15 years, and this is what has happened to us.

"Last year was the first time I have had a ticket or an accident. Now we pay almost the price of our car in insurance, and we drive a 1979 Le Mans. There must be a lot of people now driving in this situation."

She then went into the increased costs with us. They were currently paying $1,250. They had an accident in a parking lot. It was not their fault. The other driver admitted it. He backed out and into the side of their car while doing a turn. They found out to their chagrin that even with a note from the other driver, because it was in a parking lot it did not matter who was at fault: the cost was split 50-50. They had to pay some $200. That was assessed for their insurance company, and the increase in their insurance was $1,032. Even though it was not their fault and it was in a parking lot, they got more than four times the cost of the claim that was paid out by their insurance company.

Mr. Swart: Paying for three years.

Mr. Mackenzie: Yes. My colleague looked into it. It was one of the many cases we looked at. They would pay that increased payment for three years. She ends up paying not four times but 12 times the cost of that minor repair job. The members should tell me the justice of that in the insurance industry in this province today.

As recently as a week and a half ago, a case came to my office. The gentleman said he had been driving for 35 years, 22 years with the Hamilton Street Railway. He owns two cars, a 1973 Chrysler-Plymouth Satellite and a 1978 Pontiac Acadian. They had insurance for both for $864 and were quite happy with it. They decided they were going to put their two sons of 17 and 19 years of age on their policy. Their insurance costs increased by $1,600. They shopped around and found they could get a slightly cheaper price from another insurance company and they took it. It dropped their insurance costs about $200.

He had an accident. It was also a parking lot accident. Do the members know what the assessment was?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Your time has expired.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am sorry I cannot give that case, because a $259 charge cost more than a $1,000 increase. The point is that where we have a public auto insurance plan, it has worked. It is to the benefit of --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Haggerty: I am pleased to enter the emergency debate this afternoon on the matter of no-fault insurance. I entered the Niagara south ploughing match this year and was fortunate enough to take first prize, but because my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold, who moved the motion, did not enter the competition this year -- I do not know whether he could not afford the insurance -- I hope I did not get it by default.

I was interested in some of the comments this afternoon by members speaking in this emergency debate. The member for Leeds perhaps hit it on the head when he talked about "affordable insurance." I have dealt with people coming into my constituency office about this. I recall one person telling me of the first accident he had. It was a case where he had to swerve the car to avoid hitting a youngster coming on to the street on a small bicycle. He ran into a post and bounced off it, hitting the end of a building. The insurance adjuster came and assessed the damage to the property at $3,200 to $3,500. When he renewed his insurance, the rate they suggested he should pay was the cost of the damage to the property. I do not think that is any way for the insurance industry to carry on business in Ontario. It should not use a person that way.

I am satisfied that my household insurance has come down this year. Perhaps it is the insurance company I belong to. It is a co-operative or insurance program with mutual benefits. It is with a group of farmers in my area. Now they are taking hold in the urban area. It is reasonable insurance.

17:20

When you look at the cost of insurance in Ontario, you have to look at the cost to repair an automobile, at replacement costs in this area and at labour costs. You have to look at legal fees, which are much higher in Ontario than they are in other provinces. There is also the location you live in. I happen to live in the Niagara region, in a border community. We pay perhaps one of the highest automobile insurance premiums you can find anyplace in Ontario. We should not be using a rate based on the number of Americans who come in and unfortunately have accidents; that is not the way to go.

I know my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold has been on this issue of no-fault insurance for a number of years. I heard it in county council days. As the member for Leeds said, if the insurance industry does not clean up its act, the high increases are going to lead to no-fault insurance in the province.

I want the members to look at resolution 40 from the member for Welland-Thorold. It says, "Ontario should proceed, immediately, with the development of the most appropriate provincial public motor vehicle insurance plan for implementation no later than January 1, 1988," and talks about "nonexistent or inadequate no-fault compensation."

