Hansard Transcripts 1984-Dec-03 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege; I am going to try this on you anyway. Last Friday I put a question to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes). In responding to my question he quoted some numbers that were not proper. I am not correcting him; just a moment. The minister said something to me in the form of a question. We are going to get used to answering questions. When we form the government in future, we will be doing that.

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: In any event, this is where I have a bit of a problem relating to my point. The minister said, "I believe, if the member will check the record, he did" -- meaning I had said the wrong thing. In checking the record, I find I was as right then as I am now and the minister was wrong then.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That is a first for the member.

Mr. Kerrio: Next the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt).

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Everybody has to be right once in a while.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the discussion.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Minister of the Environment would like to say something first.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the provision of mental health services within this province's health care system has been and continues to be a major priority of the Ministry of Health. Within recent years, we have seen many important initiatives put in place to bring about progressive change.

Our objective is the development of a balanced mental health care system in all regions and districts of the province where the appropriate institutional, hospital outreach and outpatient programs are in place, as well as the required community-based services.

Less than 25 years ago, in 1960, for example, 0.4 per cent of all Canadians were in psychiatric institutions. Of those 75,000 patients, one half had been hospitalized for more than seven years. Long-term patients were more likely to spend their days in the institution than they were to be discharged.

Today, most psychiatric hospitalizations are short: 65 per cent of patients spend less than two weeks in hospital and nine out of 10 spend less than one month.

Thanks to improved treatment procedures, we now know that prolonged hospitalization may only aggravate the symptoms of mental illness. Improvements in drug therapies have also meant that long hospitalization is often no longer necessary.

In recognition of these changes in patterns of care, the Ontario government took the initiative to design a mental health care policy promoting the development of community-based mental health care programs.

Today, 256 community-based mental health programs are in place with a total funding allocation of $47.5 million. In the past three years alone, Ministry of Health funding for the development of these programs has nearly tripled, from $16.9 million to our current funding level.

Programs now in operation include community-based services in the following categories: co-ordination programs to promote an effective delivery of mental health services within a specific geographic area and to individual clients; treatment programs to provide clinical services such as assessment, diagnosis, treatment and referral as required; prevention programs to help individuals cope more effectively with daily living skills; rehabilitation programs to assist psychiatric patients to reintegrate into the community; psychogeriatric programs to provide the elderly with a broad range of appropriate care; alcohol and drug addiction programs, and supportive housing programs for discharged psychiatric patients.

The ministry has consulted with the district health councils and asked them to carry out an assessment of existing mental health care services. The DHCs were then asked to make recommendations to me for the development of new or expanded community-based programs.

Today I am announcing new community-based mental health programs that have been approved for immediate startup; 50 new programs have been approved for funding with annual operating costs estimated at $6.4 million. Of these programs, 18 will be for the treatment of people suffering from alcohol or drug abuse.

The programs are being allocated throughout various regions of Ontario. For example, a rehabilitation program for discharged psychiatric patients will be established in Thunder Bay, as will an alcohol and drug abuse program. A community mental health promotion and case management program will be established in Hamilton-Wentworth. A new home assistance program for sufferers of Alzheimer's disease will be established in Ottawa, along with a support program for seniors with alcohol abuse problems. A crisis intervention team for mentally ill patients will be established as a joint program of the Durham regional health unit and the Oshawa General Hospital. In Metro Toronto, four new programs will be in place, including a downtown rehabilitation program for young people and a co-operative housing program for people with chronic psychiatric problems.

In addition to these 50 new programs, the Ministry of Health has made a commitment to support the city of Toronto in establishing two model group homes for discharged psychiatric patients. This commitment is a result of the recommendations made by Dr. Reva Gerstein. The Ministry of Health will provide the city of Toronto with capital funds for the conversion of two houses to group homes that will accommodate up to 10 persons each. Funding will also be available for the provision of mental health programs for the discharged psychiatric patients living in those two group homes. With some of my cabinet colleagues, I shall be meeting with Mayor Arthur Eggleton early this month to discuss further the other recommendations of the Gerstein report.

I believe these initatives and commitments on our part reflect the determination of the Ministry of Health to continue to provide the necessary community mental health services to people in all parts of Ontario.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION INCENTIVE FUND

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Ministry of Education, in co-operation with the Office of the Deputy Premier, will be making available to school boards an affirmative action incentive fund. The incentive fund will assist boards in developing and implementing an affirmative action program for their women employees. Funds will be provided on a startup basis for the calendar years 1985 and 1986.

Under the program, the province will reimburse a board for up to 75 per cent of the cost of employing an affirmative action co-ordinator, to a maximum of $20,000 in the first year of participation and $18,000 in the second. School boards that have already implemented an affirmative action program will not be eligible for grants in respect of the salary of an existing co-ordinator but will be eligible to apply for funds to support special projects related to affirmative action.

2:10 p.m.

I continue to be concerned about the relative absence of women in positions of added responsibility in our school system. While slightly more than half of all the full-time educators in this province in the publicly supported schools of this province are women, women represent only 14 per cent of full-time principals and vice-principals. This is the case despite the fact that increasing numbers of women have demonstrated an interest in and now are qualified for positions of added responsibility within the schools.

For example, the number of women receiving their principal qualifications increased from 18 per cent of the total in 1975 to 33 per cent of the total in 1984. With respect to individuals receiving the supervisory officer certificate, the women have now increased fivefold from 1972 to 1984.

At the conference Focus on Leadership: Affirmative Action in School Boards, on March 29 and 30, I indicated I would be writing to all boards to encourage them to adopt affirmative action programs. I am formally requesting that each school board in Ontario adopt a formal policy of affirmative action for women employees, appoint a senior staff member to develop and co-ordinate an affirmative action plan that would identify goals and timetables for the hiring, promotion and training of women employees at all levels, including both teaching and nonteaching staff, and collect and analyse data on the occupational and salary distribution of male and female staff, job competitions, projected vacancies and staff training and development.

In addition, I am asking that all boards of education and school boards submit to the ministry a report on affirmative action for women employees. The report will form the basis of an annual report on affirmative action in school boards, which I shall table in the Legislature. The annual report will contain information on each board as well as a provincial summary.

School boards are in a unique position to act as role models for their staff and their students as well as for their communities. I am encouraged by the positive results that have already been achieved by those boards that have implemented affirmative action programs, and I am confident I can count on all the boards to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the goal of equal employment opportunity for all women employees becomes a reality within the school system.

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. CONTRACT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications with respect to the turmoil and difficulty going on at the Urban Transportation Development Corp. at the moment.

The minister will no doubt be aware we are getting conflicting signals from a number of areas about a number of the present contracts. For example, in regard to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey contract, he will be aware that Mr. Stevenson, vice-president of corporate and public affairs at UTDC, is saying they withdrew that bid because of the strike at Thunder Bay. On the other hand, spokesmen for the port authority are giving a very different version of that story and saying UTDC was not in the running at all.

The minister is aware of the reports of the repairs to the concrete support beams in the Detroit system that are going to cost somebody money.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I must point these things out to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister is aware of them.

Mr. Peterson: He is also no doubt aware of the suggestions about the advanced light rail transit cars going to Vancouver and about the tension of the bolts. One of the employees working for UTDC has spoken up and has alleged there has been an assault against him. UTDC has exercised a news blackout against the Kingston Whig-Standard because it has been looking at these matters.

What is going on at UTDC? Has the minister had any recent reports from the president, Kirk Foley, to inform him of what is going on? Will the minister respond to these very serious charges?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I get very frequent reports from Mr. Foley and I believe everything is going on very well at UTDC.

In regard to the New York bid, I have not been involved with the exact day-to-day details of that bid, but Mr. Foley and I discussed it in detail with UTDC. There were very severe penalties for nonconformity to the contract by way of a time limitation. The contract had to be completed by a certain date, and there were very heavy financial penalties if the contract was not completed by that date. To my knowledge, the initial papers were taken out and a study was done on the bid, but it was decided not to follow through with the bid because of the risk involved with these penalties, especially considering the labour difficulties at Thunder Bay.

I also read the press article, which states that one of the conditions was that the cars be built in New York state or in close proximity to New York City where they were going to be used, but I believe the first five cars were not to be built there. The prototypes, all the design work and all that stuff had to be done, and it was the decision of Mr. Foley and his board of directors that they were not prepared to go forward with this bid and take the risk of these very severe financial penalties if they were not able to produce on time, considering the other contracts they have on hand and considering the fact the main plant that will be doing this work is on strike at this time.

That is the main answer. The honourable member had about three other questions, but I think I have used up my time.

Mr. Peterson: The vice-president of UTDC said it was the strike and, therefore, the workers who caused this problem; and the port authority is saying it was because the work had to be done in the United States.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Whose fault was it? Very clearly the minister cannot have two different views on this situation, and I think he owes it to this House to give a very clear answer to that question when his vice-president is blaming the workers in Thunder Bay for the loss of that contract.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the Leader of the Opposition will get Hansard later this afternoon and read my answer slowly, I am sure he will be able to comprehend that I did give him a very full and detailed explanation of why we did not proceed with that bid.

If he wants to take both sides of the story, yes, I said to him two minutes ago that the main part of the work had to be carried out in New York state. The components and what not would be supplied to some degree from Canada; but the prototypes, which are the first part -- if the member can understand that; he is in the manufacturing business to some degree, I understand -- have to be built first in any contract.

Because of the terms of this bid and the penalties that were provided for, the company decided to withdraw; so the uncertainty of the labour force at Thunder Bay clearly had something to do with its decision to withdraw.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition referred to some of the problems in Kingston as well. Does the minister support the policy of UTDC to impose a complete news blackout on the Kingston Whig-Standard, a newspaper well known to his colleague to the right?

Second, is he concerned about reports in the Whig-Standard by a former employee of UTDC that there are serious torque problems in some of the ALRT cars being shipped out to Vancouver?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing about any blackout. I have heard the same thing, and I do not know what the reason is for the relations between UTDC and the Kingston Whig-Standard.

I have had some information from UTDC with regard to this supposed bolt problem, and I have been assured this is not the case. It is perhaps the opinion of one of the workers in the plant, who may have thought the bolts were not the right size or something; but the engineers and the people who stand behind the product claim there is no torque problem.

Mr. Peterson: Given this problem and the fact this gentleman, Mr. Steenburg, now alleges he has been assaulted because he spoke out -- and he is speaking in very harsh terms about the potential safety hazards, which the minister is no doubt aware of -- and given the problems in Detroit, with the escalation in costs from $137 million to $183 million and apparently still rising, does the minister not have the impression, as the minister responsible, that something is amiss at UTDC? Why would he not instigate an inquiry, at the very least to satisfy himself this is not going to turn into a massive white elephant with huge financial penalties to the taxpayers of this province?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am certainly very much aware of what goes on at UTDC. I keep a very close watch on UTDC and I am aware of all the things the member is talking about. He is talking about a cost overrun in Detroit. In all the articles I have read and from the information I have on that cost overrun, never once, to my knowledge, has that been blamed on UTDC. There were very major design changes, station location changes and route changes after the contract was awarded. Certainly there are cost increases in the project in Detroit but they are because of design changes and other facts relating to the contract.

The member mentioned the beam problem. One of the subcontractors built certain beams that have been rejected. Those will be replaced and I understand necessary action is being taken to collect on the bond the subcontractor put up when he was awarded the contract.

Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the Leader of the Opposition, may we have unanimous consent to revert to statements?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

INTRODUCTION OF ASTRONAUTS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the members of the House some very distinguished visitors in your gallery today.

For more than 20 years, Canadians have taken a keen interest in the success of the space program in the United States of America. Because Americans are our neighbours and friends, we have always been enthusiastic supporters of their endeavours and advancements.

The contributions made by the space program under the auspices of the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration, referred to as NASA, have touched all our lives through innovative technology, biomedical knowledge, new perceptions of the laws and principles of physics and natural science, coupled with the emotional thrill of exploring beyond earth's bounds. No greater, then, was the excitement of Canadians, young and old, when six Canadian astronauts were chosen to be part of NASA's continuing space shuttle program.

It is my distinct pleasure to present to the House today the first Canadian astronaut to visit outer space, Commander Marc Garneau.

[Applause]

I might say to Commander Garneau that the applause was a corporate pleasure in welcoming him back to Canada.

It is an additional privilege to introduce to the House today a veteran American astronaut, US Navy Commander Robert Crippen. Bob Crippen was the commander of the most-recent shuttle into space, his third flight into outer space. A second member of the team of our six Canadians in the astronaut program is also in the gallery today, Dr. Robert Thirsk.

These astronauts are accompanied by representatives of the Canadian astronaut program at the National Research Council: Dr. Karl Doetsch, Dr. Bernard Gingras, Dr. Wally Cherwinski, Ms. Lise Beaudoin and Messrs. Bernard Poirier, John Wildgust, Laurier Forget and Bruce Aitkenhead.

Perhaps a quotation from Dr. Marc Garneau best describes the importance and pride we feel as Canadians participating in the American space program: "The symbolic presence of a Canadian is not to be underrated. It will give Canadians a great deal of pride. It highlights the importance of our aerospace industry and areas where we are skilled as a nation, not just in technology but in the life sciences.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and the members of the House to welcome to our Legislative Assembly, Commander Marc Garneau and his wife Jacqueline, Dr. Robert Thirsk and his wife Brenda, Commander Bob Crippen of NASA and members of the National Research Council team. We wish all members of the Canadian astronaut program continuing success.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague the Deputy Premier in expressing a very warm welcome on behalf of the members of our party. I know that Commander Crippen and Dr. Thirsk will excuse me if I express a special pride in our own Commander Garneau. The hearts of every Canadian went with them all on that historic flight. We were particularly pleased to participate through one of our distinguished Canadians. We were always proud of our Canadarm; now we have a Canada body of which we are doubly proud.

