Hansard Transcripts 1984-Nov-30 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the honourable members that the Ministry of Revenue will today mail the annual $50 sales tax grant to 917,000 Ontario senior citizens. These payments, totalling close to $46 million, are being sent to all seniors residing in the province who were 65 years of age or older by October 1984.

Mr. Kerrio: We cannot do too much for our senior citizens.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The member for Niagara Falls is right.

Sales tax grants will be mailed next month to pensioners turning 65 in November. Persons who become 65 in December should receive their sales tax grant cheques by the end of January.

Processing of property tax grant applications is continuing on a current basis with no backlogs, and PTG cheques are being mailed out as applications are received and processed. Applications for potential property tax grant recipients turning 65 in November and December will be mailed out by the end of January 1985.

As this part of the Ontario tax grant cycle comes to a close, I would once again like to thank the members and their constituency offices for their efforts in supporting this important program.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SUNCOR

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, who is under considerable assault these days. Everything he stands for is being assaulted by the leadership candidates.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I thought we would put our remarks in the appropriate context.

Now that at least three of the leadership aspirants have said they would divest this province of its interest in Suncor, and a number of them have remarked that it is not worth what it was worth at one time, or at least what the government paid for it, let me ask the minister responsible for energy policy and for the stewardship of our Suncor shares, what our interest in Suncor is worth today. The province, the taxpayers, paid $650 million for that piece of Suncor about three years ago. What is it worth today?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well that the Suncor shares are not issued on the public market. Therefore, it is difficult to establish what the market value for those shares might be.

Mr. Peterson: As the minister knows, the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), the chief bookkeeper of this province and the defender of our triple-A rating is one who said not very long ago that it is worth 60 per cent of what we paid for it. What he is saying is that we have lost $260 million on that purchase.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister agree with the Treasurer that the taxpayers of this province have lost $260 million if one looks at the present worth of our interest?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I would always want to be a part of the Treasurer's views on government policy, but I think it is probably important that the Leader of the Opposition appreciate that the Suncor purchase was based not only on equity, on a good return on the investment, but it was also a policy-driven initiative of this government. I have never heard an argument from the member against that policy.

Mr. Peterson: I am absolutely against this nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: On two occasions today the minister has, I am sure inadvertently, misled this House, or at least, if that is inappropriate, given false information to this House that I believe has to be corrected. First, these shares do trade on the public market. I have purchased shares on the --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Just a minute.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable leader please resume his seat. You know as well as I do that you cannot accuse another member of misleading the House or giving false information.

Mr. Peterson: If you object to the word "inadvertently," then I will change that to say he is factually inaccurate and I ask you to let me correct the record.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Then on the other hand, it is not a point of personal privilege and I would ask you to resume your seat.

Mr. Peterson: He then went on to say that we have never disagreed with that policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the honourable leader please resume his seat.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the imminent change in direction in his government next month, first, can the Minister of Energy tell us, whether it is his policy today that Suncor should remain in government hands; second, would he recommend to the new Premier that the government divest itself of the ownership of Suncor?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the honourable member that the policy reasons for the purchase of Suncor are probably as valid today as they were in 1981. I would also say that the pressures that created and drove that policy decision in 1981 are not as strong today and perhaps this is one of the reasons a number of people are speculating on the possibility of the government divesting itself of that interest.

I do not think anything was ever etched in stone that said the government would continue to own its shares on behalf of the taxpayers of this province forever. The government, as the Leader of the Opposition remembers, made a substantial investment in the Syncrude project. When that project came to fruition and became a reality, the government divested itself of that interest and those funds went to continue the operations of the Ontario Energy Corp.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Peterson: I am appalled the minister does not know the answers to these questions. Does he not know that these shares trade publicly? I personally bought some a couple of years ago at $15 a share whereas his government paid $50 a share. He is factually inaccurate in his response to me.

Does he not agree, and will he stand up and admit as his colleagues have admitted, that it was a terrible mistake from the beginning, both from a policy point of view and a financial point of view? If he agrees with the Treasurer today that there is a loss to the taxpayers of $260 million, that gives the present worth at about $390 million.

In addition, does he not agree that it has cost the taxpayers of this province $225 million out of pocket by way of carrying-costs? That is the interest after the dividends are deducted. It costs that straight from general revenue to carry the purchase. If he adds those two together, we have lost at the present time $485 million on that $650-million purchase. Does he not agree that only a lunatic could defend that kind of policy?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I do not agree. I think it is significant that the Leader of the Opposition now wants to talk about the Suncor purchase as a policy issue because it was, I believe, in the spring of 1982 when the honourable member rose in his place and asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) if the government would divest itself of its interest in Suncor to make an investment in something called Alsands. I can tell him that Suncor is still operating, viable and paying profits, doing things for Canada's energy future; Alsands is still a dream of the former federal Liberal government.

Mr. Peterson: My friend is not going to hang onto his job very long taking that point of view.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question about the policy aspects of this to the minister in charge of defending the consumers in this province.

I am sure he read with great alarm, as I did, the announcement by a number of oil companies that the price of gasoline this weekend will go up some 20 per cent or 10 cents a litre. I am sure the minister will admit it looks somewhat conspiratorial when all those companies get together at one time and decide to jack up the price like that.

As the minister in charge of consumer protection in this province, what is he doing to defend the interests of consumers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I take no backseat to anyone in protecting consumers' interests in this province. Actually, that is the main problem the opposition party has, because it is a fact and is well known.

The member knows as well that a portion of that proposed increase relates to the recent changes in the policy of the petroleum compensation charge tax. He knows competition in the marketplace has produced lower prices which we have all been fortunate to achieve. From the recent announcement of one or two companies, I gather they intend to take prices back to the levels they had normally been at prior to that. Then we will just see if competition works again in that area.

Mr. Peterson: I am talking about the conspiracy.

An hon. member: What competition?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What competition? If the member was not taking advantage of the competitive marketplace, that is his problem.

Mr. Peterson: What competition is the minister talking about?

Does he not agree it looks somewhat conspiratorial that they are all getting together at one point to jack up those prices? Does he not agree he has a responsibility to look into that in conjunction with his federal colleagues, with whom he is so close these days, to make sure the consumers of this province are not being ripped off, or is he standing in this House and defending this as the free working of the marketplace, something he approves of? What is his position on it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hate to trouble the member with the past, but there was a fellow who once wrote that he who forgets what has gone on in the past is doomed to repeat the mistake in the future. My friend wanted to read today's paper; he should read the papers for the past couple of years.

At present, there is a restrictive trade practices hearing on the very issue of oil pricing and oil petroleum practices. The issue is already before a body that is reviewing the pricing practices and the member knows it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering how the minister can be so indifferent to this matter that is going to have such an effect on the consumers of Ontario and the whole inflation spiral.

Is the minister aware that the profit of the integrated oil companies went up 29 per cent in the third quarter of this year compared to last year? For the last 12 months as a whole, compared to the previous 12 months, it has gone up to $1,171,000,000, an increase of 41 percent.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please.

Mr. Swart: Does that not cause the minister to think there should be some investigation and that he should be doing something to protect the consumers of this province, when he talks about keeping wages at five per cent?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) has just been given an excellent reason to reconsider the government's views on Suncor and I hope he was listening very carefully as we heard expounded here the massive profits being obtained in the oil industry. Perhaps he should tell our counterparts who are making statements on these issues to read those figures. Perhaps it is not such a bad thing as the gloom-and-doomsters have been telling us.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) knows full well, because we have discussed it on many occasions, the active interest this minister has had in making certain that matters relating to the pricing practices of oil companies have been brought to the attention of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.

Mr. Swart: It has never done a thing about prices.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the member would like to have duplication in the world. The member would like to have every municipality --

Mr. Martel: There is an 11-cent-a-gallon difference between leaded and unleaded gasoline.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections.

Mr. Peterson: The minister knows very well that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission hearing into this matter is reviewing practices of several years ago and is not looking at the situation today. That is the minister's responsibility.

Mindful of the minister's esteemed colleague's defence of Suncor from a policy point of view and using that interest to advance the policy interests of Ontario, will the minister, in conjunction with his colleagues, instruct Suncor not to raise its prices? Will he instruct the company to advance the interests of the consumers of Ontario by keeping its prices down and not joining this conspiracy to rip off the consumers of Ontario? Surely, if that is the minister's rationale for holding that piece of the oil company, he should exercise the great power he has now to protect people.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do this with great reticence, but I would again remind the Leader of the Opposition that it is always important to remember other days. He will recall, had he kept up with the records on these issues, that the federal trade practices commission is also looking at present and more recent price practices. If he wants the facts on that, he should look back at the memos and not just look at today's memo.

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am sure he will know that the Ontario New Home Warranty Program has established a policy, effective tomorrow, that builders must provide on every highly energy-efficient house, for a period of seven years, a bond or letter of credit or acceptable security of $20,000 per unit built. It is said there is some undefined, greater risk with those highly energy-efficient houses.

Does the minister not realize that will stop the building of these highly energy-efficient houses, just at a time when there is a greater need for them, when the minister's federal colleagues have put up the price of oil? Is this not contrary to all the principles of conserving energy? Will the minister step in and reverse this decision?

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I know the honourable member himself has been a great defender on occasion of the warranty program, and on occasion has attacked the program for some perceived deficiencies in it. I hope he will agree that the warranty program, which is an independent board given a statutory basis by this Legislature, a board of the Ontario Home Builders' Association with consumer representation on it, on its own authorized the director to take certain steps in the interest of consumers.

If the member took the time to read all of the memo as distributed, he would find it also said: "As for its views on energy conservation" -- and these are my views as well -- "the warranty program says, "We support innovation, experimentation, adaptation, monitoring and refining of any project, for without this kind of activity, little progress can be made.'"

What this says is they have some concern that if some problems arise in the future directly attributed to new techniques -- and we know some of the problems that have occurred in tightly sealed homes -- there be some provision whereby consumers down the road in the future may have some degree of protection.

More recently, the program has indicated it is prepared to entertain submissions on any other approaches that combine consumer protection, energy innovation and builders' fair business opportunities. It is not opposed to the concept. It is saying, "Let us be certain that if consumers down the road have any problem with these, they get a degree of protection." The member, who is always speaking in the consumers' interest, should be joining in that call.