I notice the New Democratic Party has come forward using the word "tort." They have changed their position. Let us look at it. It has been critical of the Minister of Financial Institutions in this area, saying he has not done enough.

We have just taken over government in Ontario in the past 15 or 16 months. We had the Slater report that came in last summer, and the member is well aware of the recommendations. There was the minister's statement of November 6, 1986, when he placed a task force in the charge of Mr. Justice Arthur Osborne of the High Court of Justice for Ontario. He is to examine the issue and report back to the government by November 1, 1987.

If you go down to the terms of reference, they say Mr. Justice Osborne will inquire into "the tort system of compensation for injury by automobile accident and the consequences of the implementation of a no-fault automobile accident insurance scheme." In particular, he is to "consider and report on...the adequacy, timeliness and fairness of compensation to accident victims under the present tort system; the effectiveness of the tort system as a deterrent in compensation mechanisms; the implications of removing tort liability as a basis for compensation in automobile accidents and replacing it with a no-fault system; the cost savings and effectiveness of a no-fault system for compensation for claims arising out of automobile accidents" -- this may be an area we can look at that will be similar to workers' compensation for loss of wages - "the appropriate design of a no-fault automobile insurance system for Ontario, including the effectiveness of deterrence in a no-fault system; the effectiveness of rating systems related to driver performance" -- that is important - "and standards for ratings under such a no-fault automobile insurance system" -- I do not have to tell the members about the number of fatalities in Ontario, many of them related to drivers who have been impaired - "the desirability of a modified no-fault system with some form of threshold" -- that is important; maybe a cap - "at which recourse to the tort system would be allowed" -- insurance companies on the American side are looking at capping - "dispute resolution and appeal processes for claims in a no-fault system; the need in a no-fault system for a claims fund or pooling mechanism to protect small insurers; private versus public delivery of a no-fault system of automobile insurance; and the role of government in any proposed no-fault system."

That lays out the government's policy in this area. If the member for Welland-Thorold goes back to his resolution, he said by January 1, 1988. This report is to be completed by November 1, 1987 -- it could be before November 1, 1987 -- and then legislation could be introduced in the Legislature by January 1, 1988.

I suggest the minister is in line with the member's thinking on the matter of no-fault insurance. As the minister has indicated, and I have debated this for a number of years during election campaigns, we know of the government-run no-fault programs in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. To compensate for the losses in their funds, they have gone to their consolidated revenue funds.

It is the same thing in Quebec. They have a partial no-fault insurance scheme, but to pick up the loss in that area, they increased the fees for automobile licences or owner-operator licences. I suggest they do the same thing in the programs out west. There are other areas in Canada that have moved in this direction.

Mr. Swart: That is not true.

Mr. Haggerty: The member says it is not true. I am sure it is true. I would not be standing here saying it if it were not so.

Mr. Swart: The select committee said it was not true.

Mr. Haggerty: Well, the select committee --

Mr. Swart: Woods Gordon said it was not true.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Haggerty: Woods Gordon. That is debatable too. The report from Mr. Justice Osborne that we are looking forward to in November will lead us in that direction, and legislation will be coming forward.

Mr. Pierce: It is a pleasure for me to get up today to speak on liability insurance as it relates to the people in my riding in the district of Rainy River in northwestern Ontario.

I note with interest that some of the members opposite like to say that we on this side of the House are overreacting and that there is no crisis in insurance in Ontario. The word "crisis" could be defined in many different ways depending on whom it affects. When the owner of the machine shop in Fort Frances is told by his local insurance companies, "We are sorry, but as of Monday of next week you no longer have insurance because we cannot find someone to insure you," that becomes a crisis for him.

This owner-operator of a machine shop inherited the business from his father a number of years ago. He built it up to a fairly respectable business. He employs a number of people in Fort Frances and provides a much-needed service. Because of the type of system we live under and the way the insurance companies are prepared to deal with these people, this guy now has no insurance opportunities. As a result, he could be forced to shut down his business.