I hope he will excuse me for taking advantage of my position, but if I send up a piece of paper, would he give me an autograph for my children, please? Thank you very much.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party want to associate ourselves with the welcoming remarks of the Deputy Premier and the Leader of the Opposition.

For many years, the Canadian people have taken great pride in a technological contribution to the space program, and now we have a special measure of pride in the achievement of our first astronaut.

Mr. Peterson: It is funny that we can build an arm that works in space, but cannot build a streetcar that works. However, that is another story for another day. The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) could use their help after question period if they are free.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

NORTH YORK DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. He will be aware of the article in today's Globe and Mail about a potential conflict of interest involving one of his colleagues and an application brought by her for an appeal from an Ontario Municipal Board hearing to the cabinet.

As the chairman of cabinet, has he determined whether there was a conflict of interest, that all the rules set forward by the Premier (Mr. Davis) have been obeyed and that there was no possibility of personal financial gain?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, we do not have many "hers" in cabinet, and I cannot recall an application brought before us by a her or a him during my term of seven or eight years in cabinet.

Mr. Peterson: I am sorry. I was operating on the premise that the Chairman of Management Board was awake during cabinet meetings. Perhaps that is unfair.

As I read the press reports, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) very clearly brought an appeal at the behest of North York council, as I understand it --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I did not.

Mr. Peterson: If that is incorrect, let the Chairman of Management Board stand up and tell me I am wrong. I understand she supported that appeal.

Did that take place, or is that press report inaccurate?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Peterson: If it is inaccurate, perhaps the minister would stand up in this House on a point of privilege and deny what was in that article today, because certainly the perception is very bad. I think the minister might want to take advantage of this situation to clear the record.

I am asking the Chairman of Management Board this question, but if the Minister of Education is being defamed in any way I would invite her to stand in her place and correct the record, because a very serious allegation has been made.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Certainly the people on this side of the House would like to nominate the Leader of the Opposition as the next astronaut.

Hon. Mr. Pope: A one-way program.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Commander Garneau, take pity on them, please.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wrye: Does the minister have an answer or not?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I certainly do. May I take my time, as members on the other side do all the time?

We are very happy to have these people back. If certain other people were there --

Hon. Mr. Pope: We would not be.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I did not say that.

I am not sure what the nature of the question of the Leader of the Opposition is all about and, I might say, neither is he. However, we have various appeals to cabinet. They are not brought to us by ministers and very seldom by members of the opposition, either. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) complained about something a few years ago and has complained many times since. However --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Am I taking too much time to answer?

In any event, I know the article the member is talking about. I have it here.

Mr. Breaugh: When are they going to read it to the minister?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Maybe I will sit down and the member can do it now.

Mr. Breaugh: I will for a fee.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, is the Chairman of Management Board not aware that his colleague the Minister of Education, according to the Globe and Mail story this morning, made representation before the cabinet committee on legislation, which was considering an appeal against a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board? That is simply what is reported in today's paper.

According to documents on file in the land titles office, the properties in part of the block in question, which was the subject of the Ontario Municipal Board appeal, specifically lots 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 on Doris Avenue, and lots 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 on Doris Avenue, belong either to the minister herself or to members of her family.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not true.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the integrity of everybody over there and I have a little bit more for the people on this side. We have a --

Mr. Ruston: The minister has a problem and does not know how to handle it.

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, I know how to handle it. Does the member want some birdseed too?

We have a cabinet committee on legislation made up of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling), who is vice-chairman, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk), the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes), the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory) and the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe), who happens to be absent today.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, they do not want to listen, do they?

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister does not want to answer either.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I certainly am going to answer the question.

Mr. Mackenzie: How long? Tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am going to take a lot less time than it takes the member to ask a question. The answer should be longer than the question.

We have not had at legislation committee, in the seven years or so I have been there, a member come in and make any representation to us at all. That includes a very difficult issue the Speaker had in his riding. I have never seen the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities in there.

There is a person over there sitting beside the Leader of the Opposition who has a new haircut today. He does look a bit younger. There are those over there who have come to me as chairman of the legislation committee and said, "I think this is the way you should deal with this." I do not exempt any of the members opposite, but I do exempt the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities. She has never come to me and said, "This is the way I think you should deal with this."

Mr. Peterson: The minister may choose to make light of this in his own jocular way, but it is very serious and I want a definite answer out of him. Is the minister denying the press report today?

If that message was carried, that appeal from North York, then very clearly, if there was a conflict of interest, I want to know if the minister was informed of the conflict of interest or if he has made a determination as to whether there was a conflict of interest. He cannot just make light of this subject. He owes this House a clear answer.

Was the minister aware that the Minister of Education and her family had property in that district and that there was the potential for personal gain? Was that taken into consideration? Did he know about it or not? What determination was made at that point? Did he have all the information or did he not?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I have never inquired in any situation as to who the property owners were, whether it was the Stephensons in Toronto, the Pengellys in Toronto, or whoever. I have never inquired into that. That is not a part of it. It is a judgement as to whether the appeal has merit or does not have merit. If the member brings one forward, we will treat it in the same way.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. McCague: A sanctimonious so-and-so, that is all.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, if I may pursue this matter with the Minister of Education, perhaps she can clear it up.

I am referring to a map from the North York planning board which shows the block of properties between Yonge Street, Church Avenue, McKee Avenue and Doris Avenue. Can the minister tell us whether it is true that lots 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 on Doris Avenue are owned by her, Bette Stephenson Pengelly, and whether lot numbers 52, 53, 54, 55 and the whole of lot 56 are owned by Robert Benjamin Stephenson, who I believe is a member of her family?

Second, has she made any representations to her cabinet colleagues with respect to the matter that was before the cabinet on appeal from the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board to deny the request for rezoning?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this has little to do with my responsibilities. I own the lots 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 on Doris Avenue. My brother does not own those other lots. He sold his property two or three years ago. He does not live there.

This is approximately halfway between the Park Home-Empress complex, which is the one in question, and the Finch Avenue complex which appears not to be in question, and is on the opposite side of the road from both of them.

I might also add that I did not make representation. I brought to the attention of my cabinet colleagues that there was concern that there needed to be an expeditious treatment of the appeal that was before the committee.

Mr. McClellan: I do not understand the nicety of that distinction.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: Let me ask the minister then, since I have the minutes of the North York planning board before me for the period in question, whether it is not a fact that the minister and/or her husband made representations before the North York planning board on three separate occasions. First, on January 17, they petitioned the commissioner of planning, Mr. Bruce Davidson. They appeared at the planning board on January 26, 1983, and again on February 10 -- I am sorry.

They first appeared on February 10, 1982, then they appeared on January 26, 1983, and they finally appeared on March 23, 1983, at which time the North York planning board accepted the Minister of Education's representations and made the following decision: "that the properties in question be subject to a specific statement in the district 11 plan allowing mixed residential-commercial redevelopment at an FSI of 2.0 as a right and up to 3.0, subject to favourable community impact criteria."

2:40 p.m.

In other words, the property was rezoned from single-family use to a use which permits a much more intensive residential and commercial development. The minister was successful in having property she owned included in the Ramparts civic centre development and the zoning upgraded. She subsequently persuaded her cabinet colleagues to uphold that decision of the North York planning department in cabinet.

Is that not a correct version of what transpired? If it is not, would the minister please set the record straight?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I most certainly shall. In 1981 there was a recommendation on the part of the planning board of North York to split the two blocks between Norton Avenue and Church Avenue -- McKee Avenue intervenes -- into halves and allow the front half of the blocks to be part of the Yonge Street redevelopment zone.

My neighbours and I -- five on Doris Avenue, my mother and one other; I think the letter that was sent to the North York planning board was written by Mrs. Maureen Moffatt -- appeared at the request of the board in support of that letter, stating that we thought splitting blocks was bad planning. We asked specifically either to be left out of the area or to be included totally within the area, rather than splitting the blocks.

That was the extent of my appearance. That was the only time I have appeared on two occasions. I did not appear on the third occasion or make representation, and if I appeared, it was at the end of the meeting; I cannot remember at this point.

I made one representation, which I think was in January or February 1983, and that was it. That was in support of the letter we had sent the year earlier. I do not believe the decision was accepted. The planning board made the recommendation to North York council, and I do not think it was accepted by North York council. To my knowledge, no rezoning has taken place.

Mr. Peterson: It seems to me the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order and personal privilege as well: The property I am talking about is five city blocks north of the property that was appealed to cabinet by the municipality. It is on the opposite side of Yonge Street and it is not on Yonge Street.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that and I respect the minister's right to appear at a planning board meeting, which is public, and put her case as any citizen would do. That is not the issue at stake.

The minister has just told this House that she asked her colleagues to move expeditiously. I think that is her quote. In other words, she did intervene in that particular situation to ask them to move with dispatch.

Did the minister at that time tell any of her colleagues -- the chairman of cabinet, the Premier (Mr. Davis) or anyone else -- that there was a potential conflict of interest in her case and that they should review her advice from that point of view?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there was or is a conflict of interest. I simply reported that the council of North York in the vast majority -- I think all the members of council except three -- were in support of the appeal they had put forward. I reported that to cabinet and reported as well that they felt it appropriate it be dealt with rapidly. I do not believe that is a conflict of interest.

Mr. McClellan: For the record, the minutes of the planning board of North York dated March 23, 1983 --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: -- show the minister was present at the meeting, and that the planning board accepted her proposal for including the block within the development area and that rezoning was granted.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: I want to ask the minister whether she has received a copy of a letter from a Dr. Andrew I. M. Armstrong, dated May 31, 1983, written to the planning commissioner, Mr. A. B. Davidson of North York.

It concludes as follows: "I was disappointed that the planning board acted on the recommendation of six residents who stand to gain financially by rezoning of the land on the west side of Doris between Norton and Church Avenue. There was no opportunity for public discussion prior to this approval.

"I was also disappointed by the attempt to pass this through council four weeks before the release of the official plan. I can only think that undue influence from one of the six residents, a member of the Ontario cabinet, was used."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: In the light of the comments made by Mr. McKeough at the time of his resignation in 1972, 'What is at issue here is confidence in the integrity of the system, that doubts have been raised and, as these doubts may continue to be raised as long as I am a member of this cabinet, ... " and he then proceeded to resign his seat, does the minister not understand that she has used her cabinet position to persuade her colleagues to reverse a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board in a situation in which she stands to make a financial gain?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think I have already told the honourable member that the recommendation of the planning board was not accepted by the council of North York. To my knowledge, it has never been accepted by the council and, to my knowledge, there has never been any change in the zoning.

I have not been so notified at all. If there has been a change, it is a very great surprise to me because I have never heard that this has been done. North York council moved to do other things rather than to do the rezoning it had been talking about. It moved to do a review of the entire Yonge Street strip -- or Yonge Street corridor, not strip, since that is another part of Yonge Street, I gather.

I do not believe I am in a conflict of interest because I own no property adjacent to the area about which the cabinet committee on legislation made a recommendation. It was that committee that made the recommendation. I did not make an appeal to it, except to tell it that council felt it appropriate that it be dealt with expeditiously, whichever way it decided to deal with it.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the latest plant closure in Hamilton? The workers at the Stuart Street plant of Canron in Hamilton, who are members of Local 4213 of the United Steelworkers of America, were notified this morning that the plant would close permanently on February 1, 1985, continuing our slide into deindustrialization and causing another 60 jobs to be lost.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister tell us what discussions he had with the company before this announcement? Can he tell us specifically what effect the loss to Springfield, Ohio, of the order for pulp and paper refiner plates some few months ago had on this decision? Can he also tell us if this product can be sourced at any other Canadian manufacturer?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I met at 6:30 a.m. on Wednesday past with a vice-president of Canron to discuss the matter. He advised me then of the company's plans. Yes, the loss of a contract to Springfield in the United States did have an effect on the company's decision.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Labour going to have a meeting in this situation similar to the one he afforded the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor) when the closure of Black and Decker was announced? Is he going to have a meeting to which he will invite a representative of the New Democratic Party and a representative of the Liberal Party, so we can question these people and try to obtain information about whether or not the closure is a valid economic decision or one that is based solely on trying to move business outside Canada yet have a market to sell to inside Canada?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, if I receive a request from the union in question, I will be happy to have such a meeting.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not respond to my question about whether or not these pulp and paper refiner plates can be sourced by any other Canadian manufacturer, and I would like an answer to it.

As well, given the endless list of plant closures, which seem to make Canada the free world's patsy when it comes to protecting workers' jobs, will the minister not now seriously consider the re-establishment of the select committee on plant shutdowns with a broader mandate to look not only at the question of branch plants but also at the question of Canadian sourcing?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have a qualified answer to the honourable member. I do not believe there is other Canadian sourcing. We did discuss that, but I do not have my notes of the meeting here and I do not want to give the member an erroneous statement. The question was asked, and I believe the answer was that there is no sourcing elsewhere in Canada, but I will check it.

2:50 p.m.

Concerning whether I would give serious consideration to the re-establishment of the select committee on plant shutdowns, it is something I have been considering during the past number of months. I must put on the record again, in fairness, that the member for Hamilton East is suggesting we have a rash of closures at this time. I admit it would appear that way. Many have occurred in a short period of time and a lot of them are serious.

However, if the member would look at the record for the first eight months of this year, he will find there has been a decrease of about 30 per cent from last year in actual closures and workers affected. Last year there was a decrease of approximately 66 per cent from the year before.

The worst is over. That still does not make any closure any more acceptable, whether it is one person, 500 persons or 60 persons, as in the case of Canron. I readily admit that. Each one is tragic in its own way, but each one is being treated in the best possible manner by our people.

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. He is aware of -- and we have brought to his attention -- some political activity by crown employees. When I am placing a question to a minister, I find it somewhat offensive that he hide behind a large piece of paper. I am not sure what he is --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member please place his question.