Mr. Swart: I fail to understand the reasoning of the minister at all. In fact, he did not go onto quote the second sentence.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: It says, "Because these units are being promoted in substantial volume, because the risk of failure is higher and more uncertain than normal, it is our view that the consumer must have this additional protection." They are applying this additional security.

Is the minister aware that small builders in particular will be put out of business by this? Two companies have informed us of their concern. In fact, this decision is opposed by the Canadian Home Builders' Association.

Did the minister receive a letter from Elizabeth White of Allen, Drerup, White Ltd., located in Toronto and Ottawa, in which she said, "We must, like every other builder in the province, participate in the new home warranty program. We are financially unable to comply with this bulletin, nor will our clients be in a position to do so. The warranty-board bulletin may well force us to shut down our construction operation as soon as our current jobs are completed."

Is the minister willing to impose this kind of thing on the builders of this province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think we have to keep things in perspective and recall that the Ontario New Home Warranty Program is one that is operated by the Ontario Home Builders' Association. It is their board. They operate it and there is consumer representation on it.

All they are saying is, "We are entering into a new type of area. We agree we have to be entering this area. We do not want to be involved in anything that is perceived to be giving some disadvantages to smaller builders because that is not our intention." If the member listened to the response I gave originally, I said they have indicated they are prepared to entertain any submissions on other approaches to combine consumer protection, energy innovation and builders' fair business opportunities. That is their obligation.

If the large amounts of money from the federal government going into this project are justified, then surely the parties involved, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) and the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, have an opportunity and an obligation to address those concerns the protector of the consumer has in this province and welcome the opportunity they have been given to make submissions on other approaches.

I think that is dealing with the situation fairly, openly, honestly and in the interest of all parties. I am surprised the member is not taking the same position and agreeing with me.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not consider it to be a more reasonable approach to encourage better inspection procedures at the very beginning to avoid these problems rather than allow this bond to come forward? Would it not be a superior way of handling this since an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into detailed discussions about the kinds of concerns some would have because I happen to be, like the home warranty board, in favour of this kind of approach to the future, with its conservation needs. The honourable member knows the kinds of problems about which consumers have come to all of us in the past: about moisture and its problems, about air exchange and its problems, about the adequacy of fresh air for fires because they do not burn any other way and about the outlet for the exhaust from those fires.

All they are saying is that if new techniques are being tried, they appear to be satisfactory. I guess that is what they are saying, although it is not in the sheet. We are still at the beginning of this process. Do not consumers who are entering into this new type of home deserve some kind of assurance that if something develops as a result of these new techniques, there is something there to offer some degree of assistance to them?

The member and I have had discussions about other products that have been introduced in the past where that kind of pre-thinking about problems was not done. Instead of trying to raise these spectres of problems, which I am not trying to raise, the home warranty board is simply saying, "In case there are, let us be ready for them." I think that is positive stuff and I hope the member will support it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not have the news release from the Canadian Home Builders' Association in which it opposes this required security? Does he not realize the home warranty program has gone off on its own on this? As the minister responsible for consumer protection, will he intervene with the Ontario New Home Warranty Program and ask it to reverse this decision and levy no extra charge against builders of these energy-efficient homes?

Mr. Speaker: Just before the minister answers that question, will the honourable members resume their seats, and if they have pressing business, carry it on elsewhere.

Will the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) resume his seat, please.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get it on the record that the New Democratic Party is clearly opposed to the position being taken by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program and wants it immediately to do away with any consideration of offering protection to consumers down the line in these experimental homes. If that is what the member is saying, I am glad it is there on the record.

Again, I would remind the member that the final remark I made in answer to his initial question was that the program has already indicated it is prepared to entertain submissions on other approaches that combine consumer protection, energy innovation and builders' fair business opportunities. He should be supporting that, not the concept that they should just do away with all these things before he has a full and thorough understanding of the issue.

CLOSURE OF HOMES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to the deinstitutionalization program for the developmentally handicapped. May I ask the minister whether he remembers writing the following words to a number of members of the provincial parliament: "No facility will close until appropriate community alternatives are in place for those residents moving to the community and an appropriate alternative has been developed for those residents who continue to require an institutional setting."

10:30 a.m.

If he remembers those words, and I am sure he does, can he tell us why eight male residents who were living at the Pine Ridge centre for the developmentally handicapped in Aurora were moved when it closed on August 31, 1984, to a summer camp north of Metro called the Shadow Lake camp, which is run by the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding they were there temporarily. As a matter of fact, the Pine Ridge facility stayed open several weeks longer than was expected because of the placement of one or two people.

Mr. McClellan: Is the minister not aware -- in my understanding at least, and perhaps the minister can confirm this for us -- that the eight male residents are still living at the summer camp in November 1984? Is the minister aware the residents are living in a farm house on the summer camp which is rented out on the weekends as a money-raising venture by the MTAMR? On the weekends, the eight residents are moved to small winterized cabins on a corner of the property.

Since they have fairly severe developmental handicaps, they are not able to use the bunk beds and are sleeping on the floor in these makeshift summer camp cabins. Is that the appropriate alternative to institutional care that this government is touting in its five-year plan? What does the minister intend to do about this situation?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First, the minister will respond to this specific case on Monday. Second, I suspect it is a back-door approach by the member because of the MTAMR strike.

Mr. McClellan: It is not back door at all.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is front door, is it?

Mr. McClellan: It is front door.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Then why does the member not have the courage to say what he is fronting for?

I will reply to this question very specifically on Monday. If the member has the motive of trying to use it as a strike weapon because he understands something else may be done with the Shadow Lake camp, then why does he not stand up and say so?

Mr. McClellan: I am sorry. I should have said six of the eight residents are still at the Shadow Lake camp.

The minister has rightly identified a concern. He can try to ascribe cynical motives if he so wishes. These are six men with fairly severe developmental handicaps who require a fairly high level of attendant care. If my information is correct, this is a disgusting situation. They have been moved from a developmental centre that was closed in August to a summer camp. They were being cared for by staff at the MTAMR who are currently on strike.

Will the minister tell us, when he reports back to the House, if he does not have the information with him today, who is providing the attendant care for the six men who are living in this summer camp?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Shadow Lake facility is more than a summer camp. I said I would answer the question on Monday and on Monday the member will withdraw that "disgusting" remark.

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Chairman of Management Board and it concerns political activity by crown employees in Ontario.

It is now eight days since I sent to the enforcer of the Public Service Act a copy of the November 20 press release from the campaign of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman). The release indicated that John White and Harry Parrott, two gentlemen who would be considered to be crown employees, according to the letter of November 6 from J. J. Robinette, had joined the campaign.

Last Thursday the minister indicated he would take this matter under consideration and report back. I am wondering whether the Chairman of Management Board would care to give this House a report on what he intends to do about this political activity on the part of two crown employees.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have considered it. The honourable member said there were two letters in relation to exactly the same question that was raised earlier and accused me of tabling only one. It is true I tabled only one, but the second letter was not on the same subject as the first one. I have since tabled the second letter, or the first letter he referred to, in my estimates.

As I understand it, there is no obligation on the part of either Mr. White or Dr. Parrott to resign or take leave of absence because they are not part of schedule 2; as such they are not to indulge themselves in political activity during the hours in which they are serving the board or commission to which they are assigned.

Mr. Conway: Would the enforcer of the Public Service Act and the Manual of Administration not agree that both the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) and he himself as the minister responsible for the Public Service Act should agree that the standard in this matter, reluctantly set by the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) and Lou Parsons, taking into account the November 6 letter of J. J. Robinette, is at least a minimum for the conduct of crown employees in these matters?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Parsons chose to seek leave of absence under the circumstances. He is the campaign manager for the member for Muskoka -- a good candidate and a good campaign manager. In this other case, we have another good candidate and two good supporters. As I said earlier, they are not obliged either to seek leave of absence or resign, and apparently they are not going to do so. There is nothing, even in the letter from J. J. Robinette, that says they must do either, and the member had a copy of that the other day. I will have to leave that up to them.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree there is a blatant unfairness in a system whereby Mr. Parsons could, under the present act, work part-time in a very real political position, while an ordinary public servant can be sacked for even seeking the nomination of a political party? In this case, the one I gave the minister in estimates happened to be the Conservative Party.

Is there not a blatant unfairness in this? Why are you prepared to make necessary changes to see that injustice and unfairness in two rules is removed? It is a double standard.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member checks the record, he will find he said "why are you" when he meant to say "why are you not." He can check the record on that. The rules have been evenly applied. The members opposite seem to say from day to day there is something untoward going on here.

As I said to the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) the other day, I do not recall us over here raising the devil when his party was having a leadership campaign or when the other party over there was having one. We were not nitpicking every day. Do the members not have something more in the interest of the public to talk about than what they have been raising in the past couple of weeks?

10:40 a.m.

GUN CONTROL

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Attorney General concerning gun control. As the Attorney General is aware, clause 104(2)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada was enacted but has not yet been proclaimed and put into force. The unproclaimed section requires that a person who wishes to buy firearms must produce evidence of having completed a course in the safe handling and use of firearms or taken a test related to the safe handling and use of firearms.

Given the current public interest and concern regarding violence, particularly violence involving firearms, is the minister pressing the Attorney General of Canada to enact that section, which will give the provincial Attorney General some control over firearms in this province?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member was kind enough to send me over a copy of section 104 of the Criminal Code a few minutes ago. I have not had an opportunity of reviewing it. I simply cannot advise the member at this time why that section has not been proclaimed, but I will obtain that information for him and report back to the Legislature accordingly.

Mr. Philip: When the Attorney General is studying section 104, he will be interested in the part of it that authorizes provincial Attorneys General to require information from an individual who wishes to purchase firearms where there is concern that such an acquisition might result in a threat to public safety. There are certain standards he can use.