It is fine for the minister to say, "lf you are having a problem at one store, shop around." I am afraid we have gone to the point where shopping around is no longer the answer. There is no place to shop. The insurance companies very quickly circulate throughout the insurance industry the name of any company or individual who has had a problem, for whatever reason, in making his payments on the due date or who has had problems within his company. The opportunity to shop around is no longer available.

My riding is one of the closest to Manitoba. We have a large migration of young people from northwestern Ontario. A lot of those people go to Manitoba. They go there for their education and for their medical care and because insurance is so much cheaper for them. They are young people who could enhance and develop the northern part of our province, but because we in Ontario have not addressed the problem of high insurance rates, these young people find it to their benefit to move. They look at Manitoba as an opportunity for them to save some money on auto insurance. They take advantage of it for that reason.

The minister also claims Ontario has historically had insurance rates that are higher than those in a number of the other provinces. He said one of the reasons for that was weather conditions. Let me tell him that weather conditions in northwestern Ontario are not unlike the weather conditions in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia and northern Quebec. I fail to see that weather conditions would have such a high impact on the insurance rates in Ontario.

17:30

The Liberal government says it is prepared to promote industry in northern Ontario and offers incentives to young people to get into business, yet all those incentives do not add up to the high cost of insurance for getting into business in northern Ontario. There are very few businesses in northern Ontario that do not require an automobile or that do not relate to high-risk industries. For that reason, entrepreneurs in northern Ontario are not allowed to develop the kinds of industries they would like to. The insurance companies dictate whether they will get into business.

We have spent the past 25, 30 or 40 years in Ontario developing what we consider to be one of the finest health care systems in the world. Facilities are now available in northern Ontario, but today the Ministry of Health is trying to develop a system of commuter aircraft that will move people from the small centres of northern Ontario, where operating rooms are available, to the large centres of northern Ontario for all surgery. The reason is that in a small community in northern Ontario, a doctor might perform an average of 25 to 35 operations a year. It does not pay such a doctor to take out the insurance necessary to allow him to perform those operations.

An anaesthetist in northern Ontario is in the same situation. The insurance requirements of an anaesthetist no longer allow him even to consider moving into the smaller areas where there are not hundreds of operations a year. As a result, we have hospitals with operating rooms, all the facilities and experienced personnel to run them, but we do not have the ability to provide the insurance necessary to allow doctors to operate even in emergencies.

The Ministry of Health has recognized this. As I said earlier, it is looking at providing Dash-8 service to a number of northern communities on a given day in the month. The service will pick up all the patients and take them to a hospital where a doctor feels it is feasible to buy the insurance.

This is not a time for a knee-jerk reaction to the insurance crisis. It is a crisis in Ontario, and it is certainly a crisis in northern Ontario. The government says it has been here only 14, 15 or 16 months. Whatever it is, it has been too long. It is time for the Liberal Party to face up to the fact that for the past 42 years it has been prepared to be critical of what was done by the Progressive Conservative Party; it has been prepared to have all kinds of policies drafted. It should not take the Liberals another 42 years to decide what they will do in a time of crisis.

The minister has put out another opportunity for an additional study. It is time he started to react to a situation that is very near and dear to the hearts of everybody in Ontario and that has an impact on what people see as being an opportunity to invest in this great province of ours.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. Public car insurance works in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Private car insurance does not work in Ontario. The message is extremely clear. The people of Ontario are getting tired of being systematically ripped off by insurance companies. That message comes home to each member of the assembly, including the Minister of Financial Institutions. I do not know how any member of the assembly can escape the message.

I will relate for the minister a sad story that was told to me over the telephone a short while ago. I suspect the minister may have been the recipient of the story a few minutes after the person told it to me.

I had a call from the owner of a taxi company that owned 60 taxis. Each taxi had two drivers; I assume not at the same time. Two years ago, he was paying $1,250 per car per year for insurance. Last year, the amount was doubled to $2,500. This year, he was informed that as of October 30 the rate would be $9,000 per car, an increase of $6,500 per car over the previous year. Multiply that by 60 and it does not take a genius to figure out that relatively small taxicab company would be put out of business, and with it, 120 people would be unemployed.