Mr. Mancini: The Public Service Act and the Manual of Administration forbid any crown employee from associating his or her position in the service of the crown with any political party. Last week my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) brought to the minister's attention the case of Mr. Harry Parrott and Mr. John White, who are working on the leadership campaign of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) despite the fact they are both crown employees.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: Since the minister responsible for enforcing the rules refuses to take any action in those circumstances, I would like to bring to his attention yet another violation of the rules.

Is the minister aware that a few months ago Mr. Clare Westcott, the executive director of the Premier's office, a full-time schedule 2 crown employee, spoke at a Tory fund-raising dinner which was broadcast on Rogers Cable, and that in October Mr. Westcott attended yet another Tory fund-raising dinner to hear the Premier?

Does the minister not feel Mr. Westcott is clearly associating himself with a political party in contravention of the rules? What does he intend to do about these contraventions?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into the kinds of things the opposition members keep talking about. I am a little concerned that those are the kinds of things they think are the affairs of the nation today, with all the other problems we have, but I will look into it for the member and get back to him.

Mr. Mancini: One of the major problems we have in this province is the politicization of the public service. That is a major problem, and the people opposite are directly responsible for it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: We have brought to the attention of the Chairman of Management Board other examples of the rules on political activity being ignored by high-ranking friends of the Tory party.

Mr. Speaker: Place your question please.

Mr. Mancini: In light of these violations, will the minister, in his capacity as the guardian of public confidence in the neutrality of our public service in Ontario, tell us if he has been made aware of the recent comments of his colleague the Treasurer, who is a leadership candidate?

The Treasurer is quoted as promising to increase patronage appointments if he becomes Premier and even to go so far as to open a northern party patronage office to sift through the best jobs in the government for people in the north who -- and I quote the Treasurer's own words -- "have always been Tories and will continue to be."

Will the minister tell us whether he is concerned about the morality of government jobs being filtered through a party patronage office? How will the Chairman of Management Board, as the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission, prevent our public service from being flooded with Tory hacks?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The question the honourable member has asked will not get him any press and neither will the answer I am not going to give.

AVIATION AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CENTRES

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please place his question?

Mr. Wildman: I was trying to.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources related to the scathing indictment of the aviation and fire management centres of Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins and Toronto by the regional director of the Department of Transport in a report dated October 15 concerning the serious problems with airworthiness, maintenance and inspections of the ministry air fleet which were found in the Department of Transport's September inspection. I am particularly concerned about the risks faced by pilots and passengers.

Is the minister aware the Department of Transport concluded that his ministry was not complying with DOT regulations, air navigation orders and engineering and inspection manuals; that the Ministry of Natural Resources had deferred needed repairs of aircraft defects of airworthiness and had not adequately monitored such deferrals; that MNR had failed to ensure that all maintenance personnel were familiar with and adhered to DOT regulations and the ministry's own quality control manual; that MNR has insufficient personnel and organization to monitor the maintenance and inspection of aircraft to ensure airworthiness; that MNR did not do maintenance according to up-to-date manufacturers' manuals; and that there was inadequate training and upgrading programs for maintenance staff?

Can he confirm that these problems are related to attempts to cut costs and to freeze hiring by his ministry at the expense of safety for pilots and for the public that use government aircraft?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost confidence in the experience and qualifications of all the staff employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and, in particular, those employed at the aviation and fire management centre in Sault Ste. Marie and throughout Ontario. The DOT should be doing more with its time than trying to cross-analyse another government agency.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister explain why the chief inspector of the aviation and fire management centre does not have DOT approval to sign reports on airworthiness, which he must have according to DOT regulations? Can he explain why the former chief inspector is still signing reports even though he now has another job? Can he explain why maintenance supervisors double as quality control officials? Does he not recognize this as a conflict of interest that endangers air safety? Is it not time the minister responded? What is he going to tell DOT at the meeting on December 21?

Hon. Mr. Pope: What I am tempted to tell them or what we will tell them?

We have a high quality of maintenance and safety inspection in the Ministry of Natural Resources. We have a record that is second to none in this province and in North America. The Department of Transport is able to discuss these problems with our highly qualified staff as often as it wants. I am satisfied we are providing a high quality of aviation service to the people of this province.

CAN-CAR LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Labour. I have in front of me an article from the Times-News of Thunder Bay entitled "Can-Car Mediator Not Seen, Heard," which reads as follows:

"The Urban Transportation Development Corp., Can-Car Rail's parent, says it's received no word about negotiations from an assistant deputy minister supposedly appointed to mediate the company's dispute with 450 auto workers.

'We are aware that (Victor) Pathe was said in the Legislature to be the mediator,' said Phil Stevenson, UTDC's vice-president of public relations Wednesday. 'But as far as we know he hasn't contacted us or the union.'"

Will the minister give me a suitable answer in regard to when the negotiations are going to take place?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of that clipping here. As I indicated to the honourable member when he asked me the question in the House, Vic Pathe, our assistant deputy minister, would get involved. He has become involved. He held a meeting with Bob White, the Canadian director of the United Auto Workers, and Kirk Foley, the president of UTDC.

That was an exploratory meeting to see whether there was some common ground to resume mediation. Regrettably, the meeting did not uncover any common ground at this time for a resumption of mediation efforts, but that does not mean Mr. Pathe is not in constant touch with the individuals concerned. When the time seems appropriate, he will bring them together.

He did not deal with the people in Thunder Bay, as the article indicates, but he did deal with the senior persons on both sides of the issue, which I think is in response to the question and the request made to me by the member.

Mr. Hennessy: With the strike now in its third week and Christmas coming on, the workers are going to experience a bleak Christmas and a very difficult time. I would like to impress on the minister to use his powers to try to get the two sides together as soon as possible, because things are getting worse instead of better.

WINDSOR VACANCY RATE

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be aware that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. figures for October indicate a vacancy rate of just 0.7 per cent in Windsor and Essex county. I am sure he knows the current waiting list for Ontario Housing Corp. units in the community is about 400 families and seniors. Also, several hundred additional refugees who come to Windsor each year find housing is literally nonexistent.

What is the minister doing to overcome this desperate lack of affordable, decent, low-cost housing? In the absence of any building in the private market, will he make a commitment that his ministry and this government will get back into the housebuilding business in my community?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will recall that not many months ago we were dealing with the reverse situation in Windsor. Landlords and others were complaining that the vacancy rate was extremely high, seven per cent or greater, and they were looking for some ways to try to rent those accommodations. Because of the economics in that community and because this government has been able to encourage opportunities for development in the automobile industry in Windsor, the situation has turned around in a relatively short time.

Later this week I will be meeting with my colleagues from across Canada and the federal minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. to review what other housing programs we might put in place to bring on rental accommodations in the private sector, a portion of which could be made available for rent supplement purposes or to expand the municipal nonprofit program.

In 1978, the 10 provinces and two territories decided to go in that direction through the nonprofit program and not to continue with building and ownership. Indeed, I must say we had unanimity between the provinces and the federal government in that direction in 1978. I have not heard any suggestion that the provinces should get back into ownership and development.

We will continue to press the federal government for some new programs that will assist us in putting a greater number of units in place for middle-income groups and for those who require subsidies from the public purse.

Mr. Wrye: I am sure the minister is aware that among the decent, low-income, affordable housing stock, we lost some 200 units in Windsor this year. I am sure he knows there are hundreds of new refugees coming to the community each year who have no families to move in with for a short time.

We hear stories such as those in the newspaper this weekend about the Lara family: Seven people living in a rat-infested home with very little heat, which is a real danger to the whole family, including very young children.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: What solution can the minister offer that family in the short run? What solutions is he going to propose to his provincial and federal counterparts to make sure the housing crisis now developing in my community is solved in the short term and not two or three years down the road?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Windsor-Sandwich asks what I will do about that family. I should ask the member whether he has asked the Windsor housing authority whether these people are on the waiting list, whether they have made application, whether they have had a home visit and whether they have gone through the normal process of getting the opportunity of becoming part of the eligibility list for accommodation.

I do not believe one starts hopping, skipping and jumping around. We have a procedure and policy with which all members may not agree. In the discussions of my estimates and at various other times, we have come closer to an understanding and appreciation of how people become eligible for public housing in this province than we have been for many years.

If the member wants me to look at a specific case, I will do so and ask my people whether there has even been application made. I find so often that, while the problem comes to the press and this Legislature, the application has not been made to the local housing authority, which has the responsibility of trying to accommodate those people most in need. I want to underline the words "most in need," because that is really the purpose we have in trying to provide additional public housing. I will be glad to take the name and look at the situation.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, that is kind of a silly answer on the part of the minister, since the waiting list for Ontario Housing in this province, specifically in Windsor, is up by more than 100 per cent from a year ago.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: Why should they go on a waiting list? They cannot be housed on a waiting list.

Is the minister not aware that in cities such as Windsor, where the vacancy rate is now well below one per cent, rents for private sector housing, which is not under rent control, as in the case of Tecumseh Terrace, were raised last year by 18 per cent and 10 months later by another 17 per cent? That is 35 per cent in two years, which means low-income families cannot go to the private sector and the private sector cannot put affordable rental housing on the market.

We know what the problem is. Instead of convening and going to more meetings, why does the province not get back in the business of creating affordable housing in this province through the co-op, nonprofit and public housing sectors rather than opting out, as it has in the past number of years?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the honourable member correctly, he said he thought my answer was silly. Let me suggest that the latter part of his question is very silly, because the areas we have been penetrating directly, both at the federal and provincial levels, with the past federal government and the current federal government, have been the areas the member referred to, which are the municipal nonprofits, the private nonprofits and the co-ops.

We have also had the Canada rental supply program and the Canada-Ontario rental supply program -- which are two different programs, I might point out -- to try to develop some rental accommodation for moderate-income and low-income people, and a portion of all those units have been made available for rent-geared-to-income tenants.

Let me remind the members from Windsor that, like every other area of this province that has public housing under a housing authority, we do have an annual turnover of people, both in families and seniors, who leave the occupancy of those units. It is not a static situation; we have a turnover. The people on the waiting list will be accommodated as quickly as possible through the nonprofit programs, both private and municipal, the co-ops and through subsection 56(1) of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.

We are attempting to bring on stream in this province as many rent-geared-to-income units as possible. I think we have done a fairly substantial job this year. I have never said, either here or in my estimates, that we will see the day when we will be able to accommodate 100 per cent of the waiting list on any given day of the year. If we do, let me suggest strongly to this House and to the people of this province that we will have an oversupply of those units, because in Windsor we sat for a period of time, if the members from Windsor will recall, with a vacancy position in some of our public housing units.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Labour. Was he satisfied with the answers given by the American officials of Black and Decker in his office last Friday? Specifically, they refused to give any guarantee for any period that the housewares production being transferred from the Barrie plant would stay in Canada at the Brockville plant, they refused to divulge any of the feasibility studies they conducted on the plant merger and they refused to release to the workers, or those at the meeting, any of the information given to the Foreign Investment Review Agency to justify the purchase from Canadian General Electric, a move that saw the plant closed in a matter of a very few months.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the information I was disappointed in was the difference between the figures the union had as to the number of employees affected and the figures that were given to us at that time by the company. As a result, I called the company president first thing this morning and asked him to have figures done by an independent auditor and provided to me. I followed up immediately in that respect.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Mackenzie: I submit that the other questions may be even more important.

The minister is also aware that while the company's sales in Canada, as a percentage of its worldwide sales, are eight per cent in tools and 12 per cent in housewares, respectively, its employment in Canada is probably at or slightly less than four per cent, and the company flatly refused to consider any changes in Canada, saying we had to stand on our own two feet, as did any of their other plants, including Third World plants.

Inasmuch as this purchase and closure was part of Black and Decker's overall plan in the housewares division, as they said, will the minister move to earlier notification and some form of public justification, so that workers in the communities can have the truth in a plant closure and time to plan alternative measures, as an interim step before we deal with the more serious question or set up a serious plant shutdown committee review?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I cannot help recalling that the member for Hamilton East criticized me in estimates last week for asking soft questions of the company. I listened very intently while the member for Hamilton East asked questions of Black and Decker on Friday afternoon. He had ample opportunity -- and I was looking forward to it -- to ask some tough questions, but I did not hear any. I could not believe that the person who asked questions on Friday afternoon was the same person who had asked questions in the Legislature, in committee and so on.

The answer to the question is the same as I gave to the previous question asked today. Yes, am seriously considering the matter of restoring the closure committee we had before, and I am looking at other changes with respect to our severence pay laws.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Van Home: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs.

The minister is no doubt aware that his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has boasted about the improvement in employment prospects for young people in Ontario. I wonder whether the minister has made the Treasurer aware of the reality of youth unemployment in northern Ontario or whether the minister himself even knows the extent of that problem.

Let me point out just two of the rather startling statistics that one picks out of most recent numbers from Statistics Canada. For the period from August to October of 1984, the unemployment rate among those aged 15 to 24 in northeastern Ontario averaged 27.9 per cent; that is more than double the provincial average. For young males in that area, the number was more than 30 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Van Home: I wonder whether the minister has brought these statistics to the attention of the Treasurer and whether he has pressed him and his other colleagues for special assistance for the unemployed young people in the north.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am most appreciative of this question, and I share the honourable member's concern. The timing of his question is exceptionally correct, because this morning I, along with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) and my colleagues the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), spent the better part of the morning discussing this very issue with the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration. In fact, she just left about an hour ago.

All the points raised by the member were brought to the table, the Treasury people were there, and I expressed the concerns he has touched upon and even on a much broader basis. I am hopeful that the discussion we had this morning and this afternoon will translate into some positive programs and that we will see the results and the benefits flowing to those people in the youth movement of northern Ontario.