Will the Attorney General require individuals who wish to purchase firearms to certify they have neither a history of treatment for violent crimes or mental disorders nor a history of behaviour involving firearms and threats to the lives of others?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I applaud and endorse the member's concern about the seriousness of this situation and the many problems related to firearm acquisition and violence in the community. I will undertake a review of that section and report back, as I said a few moments ago.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, while the Attorney General is doing his review, will he look into the fact it is possible for an ordinary citizen in Ontario to purchase a shotgun with a folding stock? It is a type of shotgun Ontario Provincial Police officers carry in their cars. It has a purpose in having the folding stock, but I cannot see any reason a citizen would want a shotgun with a folding stock. It means, of course, it can be carried under a coat, or concealed, which is not possible with a hunting shotgun. It has no purpose as a hunting shotgun. Will the Attorney General look into that matter?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MORGENTALER TRIAL

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General regarding the Morgentaler trial and acquittal. The Attorney General is well aware it has been three weeks since that trial. He is also aware he has, I believe, about one week left to make an official decision.

Given the fact Dr. Morgentaler has indicated he will reopen his clinics, not only in Toronto but all across Canada as well, and given the fact I have sent to the Attorney General a list of 678 people who phoned my office in a four-day period requesting the acquittal be appealed, can the Attorney General advise me whether he plans an appeal of that acquittal or what other plans he has?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the decision will be made by the beginning of next week. It is my intention to advise the House of the decision to appeal or not to appeal either on Monday or Tuesday afternoon of next week. The decision has not yet been made.

The honourable member is aware of the complexities of this issue. He is particularly aware of the very deep-seated and understandably emotional controversy surrounding the whole very difficult issue of abortion. I want to advise him the decision to appeal or not to appeal will not be made on the basis of any personal views held by the Attorney General or any of his legal advisers on the very difficult issue of abortion.

I say that because, from what I have learned, most of those telephone calls were motivated by deep-seated concerns about the abortion issue. The decision that is made will be on the issue of law and not on the moral issues surrounding the whole difficult matter of abortion.

Mr. Sweeney: I want to assure the Attorney General I am well aware of the nature of the decision that is facing him and how difficult it is.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: I also want to make him aware more than 50 per cent of those calls, plus the majority of the 3,191 letters he received from my area just last Tuesday, were based almost exclusively on the legal issue. A very large segment of the people of this province is deeply offended by the fact the law was broken so openly and so admittedly. They want the Attorney General to take some action.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: Since the federal law has not changed -- it is my understanding Justice Minister Crosbie has made it very clear he has not changed it and does not intend to change it, at least in the immediate future -- and if Morgentaler reopens his clinic, as he says he will, does the Attorney General agree the law will have been broken again and Morgentaler should be charged again?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not going to speculate at this very difficult time about what might happen down the road in relation to the member's views about the breaking or not breaking of the law. As the member has recognized, I have a very difficult decision to make with respect to whether this verdict of this jury should be appealed. I am not going to have anything else to say at the moment about this matter, certainly not until I make my announcement to this House at the beginning of the week.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Can the minister confirm whether Great Lakes Forest Products has received upwards of $50 million by way of the employment development fund, jointly sponsored by the federal and provincial governments, for expansion in the Thunder Bay area at the same time as it is investing in a consortium with five other companies to invest $200 million in a new plant in the United States?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there is an answer to that, which either the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) or the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) should be making, not I. I will refer this to the Minister of Natural Resources as the minister more responsible.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is yes, there was EDF funding, which triggered a reinvestment in the Thunder Bay-Kenora area by Great Lakes Forest Products of some $500 million in modernization; and Great Lakes apparently has also made a decision to participate in an investment opportunity in the northwestern United States.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister of Natural Resources not think it would be appropriate, when we are assisting and offering incentives to Canadian companies such as Great Lakes Forest Products, to indicate that if they have funds over and above to invest they should be investing them to provide a broadening of the economic base in northern Ontario and thereby providing employment in that region, instead of investing any spare capital in the United States after having received EDF funding from this government and from the federal government?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: This goes back to a discussion we had in this House in 1980 with respect to the modernization program of the pulp and paper industry. If one goes back and looks at the records of the debates in the Legislature at that time, one will see both opposition parties are on record, at the very least, as having questioned the wisdom of that program. In fact, the third party opposed it.

We happen to believe that a $1.5-billion private sector reinvestment in Ontario to modernize our pulp and paper industry and to protect tens of thousands of jobs in northwestern Ontario and throughout this province was the right thing to do. We are proud that a $130-million federal-provincial grant program triggered that $1.5-billion modernization program. Without that kind of modernization, we would not be in the world-competitive position we are in today in northern Ontario and throughout this province in the pulp and paper industry.

Even the national president of the pulp and paperworkers' union agreed at the Abitibi opening in Iroquois Falls on August 30, 1983, that with hindsight it was the right decision to make and the modernization was needed to protect the jobs.

The opportunity in the northwestern United States related to the efforts of five newspaper chains in the United States to integrate into the paper production line. They needed a partner. They were going to do it anyway. I think it is entirely appropriate for Great Lakes Forest Products to seize that market source and to get involved in it to protect its long-term viability as a Canadian industry in the North American market.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on page M3 of this morning's edition of the Globe and Mail there is an article in which the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto says service programs are to be cut. Will the Minister of Community and Social Services comment on the article? Is he going to allow those service programs to be cut?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to allow the service programs to be cut. There is no reason for them to be cut. If those programs are cut in the children's aid budget next week, I will treat the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto exactly as I did the Royal Ottawa Hospital. My ministry will fund directly those alternative care programs, which are very necessary and very desirable, and I will remove the money from the children's aid society budget.

I am very much surprised I was not asked this question by the other side. It seems rather unusual that I am the only one taking the pro-labour stance this morning. The head of the union there is absolutely correct. I think he is quoted correctly. He says the administration is top-heavy. Therefore, why would it cut the service programs? Mr. Jones, the head of the union, is absolutely right and I want to associate myself with him on this matter.

Mr. McClellan: You should do it all the time.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member does it all the time?

Mr. Peterson: Do not get mad at us; get mad at him.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am not mad at anybody.

Mr. Speaker: I think the minister has answered the question put by the member for Lakeshore. Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Barr commented that "his agency has been cut to the bone, and the cutbacks will cost Ontario taxpayers far more in the long run because children denied care will be more disturbed when they finally do come into the system and be more expensive to treat." Does the minister agree with that statement?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I do not. On October 30, 1984, we wrote to the society, drawing its attention to the fact we were deeply disturbed about some of the reports that it was talking about cutting service programs when it had been advised by us, as long ago as November 29, 1983, the necessary cuts and adjustments could be made in the administrative and support areas and not in service programs.

The other point that disturbs me quite a bit is the idea that the number of children in care has increased so dramatically that while the ministry was justified in its earlier adjustments it may not be today. There are 238 front-line case workers at the Metro Toronto CAS. In December 1982, there were 1,674 children in the care of the CAS. In October 1984, there were 1,698 children, an increase of 24. That works out to a work load increase of about a 10th of a child per support worker. I could go on.

Such preventive programs as the alternative care programs are working very well. I am deeply surprised that an organization and its executive director would hold a public forum, as they did last night, which would excite and alarm parents -- many of the people quoted here are parents -- and front-line social workers, who are doing an outstanding job in this regard, and say they are doing it under the guise of sending "a message to Queen's Park," as is stated in the last lines in the article. They sent a message to the wrong guy. They are getting a message back; they got it earlier this morning.

COMMERCIAL FISHING QUOTAS

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources about fishing quotas for the fishermen on Lake Erie. When he began to implement the quotas, the minister indicated he would not be putting anyone in the fishing industry out of business. At a meeting in Port Dover on November 14, there was an indication the minister would review the quotas and give the fishermen larger quotas so they could survive. Has he been able to do that? Will he report it to the House?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the meeting I had in Port Dover with the fishermen was the fourth I have attended in the past 12 months.

Mr. Elston: Did you give them the same story each time?

Hon. Mr. Pope: My friend should go there and show he is interested in the issue. They would appreciate it.

Mr. Kerrio: Who was it that caused the problem?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Who caused the problem? If my friend does not understand our international commitments on the Great Lakes in terms of the total harvest of fishery resources, then he should talk to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), who does. We have international obligations that limit harvesting. It is our obligation to allocate that harvest among all the user groups.

On a lake-wide basis, we have given more quota of every species to the commercial fishermen of Lake Erie than they have ever fished. Therefore, it is not fair to say the assigning of quotas has caused economic problems for individual fishermen.

Of course, the allocation among basins and individual fishermen is subject to review. That is an issue the fishermen themselves have been unable to agree upon for the past seven or eight years. It is one we are willing to work on with them. It is up to them to have a consensus among their members on an alternative system.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I do not believe the minister answered the question I asked. I asked whether he has had a chance to review the quotas. I inferred from the meeting on November 14 that the minister would do that. I ask him, has he done that?

I requested a copy of the quotas across the lake as far back as July 1984. The indication of the ministry was it would provide that information. I have not received it. Will the minister provide the list of quotas and the boundaries that have been given to each quota under that system to me and other members of this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I tabled that information in this Legislature more than three weeks ago; it is now part of the legislative record. I will get the information to the honourable member again and make sure it is available. It is contained in the federal regulation that was gazetted three weeks ago when the federal government implemented the provincial quota system.

LEGAL FEES

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations tell us his view of the proposal of the Law Society of Upper Canada to investigate and possibly discipline those lawyers who dare to charge less than the suggested fee schedule, which is essentially a guideline set by law associations in each county and district? Would he support or oppose that?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, the Law Society of Upper Canada operates under a separate statute. Any questions should be directed to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) when he is in the House.

11 a.m.

Mr. Samis: Since the minister does represent consumers in the cabinet and since the lawyers are under provincial jurisdiction, does he not agree that the law profession should be moving towards greater competition, not price-fixing? They should also be allowing their members to advertise their wares and services, not restricting them.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not going to get involved in a matter that involves an autonomous, self-regulating body.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, who is either a present or past member of that august body, the Law Society of Upper Canada, and who is paid rather well to protect the consumers of this province, whether he is telling us all he has no view, as the minister responsible for consumer protection, about plans of the law society, in whatever form, to fix prices in such a way as to hurt the millions of legal consumers in this province.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if the member is making a comment or suggestion or accusation of price-fixing, I think he knows the mechanisms are in place to deal with any fixing of prices.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Now that the policy on oil price increases that his federal cousins are putting into place is going to affect gasoline prices and will probably put them over 50 cents a litre, does the minister recall the policy his government enunciated in the 1979 document Energy Security for the Eighties? It stated, and I quote, "The Toronto refinery-gate crude oil price should always be below the average US crude oil price at Chicago."