In desperation, he wanted to know what I could do to help him. I had to say truthfully there was nothing I could do, and I gave him the phone number of the minister's office. I said: "Phone the minister, because he is the one who has the responsibility with respect to the insurance industry. He is the one who has the authority to regulate." Sadly, he is also the one who has not done anything more than apologize for the insurance companies. That is sad indeed.

Historically, we have had higher rates in Ontario because the insurance industry has been allowed systematically to rip off the car drivers of Ontario. If you allow them to do what they want, they will do what they want. That has been the message.

I do not think it is any secret to us in the assembly, and it has become less of a secret to the good people of Ontario, that the publicly run plans in the western provinces work. They have been in operation for more than a decade, 12 to 14 years, through a succession of governments, not just New Democrat governments but also Social Credit, Conservative and even Liberal governments. When a change of government took place, why was the public car insurance plan retained? It was because it works. It is extremely efficient; in fact, it is more efficient than private insurance in Ontario. It is a lot cheaper and is publicly responsive.

If you are a resident of any of those three western provinces I mentioned and have a concern about the plan, you have a direct route for action because obviously the plan is responsible to the Legislature and there is a review board. As a member of the public, you have the opportunity and the democratic right to raise your voice of concern to the government, and you will get action.

17:40

Of course, we do not have that here. Private insurance companies can decide whether they are going to insure you, which to me seems rather ludicrous in that we say, by our laws, you must have insurance. You cannot drive on the roads of Ontario without insurance, and yet insurance companies can determine whether they will give you insurance. "Give" is the wrong word; they will allow you to pay exorbitant rates for the insurance.

Competition? That is a joke. There is no competition in the industry. Just ask any single male under the age of 25 about competition. The competition is whether he should pay $2,500 or $3,000 a year for his insurance. Some competition. Yet at the same time, we know that same individual, with identical coverage in a comparable situation out west, would pay in the neighbourhood of $700. That, pure and simple, is a ripoff. There is no other word for it.

I know it is difficult for the government, with its philosophy of supporting private enterprise, to agree that this public way is a better way. Of course, that is tough for them. But they will know that all members on the select committee on company law, an all-party committee that examined this question back in 1976 and 1977, agreed privately that the public systems they had examined out west were superior. They also admitted to me and to other New Democrats on the committee that, for philosophic reasons, they could not put the truth on paper. That is sad and sorry, but it is a philosophic hangup they have; that is their problem. But I submit that, philosophic difference or not, the government has the responsibility to solve the problem.

It is not just New Democrats who are speaking up; it is the people of Ontario. The minister will no doubt be aware that in the public opinion survey this party did, we got 6,000 responses. Do members know how many of those 6,000 respondents from across the province were in favour of a public car insurance plan? There were 80.4 per cent who were in favour of a public car insurance plan. Fairly obviously, it is more than those people who vote New Democrat, although that may be reflective of the percentage in the foreseeable future. There were only 13 per cent against and an additional six per cent who did not have an opinion.

To show members it is not just New Democrats, I understand the Conservative member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) also conducted a survey in his householder report and found that more than 80 per cent of his constituents supported public car insurance. There is a fairly obvious reason for that. The people in the far north relate more to Manitoba. Their news and all their information comes from Winnipeg. They know the public plan works, and that is what they want.

The message to the government is very clear: The time for defending the private car insurance companies is gone. The time for action on behalf of the citizens of Ontario is now. We need a public car insurance plan now.

M. Poirier: Mon bon collègue le député de Welland-Thorold (M. Swart) nous a demandé d'entamer un débat d'urgence, aujourd'hui, en ce qui a trait à la situation actuelle des assurances en Ontario et, plus spécifiquement, au niveau des primes d'assurance. Il semblait vouloir dire que le gouvernement actuel de l'Ontario n'avait rien fait, ou très peu de choses, pour essayer de résoudre le problème des assurances tel que nous le connaissons.