Mr. Van Home: I am pleased to hear that, but it seems to me the minister has had a general discussion before. What I am seeking from him --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Van Home: The Treasurer has a vaunted 10-point program for attacking youth unemployment, but it does not seem to attack any of the problems in the north. Will the minister give some direction to the Treasurer and get some assurance from him that this program will be expanded specifically to accommodate the problems of young people in the north?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I want to point out that the youth commissioner was at that meeting, as were a number of other senior officials within the Ontario government. We are very much aware of the $1-billion employment program that the federal government is bringing forward, and I am positive that when the results of this meeting are known, they will be of some satisfaction to both sides of the House.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs whether, in his discussions with the federal minister and his colleagues this morning, any specific emphasis was placed on the role tourism can play to create seasonal employment for youth and on the special advisory council announced recently by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) associated with the forest management agreements. Does the minister see any potential for creating long-term jobs for our youth in the field of forestry to carry out the government's and industry's responsibilities under the forest management agreements?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. All those points were touched on, including the short-term job creation programs and the long-term ones to which the honourable member has referred. I am sure he will see results from this morning's meeting.

REGIONAL CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister aware of the ongoing problems with respect to the waiting list at the regional children's centre that serves Essex, Lambton and Kent counties? As of today, according to the information given to me, there are 133 children on the waiting list for neuropsychology, seven for psychiatry, 71 for psychology, 93 for social work, 49 for speech therapy, seven for day treatment and 14 for home care.

In view of that, does the minister understand that this means a waiting list for children in desperate need of service from the regional children's centre? They have to wait three to nine months for service in the tricounty area. In the meantime, while the minister is underfunding that program, the reality is that children in desperate need are being left to fend for themselves without the proper assistance that should be provided through this ministry.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first, it is incorrect to say we are underfunding anything in those three counties. Second, I will look into the waiting list, but if it is like the waiting lists produced by the honourable member in the past, it is not a question of emergency need. However, we will look at it. Kent, Essex and Lambton are quite well funded with respect to children's services, and the children's services committee in the member's area says so.

PETITION

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition. I would appreciate it if the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) would wait for a while. The petition reads:

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

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

"We request the elimination of the pollution problem from the scrap yard known as Zalev Brothers at 100 Grand Marais Road East. The operation is a health hazard to all the people in the surrounding area as well as damaging to their properties."

The residents are anxious to have the minister attempt to resolve the problem.

CLOSURE OF HOMES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to draw to your attention that on Friday in question period the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) indicated he was going to answer a question with respect to the Shadow Lake farm. I hope he will do that tomorrow in ministerial statements or during question period.

Mr. Speaker: I must respond to that. The minister asked me whether he could respond to the question, and I asked him to lay it over because of the time constraint. He advised me he will not be in the House tomorrow, but will respond on Thursday, if that is agreeable with everybody.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you.

3:20 p.m.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Kolyn from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

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

Ministry administration program, $162,486,700; policy development and analysis program, $11,889,000; personnel audit program, $362,100; employee relations program, $914,000; government personnel services program, $741,100.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be transferred from the standing committee on social development to the standing committee on general government.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet on the evening of Monday, December 10.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate again for the information of the members it has been agreed that all votes will be stacked until 10:15 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, December 4.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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 9:

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I committed myself to making a statement at the start of the proceedings today. I had that statement ready to make but it was taken back for a couple of minor revisions. I am waiting for it to arrive. If the members have any other comments they would like to make, I suggest they go ahead and make them on this section and I will respond when they are finished.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) appears to be indicating he has a couple of comments on section 9.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, in the explanatory note it says: "The present basis on which benefits are paid is continued with respect to injuries and industrial diseases that occur before the bill comes into force. As of July 1, 1984, these benefits will be based on 75 per cent of gross earnings calculated on an earnings ceiling of $26,800 with respect to accidents occurring after July 1. (See paragraph 23 below.)"

I was thinking of a week I spent on the committee when it was dealing with the Weiler report and the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act. Looking at the ceiling of $26,800, if one looks at the average income in Ontario, I think of one industry in my area where the average income is about $28,000 a year. If I take the total of that at 75 per cent of $26,000, we are not really hitting the total income of a person. I suggest that 75 per cent of gross earnings is not sufficient today.

I thought at one stage the report was that we were going to move to a factor of 90 per cent. Now we are back down to the old section of the act with 75 per cent of income based on the maximum, which could be $22,000 or $23,000 previously, so we have moved it up $3,000 or so.

Many people today are in a higher income bracket than $26,500, the ceiling that is put there. We should be looking at their total income. I suppose if we take 75 per cent of that $26,000 and, say, he is earning $35,000, he has already lost a considerable amount of income through an injury if he has to go on workers' compensation. The income loss could be $10,000 in a number of instances.

I thought there was pretty well an understanding in the committee dealing with the amendments and the report itself that there should have been a higher ceiling. Is this $26,800 proposed in the bill for the current year, or are we looking for further amendments next year raising it to $29,000 or something like that?

Let us take, for example, professional firefighters. In my area they are earning about $32,000 to $35,000 a year, the same as the policemen. I know the policemen are earning that. But if they have to take the ceiling of $26,500, 75 per cent of that is quite a slice of their income, particularly if they happen to have a family of four children. Really, they are taking a beating on it.

It is hard for me, anyway, to accept this proposed amendment in the bill because I do not think it is fair.

Mr. Chairman: May I just help the member for Dovercourt? We were trying to deal with subsection 36(1), and I believe it was the amendment of the member for Dovercourt. We have more or less decided to deal with subsection 1 of section 36 as set forth in section 9 of the bill down to where it ends, "of a work-related injury." That is our first order of business.

Mr. Lupusella: Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) moved subsection 36(1) and clauses 36(1)(a), 36(1)(b), 36(1)(c) and 36(1)(d)?

Mr. Chairman: Right.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to say a few words on the principle of this section. I think my colleague spelled out the fact that I was not present on Friday because I was ill, but he made a few comments about this section, which is part of the core of the presentation we made before the committee.

It is an issue that has to do with tragic accidents affecting the families of workers killed on the job. We have raised this concern for many years. I recall that in 1975, 1976 and 1977 we raised the principle that the board's expenses were too low. Widows were not receiving enough money to look after kids, their education and so on.

3:30 p.m.

In the course of the presentations, employers accused some injured workers of abusing the system. However, there was no controversial position taken by the employers that benefits to widows and widowers in Ontario should be more generous than they are at present. There was a general consensus that it was time to improve the system to make the lives of widows and orphans better than they are under the present sections of the Workers' Compensation Act.

There was no disagreement or opposition from the employers. They recognized that the government and even Professor Weiler were going to make radical changes to improve the system. There was a general recognition that orphans and widows should be treated fairly well as a result of tragic incidents.

The New Democratic Party, particularly my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and myself, moved the principle on a different motion, saying that allowances and benefits should be retroactive to cover everybody, including widows and orphans of workers killed on the job several years ago. The one principle clearly spelled out by the government, employers and the Workers' Compensation Board was that if our proposal were accepted under the terms of our motion, employers across Ontario could not afford to pay the cost of it.

My position is that even though under Bill 101, we are faced with marginal improvements -- and I want to emphasize the words "marginal improvements" -- in relation to widows and orphans, the whole position raised by us during the course of the committee debates in relation to each clause of Bill 101 was the discriminatory practice that was set up in clause 36(1)(a) in relation to the age of widows.

There is no doubt there are marginal improvements set up by clause 36(1)(a) when we talk about a minimum lump sum of $40,000 and a maximum lump sum of $60,000. Within the framework of Bill 101, widows are discriminated against on a common basis, which is age. We disagree with that principle.

The pathetic case is common to all widows of different ages. Mr. Starr, a former chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, said the WCB is not a social agency that has to take into consideration all the needs of a particular family. Since the board's inception in 1914, it has compensated accidents and accidents only. Now, because of the age and the number of children or orphans involved as a result of fatal accidents, there is a discriminatory factor -- the age of the widow or indirectly the number of children affected by the loss of the breadwinner.

If we are going to stick to the principle of compensation per se and how compensation should go to widows and orphans, the discriminatory age factor should be eliminated. We should take into consideration the principle of compensation, which for our purpose is the lump sum of $40,000 minimum and $60,000 maximum, plus an additional $1,000 for each year under 40 years of age of the spouse at the time of the worker's death. In no case shall a spouse receive a lump sum payment of more than $60,000.

We want to eliminate and exclude the age factor which in our opinion is very discriminatory. I do not think the government should make reference to the age of the widow in determining the amount of compensation to which she is entitled.

We are contradicting the principle of compensation in Ontario. Later, in the near future, in future reforms or in phase 2 of changes to the Workers' Compensation Board, we will analyse the need of a family when an injury has taken place. I am sure that eventually the government will take into consideration the compensation the injured worker should get when he is faced with an industrial accident. As I stated previously in different debates, that undermines the principle of compensation in Ontario.

With all the pain and suffering the widow and orphans go through from the loss of the breadwinner, I do not think they should be penalized because of the widow's age. We are mounting opposition to the content and sub-clauses of Bill 101 as drafted by the government. In our amendment, we exclude the age factor in determining the amount of money the spouse will receive as a result of a fatal accident.

3:40 p.m.

To give a synopsis of my previous statement, there is widespread recognition on the part of employers and the government -- and in particular the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has been quite sensitive to the issue of improving compensation to widows in Ontario. I read a few paragraphs of his ministerial statement very quickly. I realize he is also considering some retroactive allowances to be given to widows in phase 2 of changes to the Workers' Compensation Board.

I see by the minister's gesture that it is in phase 1. I am pleased to see the minister indicating he is moving fast on implementing something that has been strongly requested by us and by injured workers across the province.

I have a disagreement and I will state my opposition, even though I endorse the principle of the minister's amendment. Existing widows will not be treated the same way as new widows who are covered under Bill 101. Unless there is a completely different section, of which I am not aware, the minister is talking about a special allowance that will be retroactive and which has nothing to do with the lump sum payment of $40,000 minimum to $60,000 maximum. We are again disputing the amount of money that has to be given to widows of the past, if I can use that phraseology. We are against the amount of money that will be given as a result of the amendment which will be introduced by the government.

On this side of the House, we have been more generous to widows in relation to past injuries. I think subsection 36(1) talks about retroactive payments that should incorporate everybody. I understand the dilemma of the government. I understand employers across Ontario have been crying out about the rate increases which, if I am not mistaken, will amount to 15 per cent in 1984-85. That increase, and the future increases that should cover the unfunded liability of the board, should be matched with the free rides employers in the province have been receiving in previous years.

There was an increase of eight per cent in 1976-77, and even in 1978. Then there was a decrease of eight or nine per cent because employers were lobbying with the government that they could not afford the new rates. If they are complaining now, they have to remember the board treated them quite well in the past. They got a few rights in relation to the assessment of their premium. Now there is a huge, unfunded liability that will amount eventually to $4.9 billion, if we are talking about a fully indexed act. They have to remember their rates in the past have been very cheap.

To finalize my comments, what the minister is proposing to do in phase 1 of reshaping the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario, giving some sort of allowance to widows in relation to past injuries, must be recognized in some way as a sign of goodwill. The employers, the government, the Ministry of Labour and the Workers' Compensation Board all recognize that the government was supposed to move in such a direction in the past and never did. Now that Bill 101 is talking about a lump sum payment of $40,000 to $60,000, those widows should be incorporated as well.

Of course, we are opposed to the principle of the age factor, which is very discriminatory. I compliment the minister for taking into consideration something that should be improved and was supposed to be improved a long time ago. Even though the board invested and is still investing billions of dollars just to cover the unfunded liability, which has been unfunded since 1915 or whenever this new phenomenon arose, whatever amount of money this government board will spend on behalf of women who have been widowed by fatal accidents, I do not think it will be enough to cover the pain and suffering so many people go through, particularly children who may not get the education they are entitled to because of lack of funds.

In light of all the interest the board got from its investments of billions of dollars, I think in 1984-85 the government, because it recognizes the loophole that has always existed within the infrastructure of the board, should give back some of this interest money to the people who really need it.

There is no dispute that widows should be treated fairly. They have been going through hardship as a result of losing the breadwinner of the family, and the children have been suffering the consequences of the loss of their father and in some cases even their mother. The government has a responsibility to take the financial burden into consideration and reverse that burden on to the employers and the funds of the Workers' Compensation Board.

I want to reiterate the principle. We are not talking about malingering cases. We are talking about clear-cut cases of people who lost their lives. I do not want to use the argument, which I used at the committee stage, that if someone kills a policemen, it then becomes popular to talk about capital punishment. All the people who are pro-capital punishment could enlarge their position so that even if a citizen is killed, the same principle of capital punishment would be maintained in accordance with that position.

We make exceptions in our society. If a policeman or a guard is killed, then capital punishment is appropriate. If a regular citizen in our province is killed, then the capital punishment principle is not maintained. I do not make this brief reference because I am pro-capital punishment, but I will never understand the position taken by those who suggest the use of capital punishment in cases where a policeman or a guard is killed, yet when a regular citizen is killed do not think capital punishment should be applied.

I do not understand the criteria for that position. I do not see any difference between a worker and a policeman who have been killed in the line of duty. The same principle must be maintained, if we want to take into consideration human values. We are here not as numbers in our society, but as human beings. Each human being has a different value that should be evaluated and maintained by the government.

3:50 p.m.

I do not think the government has been maintaining these program measures just to evaluate the value of people in our society. Dollars and cents have been guiding the government to find out how much money should be spent and whether the system can afford the money to give to people who are clearly and legally covered under the Workers' Compensation Act.

With these comments I will stop on subsection 36(1). We were impelled to move this particular amendment because of the discriminatory factor that has been incorporated into the principle of Bill 101, which has been moved by the government. Our position excluded this discriminatory factor with respect to spouses affected by a fatal accident.

I hope members of the House will support our amendment. I think I stated clearly that employers across the province, members of the Legislature and even the government and the minister have been recognizing that if there is any issue within the principle of the Workers' Compensation Act on which the government and the politicians should not compromise themselves, it is this particular section. I do not think we have to place negative factors within the principle of the section that discriminate as between one group of spouses and other groups of spouses.