In view of the fact that the Chicago refineries might be paying $2.50 less for Canadian crude than the same crude delivered to Toronto, I wonder whether the minister's silence might indicate that his Tory connection, Ottawa-Alberta-Ontario, is going to cause him not to respond to protect the consumers in this province.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. It is important that he realize the prices in Chicago, however he calculates them, are related to the quality of the crude that is being purchased. The price he has may not necessarily relate to crude delivered into Toronto. It is very important that we separate those two issues.

The member is correct in saying that statement was made in 1979 in the document Energy Security for the Eighties. Given the situation and the conditions we are facing in terms of energy supply in the world today, we want to be reasonable and flexible in the policies that are put in place. He should also appreciate that the government of Canada, in order to stem a deficit in the petroleum compensation charge fund, had to move the price to a level comparable to that Chicago reference price the member is referring to.

Mr. Kerrio: One would think we could take as gospel the address by the Premier (Mr. Davis) wherein he made comments on how this was going to affect the province, but he now seems to be rather quiet as well.

More specifically, does the minister recall the statements of the Premier calling for the removal of the Canadian ownership charge of 0.8 cents per litre of gasoline and 15 cents per thousand cubic feet of natural gas when the purpose of this tax has been fulfilled? Since its removal would be a major step in making gas more economical, can the minister tell us why he is not very vocal about the removal of this tax that was put in place to do a specific thing? It has been done, but the tax is still there and I wonder when the minister will say something about it. Will he say something about it?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member should read his question again and realize the Canadian ownership charge is about two cents per litre, not 20 cents per litre as he suggested.

Mr. Kerrio: I did not say "20 cents."

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I believe, if the member will check the record, that he did.

I want it to be clear that the Canadian ownership charge has succeeded in funding the purchase of Petrofina, for which it was put in place. We will be urging our federal colleagues to remove that charge now, as they continue to address the whole energy pricing issue in their discussions with the producing provinces and with the other provinces that would benefit from the removal of that charge.

PETITION

AIR POLLUTION

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) which reads:

"We, the residents of Woodhouse Acres in Port Dover, are petitioning the minister about foul odours that are created by the sewage plant nearby. We feel the odour is harmful to human and animal health as well as infringing on our freedom to sit, walk or play outside during the time when the smell is bad.

"We know something can be done immediately to rectify this problem."

It is signed by 100 residents of Woodhouse Acres in Port Dover in the city of Nanticoke.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Industry and Trade be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $10,594,500; industry program, $13,463,100; trade program, $21,982,700; Ontario development corporations program, $26,220,500; innovation and technology program, $5,566,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr35, An Act to revive Bargnesi Mines Limited.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with a certain amendment:

Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Kells from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Villeneuve and Mr. Rotenberg exchange positions in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 65(g) respecting the publication of notice of an application for private legislation, a private bill respecting the city of St. Catharines may be introduced and given first reading and the bill may be considered by the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments upon the applicant filing proof with the Clerk of the Assembly that notices have been published at least two times in the Ontario Gazette and in a newspaper having general circulation in the city of St. Catharines. And that standing order 72(a) respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for consideration of the bill by the said committee on Thursday, December 6, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REDISTRIBUTION

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Brandt. resolution 12, that the order of the House of Thursday, June 16, 1983, authorizing and prescribing the terms of reference of the Commission to Redistribute the Ontario Electoral Districts be amended by striking out the words "if within a period of 15 days after the report is laid before the assembly" in the 10th paragraph thereof and substituting the following therefor "if within the first eight sitting days of the 1985 session of the Legislative Assembly" so that the paragraph will read as follows:

That, if within the first eight sitting days of the 1985 session of the Legislative Assembly, an objection in writing signed by not fewer than 10 members of the assembly, in the form of a motion for consideration by the assembly, is filed with the Clerk of the House, specifying the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection, the assembly shall, within the next 15 sitting days, or such additional number of days as the assembly may order, take up the motion and consider the matter of the objection; and thereafter, the report shall be referred back to the commission by the Speaker, together with a copy of the objection and of the debates of the assembly with respect thereto for consideration by the commission, having regard to the objection; within 30 days after the day the report of the commission is referred back to it, the commission shall consider the matter of the objection and shall dispose of such objection and forthwith upon the disposition thereof a certified copy of the report of the commission, with or without amendment, shall be returned by the commission to the Speaker.

11:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this motion sets in place the procedures in our original motion of June 16 concerning redistribution. It sets in place the events that will now happen following the tabling of the revised report of the redistribution commission by you. It sets in place those events that will now happen following the tabling by you of the revised report of the redistribution commission. It sets those events in place at the beginning of the 1985 session of the Legislature, rather than at present.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I think we are going to have a request to revert to introduction of bills because the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) missed his opportunity. Do we have unanimous consent to revert?

Agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT

Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before we resume the orders of the day, I would like to indicate the business for next week.

On Monday afternoon, December 3, we will continue with committee of the whole on Bill 101.

On Tuesday afternoon, December 4, if consideration of Bill 101 is not completed, we will continue that in committee of the whole, to be followed by second reading of Bill 145. It has been agreed that all voting will be stacked until or scheduled for 10:15 p.m. on Tuesday, December 4. On Tuesday evening we will also do second readings of Bills 17, 149 and 109. Any divisions left over from Tuesday, Monday or Friday will be stacked until 10:15 p.m. on Tuesday evening, December 4.

On Wednesday, December 5, the usual three committees have permission to meet in the morning.

On Thursday afternoon, December 6, there will be private members' ballot items in the names of the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) and the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie). On Thursday evening we will do committee of the whole on Bill 119 and any other bills that may still not have been completed or those that will be indicated some time before Thursday evening.

On Friday, December 7, we will consider any legislation that we have indicated will be considered that has not been completed. Then we will move to committee of the whole on Bill 141.

House in committee of the whole.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

On section 3:

The Deputy Chairman: To carry on from where we were at our last meeting, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) had moved an amendment to subsection 3(7). Is there any further consideration of this amendment?

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, as members of the House will recall, after lengthy debate we moved to subsection 3(7) of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act. So that the House realizes what we are talking about, the minister has moved an amendment which states:

"Where an injury is attributable solely to the serious and wilful misconduct of the worker, no benefits or compensation are payable unless the injury results in death or serious disability."

A similar debate took place during the lengthy committee hearings, in which many members participated. It was decided during those hearings that such a subsection was unnecessary and it was removed from the bill. It was decided at that time -- for very rational reasons, in my view -- that such a subsection would make things very difficult for many workers who, through no fault of their own, were injured; that people who were innocent of any horseplay or people who were seriously doing their work could be affected and therefore penalized.

I mentioned to the House last week that a person could suffer an injury that at the time might not be deemed serious but that, especially if the worker is required to do repetitious work -- lifting, moving in one direction or another or using one arm, wrist or elbow more than the other -- might in the future cause a serious disability, jeopardize the worker's opportunity to receive any type of permanent pension and, in fact, after a good number of years, if the injury were serious enough, cause the worker to lose his or her job without receiving any benefits from the board and without being able to make a living for his or her family.

We heard a short reply from the minister. He informed us that his legal advisers in the ministry or the board informed him that we needed this subsection to help the injured workers in such instances. He told me of his great confidence in his advisers and how qualified they are, etc. The House will recall that I mentioned that the poor Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) also had great confidence in his legal advisers from the Ministry of the Attorney General over the fishing-industry dispute. They went to court seven times and the ministry's lawyers lost on each occasion.

We cannot accept the amendment. The minister may have well-schooled legal advisers, but we cannot accept the amendment simply because the minister has confidence in these people. We will not support the amendment, because we feel it will put injured workers in a position of disadvantage. Innocent people will be harmed if we support this amendment. There is, in my view, no definition that would adequately describe serious disability.

That is one of the major problems. The other problem is --

Interjection.

Mr. Mancini: My colleague tells me the other problem is all the noise under the gallery, but we will just ignore it.

The other problem is the fact that even if the worker, using these definitions, has not suffered a serious disability, even if he or she is required to be off work for only two or three weeks, why should that worker be penalized? No one, in my view, can justify subjecting a worker who suffered an accident just by being an innocent bystander, without taking part in any serious or wilful misconduct, to any type of scrutiny whatsoever other than being paid for his or her time lost at work.

11:20 a.m.

I will end my comments there. I know the minister and the government have a majority. If they are committed to moving forward to this amendment, our options on this side of the House are limited. But our feelings are strong on this particular issue, and we wish to have them on record. We want to caution the minister and advise him to look at this again before the government uses its majority to pass such an amendment.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I am filling in for my colleague the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), who is ill today.

I do not want to prolong this debate, but I want to express some real concerns to the minister about this section. Even if his legal advice is correct and this does not pose any kind of entitlement risk to injured workers, there is a second problem, and I am not sure the minister has thought of it. It is something that leaps off the page at me when my office is still doing literally hundreds of compensation cases a year.

I have a concern that this section will be used as an excuse for litigation against injured workers by employers. We are starting to see the development of specialized legal practices, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto but in other communities as well, where lawyers are specializing in workers' compensation litigation and are selling their services to employers and employer groups.

This, of course, is the right of the employer. But I hope the minister understands what a tremendous difficulty this kind of employer-sponsored litigation represents for the injured worker, particularly an injured worker who has been awarded an entitlement and then has the prospect of having to prepare to defend an award that has been granted; or, even worse, where the entitlement has not been granted and the employer is using this kind of clause as a way of preventing the entitlement from being awarded in order to preserve his compensation rating for assessment purposes.

We still have an adversarial system. There are still strong incentives for employers to go before the appeals process and try to obtain disentitlement decisions from the tribunal. As long as that is the case, the ministry has to be very sensitive to the kind of tremendous threat this poses to injured workers even if they are able to defend themselves successfully. It is a tremendous psychological torment for injured workers to get themselves enmeshed in the Workers' Compensation Board's appeal process. Anything that makes this more likely is the cause of enormous concern to me.

I hope the minister will try to address himself to that concern as well as to the more-narrow legal explanation for the inclusion of this section. I really do not think it is a very good idea.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) suggested that I look at this again. I did just that since we were in this House discussing this matter before, and I would like to indicate my answer.