Par contre, dans son discours antérieur, mon bon collègue l'adjoint parlementaire au ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce, le député de Mississauga Nord (M. Offer), a présenté une liste assez complète des huit grands points que le gouvernement de l'Ontario a mis sur pied pour aider les gens, les consommateurs et les consommatrices de l'Ontario, à faire face à la crise actuelle dans le monde des assurances.

Ce qui m'intéresse, et ça me surprend un peu, c'est que nous sommes tous d'accord que la situation des assurances traverse des moments très difficiles en Ontario; mais par contre, je suis convaincu, et j'en ai la preuve, que mon gouvernement s'attache très rapidement à voir à ce que la situation du monde des assurances en Ontario puisse être réglée à la satisfaction des conditions présentes et futures dans l'Ontario. Je fais référence particulièrement à la mise sur pied du groupe de travail sur les assurances qui sera présidé par M. le juge Osborne, qui va examiner la situation actuelle et présenter un rapport très complet, très concret également, avant le premier novembre 1987, à mon gouvernement.

M. le juge Osborne va examiner le système actuel, qui est basé sur l'établissement d'un blâme, d'une responsabilité, si on veut, à l'égard d'un accident de circulation et va examiner également le dédommagement des victimes d'accidents de la circulation et les conséquences de la mise sur pied d'un système sans égard à la responsabilité en ce qui a trait à la mise sur pied de l'étude, si on veut, des accidents de la circulation en Ontario.

Les députés se rappelleront que lorsque le Dr Slater a présenté son rapport au gouvernement, au mois de mai, il n'avait pas pour mandat d'établir un programme spécifique d'assurance sans égard à la responsabilité pour l'Ontario; ça ne faisait pas partie de son mandat. Par contre, M. le juge Osborne, dans sa commission, pourra nous faire une recommandation, à savoir, quel serait le meilleur système éventuel en Ontario, soit pour remplacer, soit pour modifier ou garder le système actuel.

Je regardais la liste des conditions qui ont été présentées à M. le juge Osborne et je voudrais regarder ceci avec les députés pour voir que c'est très clair que le rapport que nous présentera le juge Osborne permettra au gouvernement de prendre une décision beaucoup plus éclairée, qui nous permettra de choisir un système pour l'Ontario qui sera adapté aux besoins de l'Ontario. Si vous me permettez, Monsieur le Président, je vais lire un peu.

M. le juge Osborne va enquêter sur la situation actuelle et présentera un rapport au gouvernement en ce qui a trait au système actuel de responsabilité rattachée aux accidents de la circulation et aussi aux conséquences, si on veut, d'un tel système sur les dédommagements à verser aux victimes.

Son rapport s'attaquera aussi au niveau des montants qui sont versés aux victimes, à l'application à travers le temps, à la rapidité du système et à la justice du système face aux dédommagements accordés aux victimes d'accidents de la circulation, selon le système actuel.

Il regardera également l'efficacité du système actuel en ce qui a trait à la culpabilité qui est rattachée à une personne ou l'autre lors d'un accident de la circulation.

Il regardera également les conséquences des modifications possibles au système actuel de responsabilité, tel que nous le connaissons, parce qu'on sait très bien qu'il faut regarder de très près, pour l'Ontario, les conséquences possibles d'une modification au système actuel.

Il étudiera également les réductions possibles des coûts et l'efficacité d'un système sans égard à la responsabilité pour les victimes d'accidents de la circulation.

Il s'attaquera également à un design adapté aux besoins de l'Ontario.

On sait très bien qu'on a plusieurs exemples de systèmes sans égard à la responsabilité à l'échelle du Canada, mais c'est clair que d'une province à l'autre, les particularités, les spécificités, si on veut, de la situation d'une province à l'autre, ça ne peut pas s'appliquer nécessairement tel quel à l'Ontario.