I urge the members of the Legislature to support my amendment.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I say this in jest but if the honourable member had gone on much longer, I probably would have changed my mind about some amendments I was prepared to make in response to the points he has been raising now for several weeks, but he stopped just in time.

Mr. Barlow: Quit while you are ahead.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say.

Mr. Breaugh: Do not get too talkative or we will start counting noses this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Before I do, I believe the member for Erie made reference -- and I must apologize because I was in and out at the time -- to the covered earnings ceiling as $26,800. The covered earnings ceiling is currently $26,800. In the new act it will be $31,500. I am not sure whether that was the member's point or not, but it will be $31,500 in the new act.

With your concurrence, Mr. Chairman, I want to read a statement of about six or seven pages that deals with this whole section. It deals primarily with the matters the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) was raising. It goes a little farther than the points he was talking about, but it addresses the whole section.

Mr. Chairman: I think it would be helpful to the committee if we were to deal with all of it in that context.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Chairman: We can deal with anything within the context of section 9.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I was thinking that. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I only suggested the broader range, hoping it might cut down the debate later on.

Mr. Mancini: It will not.

Mr. Chairman: We can hope.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Let me go ahead. If you call me out of order at any point, I will sit down.

There are a number of items related to section 9 that I have reviewed in light of the remarks made by members during the committee stage.

First, questions have been raised about the application of the new system for survivors' benefits to existing surviving spouses. To a large extent, part III of this bill addresses this issue. However, within the confines of the bill, it is the case that existing surviving spouses would continue to receive benefits under the act as it currently stands and that the new system would apply only to fatalities occurring after proclamation of the amending act.

The net result, as has been pointed out, is that those who lose their spouses in fatal accidents after the proclamation date will, on average, receive a higher level of pension than existing surviving spouses in similar circumstances. This kind of anomaly often arises when progressive legislation is introduced, but it does concern me that there would be a discrepancy between the pensions of existing spouses and those that will be established under the new system.

The best estimate of the gap between these two groups of survivors, on average, is about 13 per cent. In arriving at this estimate, board actuaries have taken into account factors such as the average age of surviving spouses, the expected pre-accident earnings and the effect that Canadian pension plan benefits would have on entitlements. To eliminate the discrepancy at once would impose a substantially higher burden on employers who will already have to bear significantly increased costs by virtue of this legislation.

Accordingly, I intend to introduce a series of supplements to the ad hoc adjustments that will be made in the future to the pensions of existing spouses. The supplement will be set at three per cent over and above the level of each ad hoc increase, which would have the effect of closing the entire gap in a little less than four instalments.

Second, I would like to address the proposed integration -- this is where the Chairman might wish to call me out of order -- of CPP disability and survivor benefits with the Workers' Compensation Board rehabilitation supplements, older worker supplements and survivor benefits. This issue has been extensively discussed on second reading and in the standing committee that recently considered Bill 101.

As the members know, CPP disability pensions are financed out of a pool of funds to which workers and employers each contribute. Bill 101 considers these payments as part of the total disability-related income to which the injured worker is entitled. The amount of CPP disability benefit payable will, therefore, be deducted from a worker's pre-injury gross earnings before the worker's supplement entitlement is calculated in order to get a true measure of net income remaining to be compensated by the Workers' Compensation Board.

With respect to permanently disabled workers, the integration of benefits with CPP payments will apply only to cases where supplements are received. The issue of integrating WCB and CPP benefits for all permanently disabled workers will be addressed in phase 2 of our legislative reform program, along with the more general issues related to compensation for permanent disability.

It is also worth noting that the proposed benefit integration will not affect every case in which an applicant for a supplement or survivor's benefit is receiving CPP payments. In the hearings held by the standing committee on resources development, it was made clear by board officials that no deduction of CPP benefits from gross earnings will occur if CPP is payable for injuries unrelated to the worker's compensable condition. Similarly, CPP payments will not be offset in calculating the WCB survivor entitlement of a spouse who is receiving CPP for an unrelated reason. To ensure that this interpretation is clear to all, however, I will be introducing appropriate amendments to the bill.

It has been suggested that applying the CPP offset to existing beneficiaries will disadvantage them relative to their current position. I would like to make it clear that no existing recipient of a survivor's benefit will be affected by the CPP offset. With respect to those on supplement, officials in the Worker's Compensation Board have advised me that current recipients of rehabilitiation or older worker supplements will continue to receive the same supplemental benefits as they do now.

All supplements are reviewed periodically, usually at annual intervals. Only when these temporary supplements are reviewed in the future may the board decide to offset CPP disability benefits in computing earnings, or it may rule that they should not be offset because entitlement to the CPP pension is unrelated to the worker's compensable injury.

The debate about integration between CPP and WCB has raised one additional matter, namely, the fairness of deducting CPP contributions and calculating the net earnings basis of benefits. Some members consider that deducting both contributions to CPP and benefits financed by the plan, for the purpose of computing net earnings, places the worker or survivor in a kind of double jeopardy. I am not persuaded by this argument.

4 p.m.

First, it is worth noting that CPP disability is financed by only a very small fraction of the total CPP premium and, therefore, a double jeopardy situation hardly arises. In fact, most of the CPP contribution paid finances the plan's retirement income plan from which an injured worker can expect to collect a retirement pension at age 65.

Aside from this minor quantitative impact, however, as a matter of principle I do not accept it is unfair to deduct Canada pension plan contributions in the computation of net earnings. The purpose of our system is to compensate injured workers for the loss of their earning capacity measured in terms of net earnings.

As a practical matter, what workers lose when they are disabled is their ability to generate take-home pay. Our concern should be to replace this loss. Our purpose in integrating workers' compensation benefits with those received from CPP is to ensure that these two systems combine to compensate every injury adequately.

I believe it is appropriate that CPP contributions, along with unemployment insurance premiums and income tax, be considered to be basic deductions from gross earnings. These are the statutory deductions that every worker is required to pay. Any given worker may have a number of additional nonstatutory deductions resulting in lower take-home pay than calculations under Bill 101 would suggest; however, we do not propose to take these deductions into account, as they vary considerably from worker to worker.

I believe the proposed approach to calculating net earnings under the bill is both practical and fair. Ontario's proposal on this point accords with that of every other provincial board that calculates benefits based on 90 per cent of the worker's pre-injury net earnings.

I would like to turn to another important aspect of Bill 101 that received lengthy consideration both in the standing committee and by officials of my ministry. This is the issue of improving survivor benefits for existing survivor claimants.

I am pleased to note that members of all parties have acknowledged that the approach of Bill 101 to survivor compensation is a substantial improvement. Briefly, the current scheme provides surviving spouses of fatally injured workers with a flat $593 per month plus $185 for each dependent child. By contrast, Bill 101 will provide both a lump sum and a continuing payment based on the survivor's age, the presence or absence of dependent children and the deceased's income at the time of death. In other words, benefits will be tailored more to the individual circumstances of the survivor.

The approach of Bill 101 to survivor claims has been widely endorsed, and there has been some suggestion that this scheme should be applied retroactively to cover existing claims. Aside from the obvious administrative difficulties in so doing, the cost of retroactive application has been estimated to be very large. Necessary lump sum payments alone would require a disbursement of $162 million. I believe such an additional burden on employers would not be proper at this time.

However, it is desirable to narrow the disparities in entitlement between those widowed prior to the proclamation of the new act and those claiming after its introduction. As I said earlier, it is my intention to address this matter when the next ad hoc increase in WCB benefits comes before the House. At that time I will be proposing a special supplement for spousal survivors whose entitlement arose before proclamation of Bill 101 to bring this group's general level of continuing benefits into line with the pensions of new claimants.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, the minister made particular reference to my amendment --

Mr. Chairman: With all due respect, I think we had best follow the rotation. The honourable member did have the last opportunity to make comments. I am sure we will keep them all in context. The first member on his feet was the member for Essex South.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, we are going to be here until December 23.

We are going to spend a few minutes on this section, because it affects people who have had a member of the family die as a result of an accident in the work place. Even talking about such a situation is difficult, let alone trying to affix an appropriate compensable level for the survivors of the worker.

I am dealing with clause 36(1)(a), so I am in order, Mr. Chairman. I want to bring that to your attention. I am not going to divert my conversation to some of the other sections we will be talking about later. If we continue to do that, I humbly say we are not going to get this bill through the House.

When we try to set a level that we deem appropriate or fair, or advisable or affordable, in my view there will never be any kind of unanimity among the members of this House. I should say there is no unanimity in the parties that are represented in the House, let alone all the members.

The present section the minister has introduced takes into consideration the age and the need of the spouse, and I believe it takes into consideration the earnings the deceased individual might have been able to make at the particular job. We have a system whereby, if the individual was under 40 years of age, we are assuming the surviving spouse would have carried on working for a good number of years and, therefore, the entitlement has increased. If the spouse is over 40 years of age, we are assuming the deceased would have worked for a more limited period of years and, therefore, the amount of lump sum entitlement is lowered. We have a maximum of $60,000 and a minimum of $20,000 to ensure fairness in the formula that has been put forward in the bill.

I do not mind when the member for Dovercourt takes 20 or 25 minutes to give the same speech he gave nine years ago, but I do mind when I am giving my few comments and he sits next to the minister and takes up his attention. I do mind that. None the less, my words will be on record, and the minister and the member for Dovercourt will be able to read them later if they choose to.

We have here a bill we can either accept with some minor amendments, as has been suggested by some of the injured workers' organizations that have made telephone calls to my office, or we can continue to debate at length, which I am very prepared to do. Since we are not going to do a major revision of the Workers' Compensation Act for some years to come, at least not with this government, I believe we should get in as many licks as we can while we are doing this bill.

We have in front of us an amendment by the New Democratic Party which on the face of it seems fair, but having listened to the arguments of the member for Dovercourt and looked at the amendment, the two do not mix. The member for Dovercourt says we should have a very full payment in the case of a deceased worker. Yet in the formula he puts forward he has a system whereby, in some situations, a person would receive $60,000 in a lump sum and, in other situations, a person would receive anything between $60,000 and $40,000, with a minimum level of $40,000.

4:10 p.m.

In actuality, what the member for Dovercourt has done is what the NDP continually does; that is, up the ante in every amendment. If we had proposed $40,000, they would have proposed $45,000 or $50,000. If the member for Dovercourt had taken his logic right to its conclusion, the amendment would have read that a person would be compensated by a lump sum payment of $60,000, period.

I think I would have respected the member's amendment if he had said: "We are fooling around with the formula here and, no matter what we do with the formula, it is going to be unfair. A death is a death. A person who has died and left obligations and family behind is a real tragedy, and the payment should be $60,000. Let us stop fooling around with the formula. Let us not take into consideration moneys that might have been earned or moneys that would be earned; let us not take into consideration that the Workers' Compensation Board is supposed to be a system where your wages are guaranteed." Then a $60,000 lump sum payment would have been the amendment to make.

But when we say that to use a formula is incorrect and then introduce an identical formula, the only change being that the minimum is higher than the one proposed, we are actually talking about the same thing. The only thing that is different, I say to the member for Dovercourt, is that the minimum level guaranteed to the family is $40,000 and not $20,000.

Why is $40,000 fair? Why is $45,000 not fair? Why is $50,000 not fair? As I said earlier, let us make it $60,000. If the principle we are talking about is to give the family of the deceased a lump sum payment, period, then we should not have a formula either in the minister's bill or in the amendment. We should not have a formula at all; let us give the person a simple, straight, lump sum payment.

I would be sympathetic to such an amendment, but such an amendment has not been put forward. I believe what is happening here is just a situation in which we are going to up the ante in the case being presented by the minister.

I am not saying that in each and every case upping the ante is wrong. I want to have this clear and on the record. Upping the ante itself is not wrong, but attacking the formula as the wrong system and then using a similar formula but coming up with a different number is, to me, actually succumbing to the principle that the minister is espousing in the bill.

His principle is that we are going to pay someone according to what we theorize would be the income lost, and one way we are going to do that is by coming up with a formula that will give a maximum of $60,000 and a minimum of $20,000.

Certainly I will support an amendment that says, "Let us give them $40,000 instead of $20,000." Why would I not support that kind of amendment? Who in his right mind would vote against an amendment that says, instead of giving the family of a deceased worker $20,000 minimum, we are going to give them $40,000?

Mr. Grande: Usually the Liberals and Tories vote against such things.

Mr. Mancini: No. I am talking about the fact that we are going to up the ante here by $20,000; we are going to give a lump sum payment. I am just curious about it, and I am not very comfortable with it. If this is the route we are going to take, then I would prefer to establish a minimum lump sum payment.

Let us forget about all these formulas and say: "Here is $60,000, because that is what the maximum was," or "Here is $50,000, because the minimum would have been $40,000, the maximum would have been $60,000 and therefore we have tried to find a middle ground and to treat everybody appropriately. We are going to say it is a $50,000 lump sum. We do not care how young or old you are, how many more years you would have had in the work place or how many years you had in the work place. Let us just forget about the formula."

As far as I am concerned, it is a very difficult situation and one with which I find myself completely uncomfortable. I might as well prepare and table an amendment that says: "Let us forget about this formula. We are going to give everybody $50,000. We do not care what their age is or how long they have been in the work place."

We sit here in the House, come up with amendments, fool around with the same principle and the same formula the minister has used and then condemn the minister for using the formula. We say, "Once the person gets the minimum of $20,000, we are going to give a special one-time payment to ensure the family gets $40,000."

I am not going to vote against the amendment. I am not going to say these people are not desiring or do not need this extra money. Yes, they desire the extra money. In every situation, a strong case can be made that $20,000 is too low and that $40,000 is fairer.