As honourable members know, the Workers' Compensation Act provides compensation only for injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment. This is clearly specified in subsection 3(1) of the act. Subsection 3(7) of the act was established to cover that small number of cases in which a worker is deliberately breaching some order or rule enforced by the employer and the worker becomes injured.

Under subsection 3(7), any permanent or fatal injury to a worker who is found as a result of an accident investigation to be guilty of wilful misconduct is compensable without regard to his or her conduct. Similarly, any temporary disability of six weeks or more is compensated regardless of any serious or wilful misconduct.

This period of temporary disability need not be consecutive for the worker to be compensated. This point was raised last week. There was some thought that he might be off for three or four weeks, then back on the job and then off again because of that injury. This covers that situation.

In the last meeting of this House in committee of the whole, the members for Dovercourt, Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and Essex South raised several questions about the proposed amendment reinstating subsection 3(4), now renumbered as subsection 3(7). I would like to address two of their comments in particular.

First, will a worker who is injured because of another's serious and wilful misconduct be eligible for compensation? Subsection 3(7), as amended, refers only to misconduct of the injured worker himself or herself, which results in injury to himself or herself. This subsection does not prevent another worker injured as the result of misconduct by a fellow worker from receiving full compensation, regardless of the extent of the injury sustained.

Second, why should the serious and wilful misconduct of a worker be considered in a no-fault insurance scheme? Subsection 3(7) is not inconsistent with the no-fault character of workers' compensation. Indeed, it is intended to make sure that even if a worker acts contrary to the rules and orders of his or her employer, compensation cannot be denied if serious or fatal injury results. This is significantly more generous than the practice of the courts, which is to reduce damages recoverable by any injured person whose conduct contributed to the injuries he or she suffered.

In summary, I can only reiterate my previous assurance to this committee that the amendment before us is to the advantage of the injured workers. Its purpose is to strengthen their entitlement to workers' compensation benefits and not to reduce it.

Mr. Mancini: The minister may be able to help me. What section of the act exempts the corporate board of directors from being sued or otherwise charged for the occupational injuries?

Mr. McClellan: Sections 5 and 6, I think.

Mr. Mancini: The point I am making is, do we not exempt corporate executives or the people on boards of directors from being sued if a worker has been injured, even though it can be proved that the job site has been wilfully neglected and people have suffered injuries because of that wilful neglect? Am I correct in saying that?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, that is covered in section 5 of the bill.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Mancini: I humbly submit that if it is fair for corporate executives and for people on the board of directors to be excluded from any type of civil action because of any wilful neglect of a corporation that has caused injury to a worker, then I believe it is eminently fair to have the same set of standards apply to the workers.

We are opening up a situation here that, in my view, is going to lead to many difficulties and constant appeals at the Workers' Compensation Board. The minister, in his two and a half or three years as minister, has learned a great deal more than he already knew about the workplace, about the things that happen in the work place and about the circumstances surrounding the atmosphere in the work place.

I am sure he can point out at least a dozen situations -- I can point out a couple myself -- in which for some reason or other the work place has been wilfully neglected, very serious injury has therefore occurred and the worker involved has had no recourse whatsoever other than to take whatever benefits he is allowed under the Workers' Compensation Act.

I have to repeat that if it is good enough for the executive side, it should be good enough for people on the employee side.

I understand the minister is stressing this will be a benefit to workers. I cannot in any logical way come to that conclusion myself, but I understand the minister's strong feelings. It is not that I believe the minister is dishonest; absolutely not. We have found him to be most honest and most forthright. It is his opinion we disagree with and it is his conclusion we disagree with, not the fact he is forthright or honest or wants to do the right thing; that has nothing to do with our position.

I also want to say to the minister that if a worker on a job site contravenes some of the rules or regulations that are put in force by the company, the company or the employer has the right to fire that individual worker. That individual worker, who may cause injury, death or serious disability to himself or to others, may and probably will be penalized by the employer.

Here we are going to have a system in which there is a double penalty. There will be a penalty from the employer and then there will be a penalty from the Workers' Compensation Board.

We just cannot accept this particular amendment. We cannot come to the same conclusion the minister has come to. We deeply regret that this amendment, after having been taken out in the committee, is now being put back in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I appreciate the honourable member's kind comments. It looks as though we are going to have to agree to disagree. My advice and my own instincts tell me I am working in the best interests of the injured workers. The member opposite feels this is not the case; so I do not think I can add anything more to the debate.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to follow the comments of my colleague the member for Essex South and agree with the views he has expressed.

I find it rather difficult in the minister's proposed amendment to section 3 of the act that where an injury is attributable solely to serious and wilful misconduct by the worker, no benefits or compensation are payable unless the injury results in death or serious disability.

That particular amendment says that in the case of death or serious disability we will allow the claim to stand if it can be proven. Then the explanatory note to section 5 says, "The exemption from civil liability that now applies to employers and employees is extended to the executive officers of employers with respect to industrial accidents."

I want to take a look at that very closely. I think the minister and the legislative counsel staff are aware that section 15, I believe it is, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is coming into effect in 1985, says one will have equality before the law now and after. I suggest having those different viewpoints expressed in those two sections of the act will no doubt cause some misunderstanding of the intent of the legislation.

In one section we want to penalize an individual employee because of wilful misconduct; yet we could have the same thing under section 5 in relation to a supervisor or a foreman employed in a company, who, looking at it from the civil action point of view, could be guilty of wilful misconduct. He may tell a person to go into an area where he knows full well there is more of a hazard than ever before. The employee could go in there and become injured, and yet that person has no recourse.

Sure, he would be compensated for it, but I look at the compensation that is being applied under this act and the compensation that is applied, for example, in civil liability courts, particularly in automobile accidents. I can think of one in the Niagara Peninsula recently where a person was injured in an automobile accident -- a vertebra, I guess it was -- and he was awarded somewhere around $436,000.

I question in this part whether we are stepping on the rights of an individual by having those two sections there. In my opinion, and as the member for Essex South has put forward, it is an injustice to have both in the bill. Either we remove both or we put both on the same track. In other words, if there is wilful misconduct on behalf of the supervisor, the foreman or somebody working for the industry in that capacity, then it should apply there too; if not, then we should remove the section the government intends to put in now, because to me it is going to be hard even to interpret that section.

There may be a permanent disability. It could be a five per cent award, a 30 per cent award or, in the case of death, full benefits to the surviving spouse. Under the act it is not going to be that much anyway, but I question whether we may be stepping on the Charter of Rights in these two sections.

The Deputy Chairman: Are we ready to vote on this amendment by Mr. Ramsay?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

11:40 a.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there anything else on section 3, or shall section 3 carry, barring that amendment? Shall we vote on that and deal with the amendment later? We will leave section 3 with the amendment and move to section 5.

Mr. Martel: Section 3 is followed by section 4.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ramsay moves that subsections 5(1) and 5(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) Subsection 8(1) of the said act is amended by inserting, after 'employer' in the fourth line, 'or an executive officer or director thereof.'"

"(2) Subsection 8(9) of the said act is amended by inserting, after 'schedule 1' in the fourth line, 'or any executive officer or any director."'

He further moves that subsections 8(11) and (12) of the act, as set out in subsection 5(3) of the bill, be amended by inserting, after "executive officer" wherever that expression occurs, "or director."

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I believe we dealt in a very cursory fashion with the minister's amendments while we were discussing his amendment to section 3. What we have here is the minister ensuring through legislation that no civil legal action will be contemplated or undertaken against an employer, executive officer or director of a company.

We are ensuring they will be free of litigation, even though wilful misconduct or negligence could be proven in court. We are assuring the executives of corporations big and small they will be safe, protected and free from any action whatever, even though they may have been wilfully negligent in ensuring the work site is safe.

The New Democratic Party is going to move this section be deleted. We are going to support the deletion of this section, principally because of what the minister has done in section 3. It has to be a two-way street; it has to be fair for both sides. In my constituency, I have seen people suffer severe injury from which they will never recover. The facts have been made available, and it is quite clear there was negligence on the part of certain employers I will not name. Thus it would be impossible for me to vote in favour of this section. I am left with no alternative but to support the motion that will be put forward by the NDP that this section be deleted.

I want to make it clear, and I want the record to show, that I am not interested in mounting an attack on corporate executives. They have grave responsibilities and their time is consumed with many items. They leave the responsibility of ensuring the work site is safe to their managers, supervisors and foremen. I understand that.

Corporate executives may not have had a direct hand in the negligence that has taken place, but because of their responsibilities and the positions they hold, they find themselves in a similar position to that of the minister, who through ministerial accountability is responsible for all actions taken by the employees who work in his ministry.

We are creating one set of standards for the employer and a second set of standards for the employees. We are not interested in mounting an attack, fairly or unfairly, on the executive directors of these corporations, but we want them to understand that what is good for them is also good for the employees. While they may not have had a hand in ensuring the work place was negligently left unsafe, the employee is in exactly the same situation; the employee had no hand whatsoever in suffering a disability that could be described under subsection 3(7) of the bill.

With those few comments, I believe I have put my party's position forward and I will wait to hear from my colleagues.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, we too have some serious concerns about what the minister is trying to do here. In essence, what the government is trying to do is remove the right of employees to take action against the officers of a company who may have been negligent with respect to maintaining a safe work place.

This amendment comes forward because of a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1983, the case Beryl Bernice Berger v. Willowdale AMC et al (1983). The Court of Appeal and the learned judge found an employee did have a right of action under the Workers' Compensation Act against executive officers of a corporation.

I want to read a couple of sections from that learned judge's decision for the record. A section of that decision is in our dissent in the report of the standing committee on resources development, on page 139. The minister is probably familiar with the section, but I want to remind him of what the judge said, because the judge made a very important point.

The judge was talking about the right of an employee to take action against the officers of a corporation, and he said,

"Undoubtedly, the legislators thought that such a provision would encourage executive officers to consider the safety of their employees and to avoid the creation or maintenance of dangerous situations. The court should be reluctant to interfere with such a legislative policy."

The judge went on to state:

"The liability of an executive officer of a corporation will, of course, be dependent upon the facts of the individual case. The factors in determining liability will include the size of the company, particularly the number of employees and the nature of the business; whether or not the danger or risk was or should have been readily apparent to the executive officer; the length of time the dangerous situation was or should have been apparent to the executive officer; whether that officer had the authority and ability to control the situation; and whether he had ready access to the means to rectify the danger."