Donc, j'ai bien hâte de voir le rapport que va nous faire M. le juge Osborne, à savoir, de quelle façon précise verrait-il une recommandation pour un tel système sans égard à la responsabilité en Ontario.

Il va se pencher également sur la possibilité d'établir un niveau où un principe de culpabilité pourrait être permis dans un système sans égard à la responsabilité pour les victimes d'accidents de la circulation. Évidemment, on peut avoir un système complexe, jumelé, où jusqu'à un certain niveau, on a un système sans égard à la responsabilité; mais par contre, il va voir si, après un certain niveau, on ne pourrait pas appliquer le système de culpabilité lors d'accidents de la circulation.

17:50

Il va se pencher également sur les paramètres à établir pour déterminer le niveau du dédommagement. C'est bien beau de dire qu'on a un système sans égard à la responsabilité, mais de là à verser un dédommagement à la victime d'un accident, il va falloir déterminer certains niveaux.

Au sujet du choix des méthodes pour régler les différends et les appels, on sait très bien que quand la commission va arriver avec une décision face à un dédommagement quelconque, ça se peut fort bien qu'il y ait des différends et des appels face à la première décision. Donc, il se penchera également sur ce point-là.

Il va se pencher également sur le besoin de créer un fonds spécial en prévision de catastrophes majeures, et aussi sur la possibilité d'un fonds pour aider les petits commerçants, les petits assureurs, parce que quand même, avec les montants qui sont versés lors de catastrophes majeures, on sait très bien le stress que ça peut causer dans la situation particulière des petits assureurs en Ontario.

Il va aussi se pencher sur la comparaison des avantages et des inconvénients d'un système public versus un système privé. Donc, là aussi, j'ai bien hâte de voir les recommandations qu'il va nous faire.

Dernièrement, il va se pencher sur le rôle que devra jouer le gouvernement dans un système sans égard à la responsabilité particulière, face à un système d'assurance pour les victimes d'accidents de la circulation.

Pour résumer tout ça, Monsieur le Président, lorsque mon collègue le député de Welland-Thorold demande un débat d'urgence pour étudier ce qu'a fait ou non le gouvernement, ce qu'il va faire, où il s'en va dans ce dossier-là, je trouve ça intéressant.

Je félicite mon collègue le ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce (M. Kwinter) de tout le travail qu'il a accompli, appuyé habilement par son adjoint parlementaire, mon cher collègue le député de Mississauga Nord. Étant donné la liste et tous les documents qui sont disponibles aux consommateurs et aux consommatrices de l'Ontario qui veulent se renseigner sur la situation actuelle et sur ce que le gouvernement veut faire, les documents sont là; la preuve est là du travail qu'on a fait.

Je ne suis aucunement inquiet, et le ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce et mon gouvernement ont le plein vote d'appui du député de Prescott-Russell pour nous aider à sortir de l'impasse dans laquelle nous nous trouvons à l'égard de la situation des assurances.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Northumberland for five minutes.

Mr. Sheppard: That is good enough, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some comments today on the motion of the member for Welland-Thorold. I am certain we are all concerned about current problems regarding insurance coverage. Insurance is no longer affordable for most, and in some cases, it is not even available. As we know, this is attributed to several factors, including ever-escalating court awards, high interest rates and even an increase in the number of claims. In some cases, premiums have increased simply because there are fewer companies willing to reinsure.

Since 1979, the insurance industry has been faced with losses and expenses that have exceeded premiums. In the early 1980s, premiums remained low because of severe competition within the industry. When interest rates began to decrease, investment income on reserves usually used to offset underwriting losses proved to be no longer sufficient. We must all realize that for there to be growth, using investment income to offset underwriting losses cannot persist as a long-time practice. Unless the industry is able to achieve underwriting profits in the near future, we should expect very serious problems to develop.