I would say exactly the same thing to the proposal I was talking about only a minute ago. In every situation, a strong case could be made that $40,000 is too low and that $50,000 is fairer. Therefore, I say to my friend the member for Dovercourt: "Let us get together. Let us forget about the amendment you have made. Let us establish a basic, fair lump sum payment. Let us throw out the formula the minister has introduced, which we do not like and which we are speaking against. Let us come up with a fair lump sum payment and stop fooling around with this formula."

I do not know how I could explain to my colleagues in this House that we are working with this formula, which has given us a scale of $60,000 to $20,000. The New Democrats have come in with exactly the same formula. They say the minister's conclusions are not any good and they have come in with a $60,000 to $20,000 formula and a $20,000 one-time, lump sum payment.

I am sure the first question to be asked of me would be, "Why are we fooling around with the formula?" Let us give a fair lump sum payment and treat the situation in a fair, just and rational manner. I say to the member for Dovercourt that we should get together and present an amendment. I can move it and he can second it, or he can move it and I can second it. We could give a $50,000 lump sum and forget the silly formula we have been talking about, if our objection to the situation is to the formula.

If all we are doing is trying to up the ante again and again with the minister, I will go along with it, sure. I am not going to vote in favour of less when I can adequately support the position of giving more; I am not going to vote for that kind of situation. Therefore, I wait to hear whether the member for Dovercourt is going to accept my suggestion.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the comments by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and to the statement of the minister.

The minister is planning to introduce amendments, and there is one aspect of this statement that touches a principle incorporated in my new clauses 36(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and in subsection 2 and so on. I do not have any objection to what the member for Essex South suggested. My problems arose in dealing with the formula, when the committee approached what the formula was all about.

In our new amendment, we are talking about $40,000 as the minimum instead of $20,000. On top of that, there will be a monthly pension that would be given to surviving spouses -- the minister may correct me; I do not want to be wrong -- unless it is just a lump sum payment of $20,000 minimum and $60,000 maximum. Therefore, we are talking about monthly pensions as well. Actually we are talking about the pension per se and the lump sum, which within the framework of the minister's section was $20,000 minimum and $60,000 maximum. I had problems in relating the two figures.

I do not know how the board is going to implement the minimum and the maximum or the number that is between those two figures. I do not understand it yet, unless it will be in the form of a policy. My mind is still puzzled about the new framework that will be set up to establish the content and the total amount of the lump sum, the minimum and the maximum.

In our section we are increasing the minimum from $20,000 to $40,000, which is an improvement as far as we are concerned. I would like to remind the member for Essex South that during the committee stage the Liberal members were concerned about the rising costs for employers.

To restate my position, I would favour a lump sum payment of $60,000 for everybody. The member suggested we work together in drafting a section. I am urging him to move an amendment around the $60,000, which I would be pleased to endorse; I do not have any problem. At least we are trying to take into consideration an aspect of the Workers' Compensation Act that was completely ignored in the past.

Through the course of the presentations from employers there was a common factor; that was cost. The cost is still alive in the employers' minds. They are particularly concerned about this generous Bill 101. To be frank, I do not think Bill 101 is extremely generous; there are marginal improvements in the bill. That is what the marginal improvements are all about.

From talking to the minister, it appears that the only difference between the monthly payments to new surviving spouses -- and I hope we are not faced with any fatal accidents in Ontario -- and old surviving spouses, the gap which currently exists, is 13 per cent. In the ministerial statement it appears to be 13 per cent, and that gap will be covered by future increases effecting improvements and benefits for injured workers across Ontario.

The only new feature in Bill 101 is the lump sum payment of $20,000 minimum to a maximum of $60,000. Again, I do not have any idea of the framework within which the board will operate in the near future. I am sure the board, based on its past history, will lean towards the minimum rather than touching the maximum, but I hope I am wrong.

I hope I am going to get a clear indication of how this formula of the lump sum payment is going to be implemented and I hope that in the future, based upon our continuing struggle and the battle to improve the benefits of surviving spouses in Ontario, we are eventually going to move towards the principle and establishment of the lump sum payment, which should be retroactive to cover everybody.

Based on information the committee received, we are at present dealing with 5,000 surviving spouses in the province. Most of them are quite elderly and if we do not move quickly, in the future, to establish a balance between the new surviving spouses and the old ones, a lot of them will not become eligible because they will have passed away. I hope the minister will take note of the urgency. I remind him that the struggle in the Legislature, as far as this party is concerned, will continue in the future.

I hope the member for Essex South will move an amendment to take into consideration the $60,000 lump sum payment that should be given to everybody regardless of age or number of children. I would like to tell him I will endorse that principle. I had several problems with the implementation of the lump sum payment from the very beginning when it was clearly spelled out in the content of Bill 101.

Based on the content of clause 36(1)(a), I want to show my disappointment to the minister. Even though he has been quite generous in eliminating the gap between the new surviving spouses and the old ones, there is another gap involving the lump sum payment which is not equally implemented to the two classes of surviving spouses in Ontario. This is a great loophole that should be covered. I hope the minister will see the urgency of covering that loophole.

We are not dealing with a great many people who are affected by the lump sum payment. Even so, the reaction of the board is that the rise in cost will be horrendous and it cannot be implemented at this time. Based on my personal experience, and considering all the investments coming to the board in the near future from real estate and Ontario Hydro bonds that will mature, there is a return of money that has been taken away from injured workers for many years. I hope this amount of money, based on the principle of the free rides employers across the province have taken for so many years, is going to lead to some justice on behalf of injured workers across Ontario.

I understand the board is puzzled by the unfunded liability which, if it has to take into consideration the full index, will eventually amount to $4.9 billion. This amount is estimated by actuaries employed by the board. Although we do not understand their criteria sometimes, this is the figure that has been given to us.

4:30 p.m.

On this issue, the money should not compromise the principles of justice and fairness on behalf of the people who are suffering most as a result of fatal accidents. I hope the minister will be guided in future increases so lump sum payments are equally implemented for the two classes of surviving spouses that have now been set up as a result of Bill 101. When the future improvements are in place before us, I hope the lump sum payment will be one of the items the minister has to consider.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I am rather lost on section 36 and its intent as it relates to death and compensation payable by way of a lump sum of $40,000 and increased by the addition of $1,000 for each year of age. It can go to a maximum of $60,000 or a minimum of $20,000.

I think of the resolution to the minister that was passed in 1978. It was endorsed by the Conservative members of the committee at that time. The intent of the resolution was that if we were integrating workers' compensation with Canada pension or with other forms of benefits or pension schemes, there would be in the end result a guaranteed annual income so that a person is not going to remain in poverty.

When I look at the Weiler report and the white paper, I think members here, and in particular the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the legislation, have forgotten the principle of that resolution, because in this bill the government is putting a price on the breadwinner, the head of the family, in saying that his value is $40,000.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: How do you want to deal with it?

Mr. Haggerty: How do I want to do it? I want to see that a person is being --

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Why were you not at committee? Why did you not bring this up in the committee?

Mr. Haggerty: I was not a member of the committee; I had the privilege of sitting there for one week.

But I introduced a resolution in 1978, and this is why I am saying that the minister has forgotten the principle of that resolution. Here he is giving nothing.

I mentioned this before to the minister and to the House. For example, an article in the St. Catharines Standard on November 12, 1984, said that a victim was awarded $463,500 for a back injury in an automobile crash. It says the award is one of the highest judgements in the judicial district of Niagara South.

If we look at the income from a tort or civil action, 10 per cent brings us up to $40,000. But for a person who loses his life through an accident, his value is only $40,000. That is what the minister is telling me.

Then he has integrated the Canada pension scheme in there. Yes, there will be some benefit that the surviving spouse can get.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: How much do you want the survivor to get?

Mr. Haggerty: I am looking for a fair source of income. What is the guaranteed income?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Is that what you want?

Mr. Haggerty: I am looking at something around $10,000 or $12,000 a year. Those are the figures that have been presented as being above the poverty level. I think it is around $13,000, if I am not mistaken.

Look at what the minister is doing here. He says, "Yes, we are going to give you that as a maximum and forget about everything else." There will be some allowance for supporting a child as long as he is in school to the age of 19. The question is, can he go to school later on? Somebody else will have to appeal that to the Workers' Compensation Board to decide whether he is capable of proceeding into higher education.

When we tie in the Canada pension plan we are going to end up with about $4,000, which a surviving spouse now receives under the act. The government is not giving them anything. It has dovetailed Canada pension in there. I thought that by dovetailing it in there the government would raise the level of income, but it has not; it has removed the benefit.

I believe I was in the committee at the time one of the persons made a representation on the white paper. He said at the end of his report, "Weiler poses the question whether workers should be given back the right to sue employees in tort as an alternative to workers' compensation. He responds in the negative. With respect, I would suggest that Weiler asked the wrong question. If the workers' compensation system did what it ought to do, for example, provide full compensation, the question of right to sue in tort would become irrelevant because tort liability would not yield any advantage. Workers' compensation would, as it should, provide a remedy equal to that offered by tort liability."

That is the point I want to drive home to the minister. This section does not give it. If one looks at further sections in the bill as they relate to burial expenses, the minister has dovetailed the Canada pension plan money in there. Under the act the board will pick up the additional $1,500, that is, 50 per cent by the Canada pension plan and 50 per cent by the Workers' Compensation Act. For burial expenses today, $3,000 is about the minimum, but he has paralleled or dovetailed both of them together. He has shortchanged the workers again.

In case of death, they should be paying for total burial expenses, not 50 per cent under the present Workers' Compensation Act. When one brings in CPP, that raises it another $1,500. In the bill, subsection 9(13) says, "In calculating the average earnings of the deceased worker for the purposes of paying compensation by way of periodic payments under this section, there shall be deducted from such earnings any payments received by way of any survivor's benefit under the Canada pension plan."

I can see the red tape that is going to be involved in the appeals someone will have to make on behalf of the workers. There will be chaotic rules in place in order to arrive at reasonable and fair compensation benefits under this act. I can just see the red tape and the delays that will go on for years and years in the appeal system, to try to arrive at a fair and reasonable decision regarding the benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act.

I am so disgusted with this section that I will not support even the amendment, because it does not go far enough. It is not a fair piece of legislation. If the loss of the head of the family when death occurs through an accident is valued at only $40,000, that is about one year's wages. That is what is offered to the surviving spouse. It is shameful. That section is neither fair nor reasonable. I hope the minister will come back with something reasonable that can be accepted by the members of this House.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any other comments. I would like to move the other amendments, if I may. Eventually we can --

Mr. McClellan: We have to vote on this one.

Mr. Chairman: Is everyone in favour of putting the question that was moved by the member for Bellwoods?

Mr. Mancini: I am assuming we have finished discussion of the amendment made by the member for Dovercourt?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Mancini: I am sorry. Does the minister have something to say?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I have two very quick comments. The first is in response to the member for Dovercourt. He suggests there is board discretion in arriving at the pensions and the lump sum. That is not the case at all. The application of the formula is clearly set out in section 31 and it is not subject to administrative discretion by the board at all. I want to make that clear.

4:40 p.m.

With the greatest of respect, I believe the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) is forgetting that, along with the lump sum, the survivor gets a pension at 90 per cent of the deceased's pre-injury earnings if he or she has dependent children. The new formula that has been worked out is considered a landmark approach to the problem. It is a major improvement in the survivor benefits and one I am sure will be copied by other jurisdictions across Canada and the United States.

I realize everybody wants more and there has to be a balance, but I really did make an effort when I committed myself to making an additional three per cent increase each year in survivor benefits along with the ad hoc increases until they reach parity. I really did feel I was addressing the great concerns of the opposition members at committee who spoke at length and very articulately and sincerely. We have wrestled with that one. In fact, I do not think the honourable members opposite expected I was going to bend a bit, but I have bent a great deal. I am disappointed they do not feel it is enough.

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with the amendment to section 9 of the bill that has been referred to as the amendment of the member for Dovercourt. I believe it was moved by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan).

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mancini moves that proposed clause 36(1)(a) of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be deleted in its entirety and the following substituted therefor:

"(a) compensation payable by way of a lump sum of $50,000."

Mr. Lupusella: On a point of clarification before the honourable member debates his motion: Is this amendment also striking out our amendment that talks about retroactive entitlement to widows of workers who died as a result of a work-related injury? I am not certain what it means.

Mr. Chairman: No. The amendment of the member for Dovercourt stands; this is a new amendment.

Mr. Mancini: My amendment is an amendment to the government's bill. I am not here to amend the amendments of the New Democratic Party; I am here to amend the government's legislation.

We have had a fair amount of discussion since the end of question period on this section. We know the government's position. We know it has moved significantly and that this was not in all previous legislation. Was it fair that this was not in the previous workers' compensation legislation? We have to assume it was indeed unfair and that many people who work for the government of Ontario are entitled to some type of insurance and to some type of payment in the case of a tragedy or a death.

We have a situation here in which the government has put forward a formula that was worked out during the committee hearings. The formula gave a maximum of $60,000 and a minimum of $20,000 to the survivors. It was moved by the New Democratic Party that the maximum should be $60,000 and the minimum $40,000. While criticizing the formula, they used exactly the same formula and changed the figures.

After listening to the debate and consulting with some of my colleagues, and after giving this a rational review, I have come to the conclusion that if the formula is no good when we end up with figures of $60,000 and $20,000, then it is no good when we end up with figures of $60,000 and $40,000. If the formula is no good, the formula is no good and we should not be using it.

I have come to the conclusion that it would be best if we treated everybody equally in such tragic situations and that we not put in place a formula for people to try to work out. Many of the people who are injured do not have a good command of the English language and of the customs, culture and nature of our society. Unfortunately, many of them, particularly in the construction business, were not able to attend school in this country.

Therefore, these situations are not as easily explained to them as they possibly are to people who have grown up in this country. However, even in those cases it might be difficult to inform one family or another about why we have adopted a formula that gives somebody $60,000 or $20,000 or, if we adopted the NDP formula, $60,000 or $40,000.