That is from page 19 of the Berger decision.

11:50 a.m.

In the view of our party, the right of action established in the Berger case should not be removed, for the reasons set out by the judge. That right should not be removed by the minister, because it provides a valuable added protection for employees. That protection should not be removed.

We do not think it contradicts the spirit of the Workers' Compensation Act, but it does make it clear officers of corporations who are negligent with respect to work place hazards do so at their peril. I think that is essential if we are ultimately going to get serious about work place safety and about health and safety in this province.

Keeping in mind the very stringent criteria the judge listed before liability could be found, if we simply give a blanket exemption to all executive officers and say not to mind whether they knew about the risk, whether they tolerated the risk over a long period and whether they had the means at their disposal to deal with the hazardous situation, our Workers' Compensation Act will continue to be a cheap form of insurance for employers and a means to escape from liability for negligent health and safety practices.

That is the meaning of the amendment that is being proposed by the minister; there is no other way to put it. He is letting them off the hook. He is saying, "You support workers' compensation legislation, and the tradeoff is an escape from liability for your own negligence with respect to maintaining health and safety in the work place."

The minister is making a terrible mistake. The Court of Appeal exercised a great deal of wisdom in the Beryl Berger decision in 1983. The wisdom of that decision should be placed in the legislation that is before us and should not be removed, as the minister is attempting to do this morning.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to make some reference to the report Reshaping Workers' Compensation for Ontario, by Paul C. Weiler. He talks about this matter on page 136. I cannot understand why the minister would put this legislation before us, because Mr. Weiler was not conclusive in his findings; rather, he felt we should be moving to relieve employers of some of their responsibility in this area. Mr. Weiler says:

"The employer community was unanimous in the view expressed to me that it would be a step backwards to enlarge the role of tort action in handling occupational injuries in this province. In principle I agree with them. But if the current statutory line is to be held, there must be the type of comprehensive renovation of the benefit structure which I have developed in this report. It is fair to say that Ontario employers also recognize and accept this fact of life....

"Even if one does not favour the tort action as a significant source of compensation for the injured worker, one might be induced to use it as a vehicle for penalizing an individual employer for accidents caused by egregiously unsafe practices. I heard some strong sentiments in favour of changing the Workers' Compensation Act to permit tort litigation against the employer over and above compensation benefits in those cases where the employer's conduct was grossly negligent.

"On the surface, it is tempting to use the tort action as an instrument to deter flagrantly unsafe behaviour. On the other hand, many critics of tort law are dubious about whether the prospect of a civil damage award is a meaningful threat to corporate employers, especially in an area of widespread liability insurance.

"My point in raising the issue is not to commit myself to a firm recommendation right now. This will require a thorough analysis of the comparative worth of tort litigation (and the damage award), occupational safety regulation...and workers' compensation itself...as instruments for prodding business towards greater efforts in reducing the injury toll in Ontario work places.

"Before starting back down the path of tort litigation, might it not be wise to explore the option of more extensive use of the assessment lever of the Workers' Compensation Board? Rather than rest content with surcharges and refunds which vary with a firm's accident experience (whether measured in terms of frequency or aggregate cost), would it not make sense to vary the pension in terms of the hazardousness of the plant and the riskiness of the operation...?"

He went on to say, "This is one of the important issues in the future of workers' compensation to which I shall return in the next phase of my inquiry."

In his report, he mentioned he did not think the government should be moving to introduce an amendment to relieve the employer, the executive officers and directors of any responsibility in case of an accident. He said they do have some responsibility in this area. Under section 3 of the act, we are going to penalize an employee for wilful misconduct; we could have the same thing here, but instead the minister wants to relieve the directors or supervisors of responsibility in this area.

I do not know the end results of Mr. Weiler's report in this area, but I do not think it was meant to go this far.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend the minister that there is something wrong in what he is trying to do. I ask the minister to hark back to the Lucie Dunn case, at which time I rose in my place and asked the minister whether he would waive this and allow Lucie Dunn to sue, because Bendix was attempting to appeal a decision that had been rendered by the board. Bendix waited until the final hour before it threatened to launch an appeal against the decision. Had she lost the hearing, it would have put Lucie Dunn in the position of not having any recourse to sue.

What the minister is doing is putting injured workers in the position of not being able to sue because the time limit has expired, as in the Lucie Dunn case. She would have had no recourse except to try to beat them with the Workers' Compensation Board itself. That was the last level of appeal. It would have taken a battery of Philadelphia lawyers to take on Bendix. The minister intervened at that time and said, and the board agreed, that Lucie could pursue her suit provided she repaid to the board any moneys she might win in a settlement. It was the only way she could protect herself.

I spoke at great length only once on this bill, on its introduction when we first came back. I spoke about toxic substances and what they do to people and about the fact we cannot get decisions because there is no agreement in the medical profession. I remind the minister of the sintering plant at Inco. I am not saying Inco knew that was hazardous, but let us just speculate for a moment. If it did, had we not had a whole barrage of deaths -- more than 100 now -- we would never have been able to get benefits for those workers or their wives.

12 noon

This part of the bill at least acts as a deterrent to some corporate magnate simply ignoring his responsibility because people are not going to find out or agree, and if they do they cannot sue anyway.

The inevitable day is coming when more claims will be from industrial disease than from accidents. Certainly that is being predicted. Yet only one out of 30 cancer cases is actually being recognized by the board. I am told by the medical profession that figure is way out of whack and I think even Weiler indicated that figure was way under. One of the very things that could serve as a deterrent against some corporation allowing that to continue is the threat that it could find itself before the courts. What does the government do? It makes it easier. We have no way of adjudicating many of those cases. Single incident cancer cases in a plant invariably go against the employee.

It seems to me one of the deterrents is to keep this section in the act. It says to the employer, "If you knew the worker was at risk and if you did not take the precautions necessary to protect that worker, then you are going to be held liable, personally if need be." The minister is removing that requirement which the employer or the owner might be faced with. If the onus can fall on him, he is not going to be as willing to ignore the conditions in a work place.

Removing his liability gives him a free hand. I am not saying all employers are like that. I am not saying that for a moment. But it serves as a deterrent if the potential is there for an employer to find himself before the courts if he chooses to ignore conditions he knows are dangerous, conditions he could have remedied or rectified and chose not to. When people play around with people's lives in that fashion, they have a responsibility and they should face that possibility.

I hear a lot about capital punishment these days for madmen who run around and kill policemen. Then I look at some statistics about dead miners. If one thinks police work is dangerous, one should take a look at the lineup of the bodies of dead miners. I do not want to name the company because it is only speculation or conjecture that there might have been some problems where a number of miners were killed this past year in Ontario, but there are some very serious charges and the minister has seen those allegations in a report that was prepared.

I do not yet know whether they are right or wrong. Someone is looking into the matter. If the allegations that have been made are correct in the material that was prepared based on the investigation that was done, it will call into question this whole matter. Did management knowingly and willingly allow people to work in conditions that ultimately led to the death of a number of workers?

We have to have a deterrent in an act that says, "By God, you have a responsibility and you cannot escape it by getting the minister and the Workers' Compensation Board to withdraw that." Surely, in the final analysis, there has to be a means whereby those people are held accountable. In our opinion, as we currently see what is being done, there will be no accountability in the final analysis.

I ask the minister to look at Lucie Dunn's case before he acts. He should look at the report he received some weeks ago and the serious charges there. He should look at the litany of people dying from cancer where we cannot prove, one way or the other, whether or not it is from the environment they work in, because there is no agreement in the medical fraternity itself. In the final analysis, there should be something that says to the employers or the corporate owners they will be held responsible under the law if it is found they are negligent and did not protect those people as best they could,.

My friends opposite really must not move in this direction. I listen to Tories until I am blue in the face and almost every one is a capital punishment man. There have been more bills moved on capital punishment by Tories in Ottawa in the last couple of weeks than one can shake a stick at. What about if somebody is responsible for the deaths of employees? Should they be held as accountable? This government does not want them held accountable at all. Those beggars want them to go scot-free.

They should read the litany of the people I represent and see how many have died in the mines in the last 20 years. The minister had better take a look at those statistics, because I suspect there have been more miners killed in the last 20 years than there have been policemen killed in the last 100 years. They are expendable, though. I guess they are dumb miners who produce the wealth of this country. The government does not want anyone to be held accountable or responsible for their deaths.

It is only as the decision says. We are not saying, "Go out there and look at people in industry and line them up." We are not suggesting that sort of thing at all. We are saying what the judge has indicated. I do not think I need to read it again. My colleague read it into the record. The courts laid out what they thought.

The Minister of Labour really cannot move to take away that responsibility for those people who are responsible for workers' lives and safety. I ask the minister to reconsider. Based just on the things I have said, he might want to look back at a whole series of other cases involving occupational health.

He might want to look at Wilco where the board finally found that beggar over there had 22 people, three of them with nerve damage.

Mr. Haggerty: What about Manville?

Mr. Martel: We could deal with Manville. I started out with Lucie Dunn and Bendix. What about the Manville people? Should they get off scot-free? How many years have we known about asbestos causing mesothelioma? We knew about cancer from uranium in Poland or the Ukraine in 1919.

Doctors, people involved in the occupational health centre in Toronto, tell me today that many of the things we are dealing with have been known for 40 years and we have not moved to improve them. It would appear that what the board wants or the government of Ontario wants -- I am sure they can be separated -- is a mandate to clear all those beggars if they are doing it in an irresponsible fashion when they had the knowledge to prevent it.

12:10 p.m.

The minister does not want that on his head. This means only those birds who choose to ignore improving conditions for workers will be those who will be held accountable by the act.

The workers of Manville in the United States will be able to sue, but not those here. Why are we not prepared to give employees that same protection? In fact, I am told that Manville is settling out of court just so it does not have to go through the courts. But the minister wants to remove that responsibility from the corporate sector, and I am suggesting to the minister it is only those who will be negligent, who will be totally careless about workers' safety and health who will be called forward.