That is why I want to speak on the motion today. As I mentioned earlier, part of the problem of the increased insurance premiums is the size of the large awards because of personal injury claims. Ironically enough, it is not those multimillion-dollar claims we sometimes read about that are the real problem. The concern lies with the average claim, for example, the fender benders, where the level of awards has been steadily increasing. People, including their lawyers at times, have the tendency to use these reported multimillion-dollar awards as a justification for increased premiums. People read about these huge claims and feel they too are entitled to more. Society has become engrossed in an attitude of entitlement, in other words.

It is foolish, however, to blame the entire crisis on people and their lawyers. Naturally, people who pay regular insurance premiums feel they are entitled to fair and just compensation when they suffer a loss, and rightfully so.

Another part of the problem is reinsurance. Reinsurers such as those in London are treating the North American market as a whole instead of viewing us as two countries, Canada and the United States. This attitude has been unfair to Canada, because we have a very different tort system and generally we have not seen the types of claims along with astronomical awards that are seen in the US. The reinsurers believe Canadian companies cannot adequately price their products or predict the future. It is perceived that if certain changes can be brought about to our tort system, this would allow insurance companies to price their product more accurately.

I am not in favour of government insurance as such, but there are other means by which we can do our part to alleviate the insurance crisis. One method is by restricting or lowering the size of these astronomical awards. One obvious option to consider is; to impose a $1-million limit on personal injury lawsuits. I believe in this very strongly, and I hope the minister heard that. This would ensure a more stable environment for the industry to predict the future and price its product.

Furthermore, amendments could be made to the Courts of Justice Act that would allow awards for serious injuries to be distributed via annuities as opposed to one lump sum. This method could prove advantageous in several forms. To begin with, tax on future care costs would be eliminated. Second, the number of false claims would most likely decrease. For example, if an injured person had received a long-term annuity and was discovered to be participating in physical activities contrary to his injuries, his annuity could be cancelled without recourse. Furthermore, because the payments would be in annuity form, the chances of the claimant losing his award through faulty investments and the chances of his blowing all his money would be eliminated.

For claims resulting from bodily injury arising from automobile accidents, a form of no-fault insurance could be implemented. This method has both its advantages and disadvantages, but we could look to our neighbours using this system for guidance. No-fault insurance would offer reasonable costs to the consumer as cost savings are achieved through the lack of litigation. Because there is no need to prove who is at fault, there are no lawyers or court fees. This type of insurance also offers adequate compensation to about 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the population as well as fast payment after proof of claims.

One reason our tort system is so highly regarded, however, is the fact that we have the freedom to sue and the right to have each claim individually appraised. With no-fault insurance, the right to sue is generally forfeited. However, a descriptive clause could be added, as in Michigan, that would allow victims to sue only if the accident resulted in death, permanent disfigurement or serious impairment of body function. This clause would increase costs somewhat, but the right to sue and to receive more adequate compensation for the seriously injured remains vital.

I think the general public is ripe for such a proposal provided it is run by private insurers and not the government. While a schedule of payments would provide the stability required for insurance companies, at this time there is no guarantee that premiums would level off or be reduced.

I am optimistic that these proposals would reduce the magnitude of the awards presented in personal injury cases while still allowing the plaintiff his right to compensation for losses and damages suffered. Furthermore, these proposals should promote the stable environment and cost containment required to allow insurance companies to reduce premiums and for reinsurance to be acquired.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the business for today.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

November 12, 1986

POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

KING CLANCY

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

LAND TRANSFER

BLOCK PARENTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FLOODING

NATURAL GAS PRICING

YOUNG LEADERS TOMORROW PROGRAM

VISITOR

REMARKS BY PREMIER

ORAL QUESTIONS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

AUTO PACT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

EMISSION DISCHARGES

ACID RAIN

HOSPITAL WASTE

WOMEN EMPLOYEES

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SALE OF LANDS

NURSING HOMES

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

RENTAL AGENCIES

SHORELINE PROTECTION

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE COSTS

INSURANCE RATES

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

NATUROPATHY

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

INSURANCE RATES