If we give a lump sum payment of one amount to all families that find themselves in this tragic situation, I believe it will be easily explainable. It will be fair and equal for everyone who has suffered. There will not be any need to explain to the family of a deceased exactly how the formula works and how we came to the formula by making different amendments in the Legislature and by trying to adopt some consultative way to pass the bill.

I put forward this amendment for the consideration of the House. The figure we use is $50,000. It is the halfway point between the NDP amendment and the maximum amount suggested by the minister. I am sure there would not be a lot of people using that maximum amount. By striking a figure in the middle, we would serve the dependants of the deceased in a much fairer fashion.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to make some short comments. We support the principle incorporated in the new section the honourable member is talking about. I am not sure whether his section is really an improvement in the total package a surviving spouse is to receive.

For a fast mathematical process, when it is actually employed by the board we will find out the final result. At any rate, I am not convinced it is really an improvement. However, we are going to support it even though I am not convinced about the total benefit of the section.

I would like to remind the member that our section talks about an improvement from $20,000 to $40,000. The member is talking about a further addition of $10,000 which, as far as we are concerned, can easily be covered by the $1,000 for each year of age of the spouse.

I am not really sure it is a great improvement in relation to the total package, but we are going to support the amendment just for the principle of it.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: I do not want anybody to feel he has to vote for my amendment, especially when he is not sure whether it is an improvement. If the member thinks my amendment is not an improvement, if he thinks my amendment is not as fair as the one he placed, please feel free to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Wildman: It is half a loaf.

Mr. Mancini: No, $60,000 to $40,000 is the half-loaf. The acceptance of a government formula that one does not believe in in principle is the half-loaf. This is a straight lump sum payment for clause 36(1)(a). We are dealing only with that particular subsection; we are not dealing with anything else at the moment. I think the member might be confused because he is trying to deal with several amendments at once.

We are dealing strictly with that amendment. It is an improvement over what the government has suggested and it is an improvement over what the New Democratic Party has suggested because that party has adopted in principle the government's formula and has tried to work with the government's formula. We do not want to work with that formula; we do not accept that formula. We accept a straight lump sum payment. The payment would be $50,000. Absolutely no one is being forced to vote in favour of the amendment if he feels it is not as good as it should be.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I thought the honourable member would have had the decency at least to explain the differences between our formula and his.

I hope he will not take my comments in a very negative way because in a short period of time I do not have the expertise of the actuaries employed at the board. That is why I stated in a very genuine way I am not very convinced that his section is a real improvement unless he can show me otherwise. But he moved the motion and he should tell us why surviving spouses will get more under his formula than under the principle that is before us.

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with Mr. Mancini's amendment to clause 36(1)(a).

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that section 36 of the act as set forth in section 9 of the bill be amended by adding thereto a new subsection 36(2) as follows: "Where a spouse survives a worker and has received a lump sum entitlement of less than $40,000, the spouse shall be entitled to receive a one-time payment to increase the total value of that lump sum payment to $40,000, and that the other subsections be renumbered accordingly."

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a short comment on subsection 36(2). What we are talking about in this new section is the principle that surviving spouses will not receive less than $40,000. We should keep in mind that the government bill talks about $20,000 as the minimum.

In the previous sections we talked about an improvement of another $20,000 in the minimum to $40,000. For a spouse who survives a worker and has received a lump sum entitlement of less than $40,000, the board has to give a one-time payment to increase the total value to $40,000.

I think the new subsection is self-explanatory and I do not want to make any further comment. I hope the members will support the contents of the new subsection.

Mr. Mancini: I have just a short note on the amendment. I believe the $40,000 figure used by the member is the same $40,000 minimum he used in subsection 36(1). We will have to vote against that.

I will be introducing an amendment to create a new section where the figure will be $50,000 instead of $40,000 to keep things uniform.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment to section 36 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

5 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: We need Mr. Mancini's amendment in writing and then we can proceed.

Mr. Mancini moves that a new subsection be added to section 36 as follows:

"(2) Where a spouse survives a worker and has received a lump sum entitlement of less than $50,000, the spouse shall be entitled to receive a one-time payment to increase the total value of that lump sum payment to $50,000, and that the other subsections be numbered accordingly."

Mr. Mancini: That would keep this part of the bill in conformity with the previous amendment I moved.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Mancini's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Mr. Mancini: Stack it.

Mr. Chairman: No, you have to have five members to do that.

I wonder if we can assist. On stacked votes we have to have five members standing on each one to put it on the stack.

Mr. Kerrio: Put the vote on the stack.

Mr. Chairman: Sorry to be technical, but that is the way it is.

Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 36(3) be amended by deleting the words "or by the subtraction of one per cent of the net average earnings for each year of age of the spouse under 40 years at the time of the worker's death" in the sixth to ninth lines, by deleting the words "more than 60 per cent or" in the 10th line and by deleting the number "20" in the 10th line and substituting therefor the number "40."

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify the framework and the principle incorporated in this section.

In my initial debate I spelled out the principle that we never endorse a discriminatory age factor, which is incorporated in Bill 101. We do not see any reason why age should be a factor in determining the kind of benefits that a surviving spouse receives as a result of a fatal accident. During the course of debate at the committee stage, we saw processes of this type used by the government as a way of penalizing people as a result of fatal accidents. Our view has consistently been that no one should be penalized for a tragic accident that has occurred in a family.

The government is planning to balance the loopholes between the new surviving spouses and the old ones in relation to the monthly payments. We are faced with the loophole that will still exist in Bill 101 in relation to the lump sum payment. We reject the principle that age should be a factor in determining the amount of benefits. We do not feel any legislation dealing with fatal accidents should penalize surviving spouses.

Our amendment is consistent with the tone of the debates that took place at the committee stage and prior to that stage. A lot of unions that appeared before the committee rejected such criteria for determining the amount of benefits, and I think our amendments will end the injustice that has been created by Bill 101 in relation to the age factor.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak on this amendment? Are we ready for the question on Mr. Lupusella's motion? Shall the motion carry?

Let me read what we were voting on so we are all sure of it.

Mr. Wildman: It already carried.

The Deputy Chairman: I did not say it was carried. You guys can say "Carried" all you want, but until I say it, it is not carried.

Now that we understand what we are voting on, all those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Mancini: Dealing with section 9 of the bill, subsection 36(5) of the act.

The Deputy Chairman: No, it is subsection 7, that the figure "$1,500" be struck and the figure "$2,000" substituted.

Mr. Mancini: I am sorry. I have one prior to that.

The Deputy Chairman: I do not have it in writing.

Mr. Mancini: No, it is just striking out a number.

The Deputy Chairman: I would like to have it in writing. We will pause and let the member put it in writing.

Mr. Mancini: As long as we can get back to it.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that the member for Essex South write it down and share it with the minister, the table and the members?

Mr. Mancini: We have to get these figures in conformity. That is all it is.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Dovercourt is prepared to let the member make that motion.

Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 36(9) be amended by deleting in lines 5 through 7 all words after the word "injury" in line 5.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, to understand what we are doing, we have to read the government's subsection 36(9) on page 9 of Bill 101:

"Where the board is satisfied that it is advisable for a child or children over the age of 19 to continue education, the board shall pay in respect of each such child 10 per cent of the net average earnings of the worker at the time of the injury but the total benefit in respect of the spouse and such children shall not exceed 90 per cent of the net average earnings of the worker at the time of the injury."

5:10 p.m.

There are two principles that should be spelled out in regard to subsection 36(9). First, we are on the record as opposing the figure of 90 per cent of the net average earnings. Our position is, and will be in the future, that 100 per cent should be the figure. We are opposing the calculation of 90 per cent and proposing that it should be 100 per cent.

We propose deleting in lines 5 through 7 all words after the word "injury" in line 5. The content is self-explanatory and it merits the full support of the members of this Legislature.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment to proposed subsection 36(9), as set out in section 9 of the bill, will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, do I have time before the honourable member --

The Deputy Chairman: I think you do. The member for Essex South is working diligently.

Mr. Lupusella: Then I move immediately that proposed subsection 36(13), as set out in section 9 of the bill, be deleted.

The Deputy Chairman: Why not do it the way the rules allow us to do it? Why do we not call subsection 36(13) to see whether the House supports it? I would be pleased to do that.

Mr. Mancini: That is okay. You can come back to me.

The Deputy Chairman: We will come back to the member for Essex South. His chance is still going to come.

I recognize the member for Dovercourt. We have an agreement that we will go back to the member for Essex South, even when it is out of order.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, the procedure you are setting up is going to be valid and the one that will prevail.

I would like to state the reason this subsection should be deleted. I think I am in order in speaking to the content of subsection 36(13) of the act as set out on page 9 of the bill.

"In calculating the average earnings of a deceased worker for the purposes of paying compensation by way of periodic payments under this section, there shall be deducted from such earnings any payments received by way of any survivor's benefit under the Canada pension plan."

If I can get the minister's attention, in his ministerial statement there is a slight change in the content of this section. On the matter of the surviving spouses, the minister now will not consider any offset of the Canada pension plan. Am I correct? Can I get a statement from the minister?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct; but I did go into it at great length and I would be prepared to share the reasons with the honourable member. I did make a commitment to study and look at it seriously, and we did just that. That is what I attempted to point out to the member. I would send my notes over to him, should he require them.

Mr. Lupusella: That is the feeling I got. I did not have time to go through each section that the minister undertakes to change in the future. I am sure that subsection 36(13) will stand as it has been drafted in Bill 101. The new direction, offsetting the Canada pension plan, will be considered in the future. I hope we are going to have the same minister with the same type of commitment, for fear that a new minister will change that ministerial statement. It is a personal commitment from the present Minister of Labour; we do not know what is going to happen in the future.

I am still convinced that I have to speak more strongly against the content of subsection 36(13) as it is set out in the bill. I cannot endorse the principle of what the minister is doing at present, offering an honourable commitment that in the future there will be a change of direction, a change of policy or the introduction of a new section that will eventually negate the content of subsection 36(13).

The reason we are strongly against it, and the minister has heard the content of our arguments so many times along with other members who were part of the standing committee on resources development studying the content of Bill 101, is that the Canada pension plan is used by the government to save money at the expense of injured workers across Ontario. Therefore, we cannot endorse such a principle. Also, section 36 and the fatal cases that are well described under it are something we will never endorse.

Pain and suffering are surfacing now as a result of Professor Weiler's study on reshaping the workers' compensation system. Lump-sum payment plus pension are factors that are now at the stage of development. Therefore, even the 90 per cent of net average earnings at the time of the fatal accident or injury is a penalizing process for injured workers as far as we are concerned.

Setting off the Canada pension plan benefits is a good way to save money at the expense of injured workers.

Talking about surviving spouses and so on, that is something on which the members of this party will never compromise, because we are taking money away from people who are suffering from emotional, tragic trauma. We have stated many times that the amount of money given under Bill 101, even though there are marginal improvements, will not compensate for the loss of a human life. We cannot use money in evaluating what life is all about.

Even though we generally endorse the principle of this marginal improvement, I do not think the marginal improvements should eventually be cut by the inclusion of subsection 36(13), which in the overall situation takes away the calculation of the Canada pension plan from the general assessment of the earning benefits of an injured worker.

We were against it in the past. I want to remind the members that 3,000 injured workers appeared outside this Legislature protesting against changes that did not take into consideration the new realities of injured workers. Their presentation and their presence vividly convinced us that new changes should be implemented. Even though the government materialized the changes with Bill 101, there are certain deterrent clauses that will not improve the benefits of injured workers. They will minimize injured workers' benefits as a result of subsection 13.

Injured workers in Ontario presented a clear position before the resources development committee. They were against the principle of setting off the Canada pension plan from the overall assessment of their benefits. They were also against the principle of the 90 per cent calculation of their net to determine their earnings. They endorsed and approved the principle of 100 per cent, which means to them that, as a result of an accident, injured workers across Ontario should not have any loss whatsoever.

5:20 p.m.

Even though we are endorsing the widespread spectrum of this type of improvement from time to time on Bill 101, these marginal improvements have been greatly reduced by the inclusion of sections such as subsection 13.

On several occasions, I understand the minister stated before the committee and this Legislature that the concern of injured workers has been taken into consideration. Three thousand people demonstrated in front of this building to bring to the attention of the government that there is a great need to bring the new realities of injured workers into the 1980s. The government has to undertake a long process to eliminate the imbalances that have been existing for years within the present Workers' Compensation Board.

Subsection 13 speaks against the clear desire of injured workers who have been demanding changes. The present injured workers will not get the benefit of Bill 101. If they decide to move into the framework of Bill 101, because they are currently receiving CPP they will be penalized as a result of this section.

Even though I understand that in the future the minister will change his mind and introduce a new section which eliminates such a penalizing process, at the moment the minister has to understand -- and I am sure he understands -- that if the present old injured workers move into the new plan they are penalized as a result of subsection 13.

Even though I am pleased that in the future this concern will be eliminated and eventually subsection 13 will be deleted, I am not pleased by the fact that old injured workers, if they decide to move into the new framework, will be penalized as a result of subsection 13.

Therefore, I suggest that all members of this Legislature support my position and the position of this party, that the deletion of subsection 13 is very appropriate and should be indulged by all.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Essex South, this is the same amendment you made. I know you were busy doing some writing. This is for you, because it is an amendment that you passed on, that section 9 be deleted. The motion will read, "Shall section 9 stand as part of the bill?"

Mr. Mancini: I do want to make some comments. As you know, Mr. Chairman, it was also my intent to have this section deleted. We will happily support the motion on the floor.

I will take a few moments to express my party's deep regret that this section is included in Bill 101. In particular, some of my colleagues have fought long and hard against the principle of including benefits received by an injured worker from a different level of government. In our view, benefits paid by that injured worker through regular weekly premiums should in no way be touched by a different level of government.