I would ask the minister to reconsider seriously what he is doing before he tries to move that amendment.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few comments. As members of the standing committee on resources development are aware, and these are the members who studied this matter very carefully during the committee stage, I undertook to give further consideration to the protection of corporate officials against personal liability and civil lawsuits brought by injured workers.

Bill 101 now contains a provision to protect executive officers of companies from civil liability in such situations. But, as was pointed out in committee, company directors may still be vulnerable, since many directors are not officers.

This concern about the personal liability of company officials arose after a recent Ontario Supreme Court decision in which the right to recover damages from an executive officer was upheld because he was not considered to be an employer for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act. The act, of course, specifically removes the right of an injured worker to sue his employer for damages suffered during the course of employment.

I am advised that the inclusion of the term "directors" along with "executive officers" is necessary to ensure uniform protection against personal liability for all company officials. No other reason is involved.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, may task the minister this simple question? What about the Manville Canada workers? What will the impact of the amendment he is bringing forward be on the victims of Manville's callous disregard of the health and safety of its workers in Canada?

My colleague has mentioned the fact that class actions and individual lawsuits against Manville are already before the courts in the United States, and Manville is already settling out of court because it is a simple fact of history that it knew about the hazard, it suppressed the information, it exposed its workers to the risks and many hundreds of workers died.

What about the Canadian workers? I want to know from the Minister of Labour how this amendment, which takes away the effect of the Beryl Berger decision, will affect those workers.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to get drawn into a debate on this because I believe we are talking about two different things. We are simply trying to clarify a position that was established at the committee stage. We are clarifying it by adding some words we felt were appropriate under the circumstances, by inserting after "executive officer," wherever that expression occurs, "or director," for no other reason than that many directors are not officers.

Mr. McClellan: Can the minister not answer my question or is he refusing to answer my question? I am not going to drag this out, but I think it is a legitimate question to raise. I think it is incumbent on the minister to try to provide some kind of explanation.

I have said, and I will say it again, because of the history of negligence in the United States employees are able to sue Johns-Manville for the epidemic of industrial deaths for which Johns-Manville was responsible. They are already settling out of court. I want to ask what the situation will be in Ontario if this amendment goes through.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The situation will be no different than it was before. The workers who have asbestos-related problems will get compensation. They did not have the right to sue before and they do not have the right to sue now, so there is no difference at all.

Mr. McClellan: That answers my question. I said I would not belabour it and I will not, but that simply means workers in the United States will have the opportunity to sue a negligent employer while workers who were exposed to exactly the same history of wilful disregard for the effects of asbestos exposure in this province will have to make do with workers' compensation and the people who are responsible will get off scot-free.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not anxious to prolong this either, but we are talking about a system that came into effect in 1915. It has worked well for Ontario and is the envy of jurisdictions in the United States. Workers in the United States do not have the coverage workers have here in Ontario. Workers' compensation was set up in 1915 on the basis that the workers would be compensated by no-fault insurance and that the employers would not be able to be sued. Nothing has changed at all.

I can appreciate the member's concern, believe me. I have had some sleepless nights over that problem. But the member is suggesting we change the whole act so a particular group of workers can now sue their employer, while no other group of workers can sue their employer under the act.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I believe I said in my statement on second reading of the bill that Dow Chemical Co. in the United States was being sued now for negligence on its part in relation to occupational health and the damage done to workers there. Those workers have a right to sue.

I want to go back to the question raised by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) concerning Johns-Manville. Let us take an example and look at what happened there. I understand the plant is no longer in operation, but there is a list of injured workers who worked in that plant and who have come down with asbestos poisoning of some nature.

If a worker makes an appeal, following on Johns-Manville, he will have some difficulty in getting a settlement. As the long-term latency period is now coming to the surface, we find more and more people have been injured through an occupational disease in that industry. If they had known at the time precautions could have been taken to apply some remedy. I quoted from Weiler's report. He indicated he thought there should be some civil action available to sue as well as preventive measures taken.

12:20 p.m.

When Ontario Hydro builds a nuclear generating plant, it takes into account the human values of the persons working there and the health risks involved. When it builds that plant, it builds a certain health risk factor into it. I cannot quote the numbers now, but it may be one person in 500 in 20 years who may come down with some form of radiation poisoning.

If the minister puts this amendment in the bill, I can see new companies coming into the work force that will say: "We do not have to worry about any health safety factor here. We do not have to build a safety device here to indicate that there will only be one death in 100 man-years," or however long they will be there, or, say, one fatality in 20 years.

I can think of some industries that are probably going to be established, particularly in the recycling of waste, that can come in and set up a plant dealing with toxic chemicals with no safety valve at all concerning the risk to a person employed there.

I would rather remove this clause to exempt civil action against the director, corporate director or officer of a company. Leave that possibility there because it will indicate that, in the case of a new industry or a new process coming into industry, there are some obligations. That is what Weiler was talking about. Tort action may lead to preventive measures.

That is the point I want to bring to the minister's attention. If he leaves it in there, I can see us going back to the old heyday and the old Tory phrase: "What are a few lives? Progress and productivity in Ontario are more important." I hope that is buried in the past.

The number of injured people who suffer from occupational diseases is just coming to light now, and they will be facing the Workers' Compensation Board with a number of appeals. Somebody is going to have to be more responsible for preventive measures.

Leaving in the bill a provision for civil action against the directors or the superior officers of a company would indicate they have some responsibility in this area and that when they bring in new production this is to be taken into consideration so there is a safety valve that can lower the risk right at the time of building the plant.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I have one final comment. I cannot believe my ears. Did I hear the honourable member opposite, for whom I have tremendous respect, say that the Tory premise was, "What are a few lives?" When was that said and who said it? I do not think one can make far-reaching accusations of that nature. "What are a few lives in the interest of progress?" I cannot believe he would make that comment.

Mr. Haggerty: I make it because these comments have been made in the Legislature for a number of years before the minister's time. I suggest he and some of his colleagues over there or his assistants should read some of the comments.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I suggest the honourable member should produce those statements. If he is going to make them, he should produce them. It is not for me to research them; I think it is for him.

Let me make one or two more comments, my final comments on this section. We are talking about the grand and glorious United States and everything that can happen there. Fine, they can sue; but suppose the company they can sue is in bankruptcy. The only persons who will get rich over this are the lawyers, who, if there is any money, are going to get a major portion of the sums recovered. That is the way the system works there.

There are some states in the United States that will not provide compensation to these persons. They can go ahead and sue, but there is no money available, so these people are going to get nothing. This is the grand and glorious system in the United States. They are going to get nothing. Here in Ontario these people are receiving workers' compensation.

Please do not give me, "The system in the United States is better." I get so tired of sitting here and listening to statements such as: "This province is better than Ontario," "This state is better," "It is better over in Europe for severance arrangements." I always thought Ontario was a pretty decent place to live, but lately I am starting to get a little cynical. The members are starting to get to me.

Mr. Mancini: I have one final comment. Ontario is a pretty good place to live. It is a decent place. People have come to this country from other parts of the world, principally because they felt abused there or they felt there was more opportunity here. That is why the Mancini family is in Canada. We have never suggested Ontario is otherwise.

I have one last question for the minister, and then we will end the debate. I do not want to prolong it any further. If the minister's amendments in no way change the status quo, do not change what was happening before, then why do we need them? If everything is going to be exactly the same as it was, which was the impression the minister left with me, correctly or incorrectly, then why do we need these amendments?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We need the amendments because of what happened. Somebody decided to test the system in court, but the decision was upheld and the board was found to be correct. This simply tidies up this situation. That is all it is.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ramsay has moved an amendment to section 5.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

On section 6:

Mr. McClellan: I do not have any amendments, but my understanding is that section 6 of the bill is a companion to section 5 and we will be opposing it for the same reason. I would like to see section 6 of the bill deleted. The only way I can do that is to oppose the section.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of section 6 standing as part of the bill will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

Section 7 agreed to.

On section 8:

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Section 21 of the existing Workers' Compensation Act permits either an employer or the board to require an injured worker to submit to medical examinations.

Representations were made to the standing committee urging that employers should retain their rights to mandate medical examinations of injured workers. There may be cases where it is reasonable for an employer to wish to satisfy himself about the medical condition of a worker. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised by the Ministry of the Attorney General about a possible conflict between a requirement for the medical examination of a worker and the Charter of Rights.

As a result of consultations with senior law officers of the crown, I am introducing an amendment to Bill 101 which permits employers to retain their rights to require medical examinations and which correspondingly ensures that a worker's rights of privacy or security of person are not infringed without appropriate procedural safeguards in the act which will provide access to the appeals tribunal if the worker objects to a medical examination requested by an employer.

Furthermore, the amendment provides not only for an appeal of the requirement for a medical examination, but also for an appeal on the grounds that the nature and extent of the examination which is conducted are objectionable.

12:30 p.m.

I regard this amendment as striking an appropriate balance between the right of the claimant to his or her privacy and security and the legitimate interests of employers in being able to initiate a medical assessment of the condition of injured employees.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ramsay moves that section 8 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"Sections 21 and 22 of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"21(1) Subject to subsection 2, where an employer so requires, a worker who has made a claim for compensation, or to whom compensation is payable under this act, shall submit to a medical examination by a medical practitioner selected and paid for by the employer.

"(2) Where a worker objects to the requirement of the employer to submit to medical examination or to the nature and extent of the medical examination being conducted by a medical practitioner, the worker or the employer may, within a period of 14 days of the objection having been made, apply to the appeals tribunal to hear and determine the matter, and the appeals tribunal may set aside the requirement or order the worker to submit to and undergo a medical examination by a medical practitioner or make such further or other order as may be just."

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I am tremendously disappointed that the minister has moved away from the position that was carried in the standing committee on resources development. The decision in the committee was to repeal sections 21 and 22. While I was not a participant in the process, I understood the reasons for that decision were a clear understanding that sections 21 and 22 represented an unconstitutional violation of the rights of the citizen and an unconstitutional and unwarranted intrusion on the rights and liberties of injured workers.

It is outrageous for employers to be able to order an injured worker to go to a medical practitioner selected by the employer. I want to stress this point. The minister is giving the employer the right to compel an injured worker to go to a doctor of the employer's own choosing. What an opportunity for collusion. Let me put it as bluntly as that. What an opportunity for a distortion of medical practice.

Is the minister saying he wants to see the same thing develop in the medical profession as is starting to develop in the legal profession, that is to say a coterie of medical practitioners who specialize in accepting referrals from employers, selected and paid for by employers? Is he saying he wants to give the Workers' Compensation Board and the act the authority to order an injured worker to submit to a physical examination by a doctor chosen, selected and paid for -- bought and paid for -- by the employer? It is outrageous.

Over the years, we have raised concerns about sections 21 and 22. While I do not have Hansard with me, I know I am accurate in my recollection of assurances by officials from the Workers' Compensation Board that this clause was not being used. The minister has nodded in assent.

We believed at the time that was an accurate reflection of what was happening, but now the minister comes before the House and says, "Well, we are changing our minds."

Interjection.

Mr. McClellan: With respect, he is changing his mind. Unless I completely misunderstand, he is saying an employer can order a medical examination, can select and pay for the medical practitioner, and it then becomes incumbent on the worker to understand his rights under the law and to file an objection with the appeals tribunal. The appeals tribunal can uphold, under the law, the right of the employer to order a medical examination, to select a medical practitioner and to purchase the medical service. That is my understanding of the minister's amendment.

I have to say it is outrageous. If there is a need for a medical examination of an injured worker to deal with the question of entitlement, that is the business of the Workers' Compensation Board to determine. That is why there is such an elaborate administrative structure at the Workers' Compensation Board. That is why there is a staff of medical practitioners with expertise in a whole variety of disciplines. That is why the Workers' Compensation Board now has the authority to make these determinations. That is what it is all about.

The minister is taking responsibilities that belong solely to the Workers' Compensation Board and giving them to employers, thereby giving them a coercive power which I continue to insist is a violation of rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an unwarranted intrusion on the rights of the individual subject. We are talking about forcing people to submit to physical examinations ordered by their employers for purposes of disentitling them.

Let us not mince words. Let us not try to play cute. The reason this is before us is that all three parties were lobbied by the Council of Ontario Contractors Associations. They lobbied us, they lobbied my colleagues in the Liberal Party and they obviously lobbied the government. They lobbied us on a number of concerns and they said flat out that their top priority was to give power to employers to order medical examinations. It was the top priority of COCA. That is why it is in front of us. The ministry and the government have been lobbied and the ministry has somehow tried to accommodate this outrageous demand on the part of employers.

I ask the minister not to proceed. I can assure him, whatever legal opinions are forthcoming from his legal staff, there will be charter challenges on this section. I hope our constitutional rights are entrenched strongly enough in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that this kind of measure will be ruled unconstitutional. I believe it will be.

12:40 p.m.

This kind of browbeating of the government by groups such as COCA speaks to something I do not like in this process. The government is yielding to reverse a policy that has been expressed by officials of the Ministry of Labour and the Workers' Compensation board for as long as I have been here, which is nine years.

The powers in sections 21 and 22 have not been exercised. I believe Dr. McCracken once used the phrase, "This is a dead letter," before the estimates committee. We thought it was a dead letter. Now we have this unpleasant resurrection. The minister would be well advised to go back to the old policy. Nobody needs or deserves this power. The power to order medical examinations for the purpose of determining entitlement rests solely and exclusively with the Workers' Compensation Board and with no one else. The minister should not fool around with that.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight. I can understand completely why the honourable member feels as he does, because the circumstances of which he is aware would indicate that. Let me assure him that is not the case. Let me go back, if I may, and retrace some of the history of the circumstances. I hope this will cast some light on the circumstances for him.

It is absolutely correct that in committee it was brought to our attention that this was a seldom-used section. We checked that out with the Workers' Compensation Board and were told the section was seldom used; so we deleted it. There was no big deal about it. It seemed like a reasonable piece of housekeeping.

It is also true that the Council of Ontario Contractors Associations came to us and wanted it left in. I have written this down, because this is exactly what I said to them: "I am not prepared to go to war with the opposition in the Legislature when we go through third reading. We have a good bill now. I would like to get it through. I would like to get it proclaimed, and I do not want to go to war with the opposition over it."

Mr. McClellan: Then the minister knows what he should do.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Hear me out, please. I listened to my friend.

Mr. McClellan: I am listening very carefully.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I then said to them: "Look, if you feel strongly about it, go to the opposition parties. If you can convince them, I will put it back in." They came to the opposition, and obviously they did not convince the opposition. They may have convinced the official opposition, but I know they did not convince the third party. As a result, I let it drop; it was back to what we had decided at the committee stage.

The member should bear in mind that the debate in this Legislature was delayed several times because of emergency debates, a no-confidence motion and so on. At least a couple of weeks went by from the time the members opposite politely told the COCA people they were not interested.

Mr. McClellan: Very politely.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am sure it was very polite. In the interim, our senior counsel came to us with various matters, not just this one, relative to the bill. This was one he had some serious reservations about in respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Please do not ask me to explain what those reservations are; I am not a lawyer. As I have said before in this House, if I had my life to live over again and I knew I was going to be a legislator, I would be a lawyer first.

Mr. Mancini: Please do not say that.

Mr. Swart: Has the minister no pride at all?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Are there any lawyers around to help me?

Anyway, I remember my reaction when I was told. I said: "Oh, my goodness, this will all be misconstrued. Whatever you do, get a second opinion."

Mr. Stokes: Two different ones.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No; one. We went to the Attorney General's office and said there was urgency in getting this opinion. They responded quickly. It resulted in a succession of meetings -- none of which I attended, incidentally -- over the last week or two. The end result is this amendment. I assure the member very sincerely that this amendment was not brought about by the Council of Ontario Contractors Associations, because we had dropped it after he had indicated he would not go along with it.

I am very concerned about getting this bill through, and I was not prepared to have a pitched battle in this Legislature over that phrase, that section, particularly when I was told it was seldom used. It seemed ridiculous for me to do that. However, a new dimension was introduced, and I was worried when I got the first opinion that we were going to run into all sorts of problems; so I said, "For goodness' sake, get a second opinion." That is when the Attorney General's office came in. What the members have before them today is the result of those legal opinions; it is not a result of lobbying by COCA.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, we are no more anxious than the minister to delay the bill, and I believe we are making some strides today. I do not intend to try to hold things up. If I did not think there was not a valid constitutional challenge on this, I probably would dig in my heels at this point, have the pitched battle and let the chips fall where they may. However, I believe there will be a challenge under the charter if employers try to exercise their new rights under this section and that the charter will prevail.

If an employer wants to order a worker to undergo a medical examination, the employer does not have to apply to the appeal tribunal. The employer is given the right to order the medical examination, and it is up to the worker to object by applying to the appeal tribunal. Is that not wonderfully backwards? Does that not speak volumes about the bias of the Workers' Compensation Board in this province? The board reinstates a section that was a dead letter, which everybody agreed was offensive, and puts the onus on the worker to try to defend himself against the exercise of this offensive and arbitrary power on the part of employers.

I do not understand the mentality behind this amendment. Whether it came from the Attorney General's office, from the Ministry of Labour or from the legal staff of the Workers' Compensation Board is irrelevant to me. I find it a disgraceful piece of back-pedalling, and I do not accept the minister's argument that this is some kind of legal necessity. This is appalling legislation, and I see the heavy hand of COCA in every objectionable feature of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: We have an amendment to section 8 by Mr. Ramsay.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: The vote is stacked for 10:15 p.m. on Tuesday. Section 8 is set aside.

12:50 p.m.

On section 9:

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, let me apologize to the members of the House. My colleagues and I had some amendments typed out. We are dealing with this bill on an intermittent basis and therefore I had to rewrite the amendments by hand. I am sorry they are not typed out.

I would like to move an amendment to subsection 36(7) of the act under section 9 of the bill, the section that deals with burial expenses.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to subsection 36(1). Can we do that one first?

Mr. Chairman: Yes. With due respect to the member for Essex South, I did recognize you; but if we have, as we do, an amendment for subsection 36(1), we properly should deal with it first.

Mr. McClellan: I believe the table has a copy of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we do. While there is one piece of paper, does the member agree that he seems to have six amendments to this section? Shall we deal with them individually?

Mr. McClellan: I am just moving the amendment that is indicated in the margin by the number "1" in a circle.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that section 9 be amended by substituting the proposed subsection 36(1) as follows:

"36(1) Where death results from an injury to a worker, a spouse who survives the worker shall be entitled to,

"(a) compensation payable by way of a lump sum of $40,000, increased by the addition of $1,000 for each year of age of the spouse under 40 years at the time of the worker's death, but in no case shall a spouse receive a lump sum payment of more than $60,000."

Mr. McClellan further moves that section 9 be amended by adding the following clause thereto:

"(d) This section shall provide retroactive entitlement to all spouses now living who survive workers who died as a result of a work-related injury."

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, we are again trying to deal with one of the long-standing concerns that members of the opposition have raised over the years with respect to the Workers' Compensation Act, and that is the regrettably low level of death benefits under the act and the treatment of widows and orphans of injured workers under the act.

I do not feel any need to belabour the case that has been made many times in the committee by our representatives on the committee, which has also been made every time the Workers' Compensation Act amendments have been before the assembly for increases in benefits and allowances.

In these kinds of tragic circumstances, I would hope the ministry would exercise the most compassionate generosity that is available to a modern government and can be mustered by what is still the richest province in one of the richest countries of the world.

We can afford to be generous to the widows and orphans of people who are killed on the job, and we should do it.

Mr. Chairman: If there are no other members who wish to speak, does the minister have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do have some comments.

Mr. Martel: I thought the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) was going to read them for the minister.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member for Cambridge is the chairman of the standing committee on resources development, which studied this for many weeks. He has been terribly interested in and concerned about this. He is not here today because it is House duty; at least I do not think that is the case. He certainly has been here on other days for that reason. He has been here because he is interested in this bill. Therefore, I was sharing with him some of the information with respect to the last item we had discussed.

I would like to make a few comments on section 9. The problem I have is that my comments will take more than the four minutes and some seconds that are left. I think it is important that it be done at a time when we can follow up on it.

Mr. McClellan: Why do we not see one o'clock, then?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I think that would be best, and I will open on Monday with about a full five or six minutes in relation to this section.

Mr. McClellan: That is a very helpful suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Then we can have a full debate on this whole section all at one time.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.

November 30, 1984