During all the committee hearings it was stressed over and over again by my colleagues who sat on the committee that Canada pension plan benefits were something of an insurance that was bought and paid into by injured workers, not with the intent that they would be injured and would some day collect benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board because of premiums paid into the board, or I should say supported by premiums paid into the board by the different businesses and corporations that are operating in the province.

It is my belief and the belief of my colleagues that once any level of government starts to integrate and use a system of compensation that has been developed for other reasons by a different level of government, then we are penalizing the people who have been injured and we are, in my view, unfairly using funds set aside by a different level of government.

It is our view that there is only one intent in this section, and that is to say to the Workers' Compensation Board, "These funds are at the expense of the government of Canada and at the expense of the injured workers who have paid into that fund."

If, for example, the Conservative government of Ontario feels that the benefits paid to injured workers are greater than it deems necessary, then it should not try the back-door method of taking funds from a different level of government and from a completely different program and integrating them in such a way that the two cannot be added and that the level of payment is kept in one specific range. We certainly cannot support this kind of back-door manoeuvre by the government.

The minister has stated he is doing everybody a favour by including this amendment. His statement that none of the people who are collecting Canada pension plan benefits because of an injury different from the one sustained on the job site would be affected is, in my view, not a very strong argument. I could use other words to describe the argument, but I will just use the word "strong." It is not a very strong argument.

I would ask members to think for a moment. The minister is actually saying that if a person was injured in a car accident or in some other fashion and, for one reason or another, collected CPP benefits because he had injured a knee, a shoulder or an elbow, and if he then was at the job site and injured his back or had something fall on his body that caused some type of injury, etc., the moneys he was receiving from CPP because of that injured knee would in no way affect the moneys he is receiving from the board. That is the minister's explanation of this section.

Is that really what the minister wanted to do in the beginning: to reduce the benefits received by an individual for an accident and for an injury that is completely and totally unrelated to the work injury? To use this as an argument for subsection 13 and to say we are doing everybody a favour is really just something we cannot endorse and will not endorse.

We fought against this principle during all the committee hearings. We stated our views when the injured workers had the opportunity to demonstrate in front of the parliament buildings on a number of occasions. We made it known to the minister that we would fight against this integration as long and as hard as we could, and that is exactly what we are doing.

In all the months and, I dare say, years -- because it was before the 1981 election when the then Minister of Labour, the member for York East (Mr. Elgie), stated that he was going to have Professor Weiler do a report to review the Worker's Compensation Board -- for those many years and for those many months we have stated over and over again that the minister has not been able to convince us that this integration will not have a penalizing effect on the injured worker, and, in my view, we have not been given any circumstances in which it will be a benefit to the injured worker. We can in no way support this particular section.

5:30 p.m.

I thought there was another section that was related to this, but I cannot find it right now.

We are in no way supportive of this subsection 13. I can recall going to many different meetings of injured workers when they congregated to give their points of view and their plight to members of the Legislature. Over and over again we heard their fear that they were going to lose the Canada pension plan benefits they had legally obtained from the government of Canada through a system by which they had paid premiums, because of an act of parliament here in Ontario. I cannot see the logic. I can see the logic from the government side, but I cannot understand the justice of this.

Perhaps the new government of Canada, the Conservatives in Ottawa, will be interested in this and will tell the government of Ontario, its Conservative friends here: "We do not want you to use our plans or schemes in Ottawa to reduce your own payments. We think it is unfair and we do not think you people should be doing it." Perhaps that will happen, but I doubt it since there is such a close relationship.

In all the meetings I attended, in all the conversations I have had with my colleagues, and in all the debates that went forward in committee -- and there have been many -- never, on any single occasion, have I heard a rational argument put forward as to how it could be fair to say to an injured worker: "You paid into the Canada pension plan for a good number of years. The government of Canada has a law in force that states you are able to collect a certain amount of money as determined by it. However, it is unfortunate when you are injured in Ontario and you receive benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board."

It is a no-fault system that was even strengthened on behalf of the employer just a day or two ago by an amendment made by the minister concerning the right to sue directors and senior agents of the company. The government says to them, "Even though we have this no-fault scheme, and even though we have strengthened it to make absolutely sure that you can in no way sue for wilful negligence the corporate directors of a company you worked for, even though we have done all that, we are still going to say to you that we are going to integrate this system," which ultimately means less for the injured workers.

That is something we cannot accept. If the government of Canada wants to move an amendment concerning the CPP or if it wants to lower the benefits given out by the CPP, let the government of Canada do that and take the responsibility. As I said earlier, if the government of Ontario feels it is being too generous with its workers' compensation payments, let it lower the benefits that are paid to the injured workers. However, this back-door technique of using moneys from the government of Canada and using a scheme that has been paid into by the workers who have been injured is unfair, unjust and unacceptable to the Ontario Liberal Party.

We have made this case before and we will make it again. I realize the minister will again defend the inclusion of this section in the bill. I realize he will trot out some of the same reasons we have heard before. However, unless we hear something completely and drastically different from what we have been told in the past, we can in no way, in good conscience, change our minds.

As I said earlier, as I will say again and as I will continue to say, I promise the injured workers of this province, as my colleagues in the Liberal caucus promise them, we will put up strong opposition, as strong as possible, as strong as reasonable within the rules and confines of this House, and we will fight the inclusion of this section in the bill.

I cannot say to the minister strongly enough how much the injured workers of this province fear the inclusion of this section in the bill.

When we look at the whole system of compensation, the idea is to try to ensure that a person will receive in benefits approximately the same amount of moneys that he or she would be receiving at the work place. That, basically, is the principle of the whole act.

While in many cases we are able to do that, we are aware that for the most part we are unable to pay the workers for many of the social effects they suffer because of an injury. We are unable to pay the workers for many of the mental problems that might be created by the strain and pressure of not being the same, by not being able to use your body the way you could have done in the past, by suffering in that way. To think we would raid the Canada pension plan, a completely different scheme run by a completely different government, to save a few bucks here in Ontario is very surprising to me.

I am sure the minister, through what is getting to be his long tenure as Minister of Labour, almost three years, has come upon many a case and many a situation where he could honestly say that while the policy of the board is to make sure everyone gets paid without having to go to court, such as they do in the United States, I am sure he can say that even though the system helps a lot of people, in that respect it also hurts a lot of people because they do not have the right to sue.

I have in my own constituency several cases where, if the accident had occurred in the United States they would have been awarded multimillions of dollars in a settlement. Even some of the minister's own staff found some companies wilfully neglecting their responsibilities and wilfully neglecting the health and safety regulations of this province.

I am sure the minister will agree we have those situations where the cases are so strong that the matter would not even have proceeded to court. Some of these companies, especially the bigger ones, would have been glad to settle out of court for huge sums of money.

That is fine. We give that up because we have a no-fault insurance plan. What does this no-fault insurance plan want to do? It wants to raid another plan operated by a different level of government. That is exactly what they want to do. It wants to raid another plan operated by a different level of government.

I am going to recommend to the minister again to do whatever he can to make the situation better in his own sphere of influence. Why is he fooling around with a plan operated by the government of Canada? He was not consulted when the Canada pension plan was put in place. We were not consulted here in the Legislature. The members of the Parliament of Canada decided they should, after giving full consideration and thought to the situation, implement a Canada pension plan disability system where people could collect some type of benefits under certain conditions.

5:40 p.m.

We cannot sit here in our places and say to the members of Parliament of Canada who put in place that particular system: "We are glad you have that system in place because we are going to use it to our benefit in order to integrate the benefits into the workers' compensation scheme we have here in Ontario. We are going to tell everybody that the integration" -- and this is something I really find surprising -- "will not affect an injury they already have in regard to some accident they might have had outside the job site.

"If they twist an ankle at the job site, however, and severely damage the ankle, after a prolonged period, after they have gone through all the medical procedures, after they have been to the family doctor, after his report has been reviewed by specialists, after the CPP people in Ottawa have turned them down and after they have appealed that decision, after a medical panel has reviewed all these decisions, after they have gone through all this and after the procedures have taken four or five years, that is just too bad, because the WCB in Ontario is going to integrate their payments. That is their tough luck, because that is the way it is."

That is something my party cannot support and something my colleagues in the Liberal Party are going to have to speak out against. I realize the hour is getting late and that we want to pass this bill before Christmas. Believe me, my colleagues and I do want to pass this bill before Christmas. We want speedy approval of it, but we cannot offer speedy approval to the bill when we have such a subsection as 36(13).

Does the minister blame us? Does he criticize us for being vocal and for expressing our opinion the way we do? I think not. I think he may be somewhat annoyed because he may have promised his House leader we would make more progress today than we actually have made. I feel bad about that. The situation is unfortunate, but the bill itself is holding up the procedure.

It is what the government of Ontario wants to do that is holding up the procedure, that is holding up Bill 101. It is not the opposition. We cannot simply sit here and say nay and aye and stand up and then sit down and have these things go through as if they are being rubber-stamped.

Somewhere down the line we have to make a stand on something we find intolerable, something that is completely against what we believe in.

We come to that point when we come to the CPP reference. Once we have integrated one plan into the workers' compensation benefits, that will start us down the road to the integration of many other things, although I doubt this will happen because after the next election we will have a new government in Ontario. After we have served our 41 years and the people finally decide, "The Conservatives had 41 and now the Liberals have had 41, so let us make a change again," even if it is 41 years away, somewhere down the road some Minister of Labour is going to be pressured by his cabinet colleagues and by others into further integration.

What could be integrated at that time? We do not know. We never would have believed the government of Ontario would integrate its provincial program of disability benefits from the WCB with a scheme operated by the government of Canada and paid into by the workers. That has absolutely nothing to do with this government. No one would ever have believed that.

Who is to say that somewhere down the road the board or someone in charge, the Conservative government or somebody, might say: "Let us look at the total family income. Let us see if the spouse or the companion has benefits. Let us see if the companion or the spouse has an income. Let us see all of these things. If we are going to integrate, let us look at the whole thing. Let us find out if somebody is collecting unemployment insurance benefits and we will integrate that. Let us find out if one of the partners of the injured worker has a good job and is making $40,000 or $50,000 a year."

The Conservative government would say: "It is not fair for us to pay these people all these benefits while we know the total income for the family is at a certain level and everything seems to be going along fine. Yes, we have had an injury here, and yes, we are paying some type of disability benefits, but let us integrate them the way we integrated the Canada pension plan benefits in December 1984. Yes, we introduced Bill 101. We had many amendments. One of the amendments was, 'Let us start down the road to integration.' It was passed then," the government could say, "so we can pass this now."

I do not put that past a future Conservative government. It would ask itself, "How many injured workers do we have?" It would work out a number. "How many of these injured workers collect Canada pension plan benefits?" A further number would be worked out. We would get to a total number, and the Conservative government would say: "The political liability of integrating further benefits with workers' compensation would be very minor because we are dealing with fewer than 200,000 people or fewer than 100,000 people. The political liability is very minor, so let us go ahead and do it because we will save ourselves this amount of money and we will further erode the principle of the Workers' Compensation Act."

The principle of that act is, I remind the House, no-fault insurance. If it is no-fault insurance, let us not fool around by trying to integrate another scheme operated by a different level of government into our plan.

Mr. Chairman: Lest we become redundant --

Mr. Mancini: Oh, no, it has not become redundant. I know it is slightly annoying to you, Mr. Chairman, and maybe to the minister, but with due respect, it is not redundant. You might take a moment to re-read Hansard.

We are against this section. We cannot in good conscience vote for this section. The minister has heard our argument. He knows why we are against it. We do not want to criticize him personally. We know he has a job to do and he has many forces that direct his hands. We understand that. But simply to have sat back and to have let this section pass without our forceful comments is something we could not have done.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to support some of the comments that have been made here very clearly in the last 15 or 20 minutes, particularly in regard to the Canada pension plan. I think both section 13 and subsection 45(9) will carry.

Mr. McClellan: No. We are going to persuade the minister.

Mr. Haggerty: I do not think the members over there are going to persuade him.

I think we should have a clear-cut reply here from the minister; we want some answers in this particular area. I am sure the minister is aware of the current practice of the Workers' Compensation Board. When a person goes on a permanent disability award, he sits down with one of the advisers at the board, who makes the decision about the percentage of the degree of injury and the percentage of the degree of the award. I suppose it comes back to the old meat chart.

5:50 p.m.

The adviser tells the injured worker, "Your next step now is to apply for Canada pension." It is fine to suggest that to him, but to qualify for the Canada pension plan one must be totally disabled. One person who had seven injuries appeared before the committee on the white paper this past year. Every doctor he had gone to considered him totally disabled. He had applied for disability assistance and had been considered "permanently unemployable" under the welfare act. Maybe I should use that term.

The board suggested that he go to the Canada pension plan for assistance. He did and got Canada pension, total disability, but under the act it does not say that. That is why I want the minister to state quite clearly the intent of this act. If a person gets Canada pension plan benefits and his disability has been accepted as total by a medical panel, will the Workers' Compensation Act come into full force and say, "Yes, he is totally disabled, and he will get 75 per cent of his earned income," based on whatever level the government wants to specify? That is the point, and that is the question that has not been answered in the House today.

Is such an injured worker entitled to 75 per cent of his income because of his disability? He is in receipt of Canada pension plan benefits and totally disabled, and he should be under the Workers' Compensation Act if the government is dovetailing the two plans. The government has the responsibility to be clear about the intent in this area.

I want that on the record. I do not want anybody to go to the Workers' Compensation Board with appeal after appeal. There are many people like this man who have had seven or eight injuries. If they want to get a reassessment of their claims, they have to appeal all seven. Sometimes it will take 10 years to get to the seventh appeal. It is an injustice in the system.

I want the minister to state the intent clearly. If a person applies and is accepted by Canada pension, will we do away with the meat chart and say, Yes, you are entitled to full benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act"?

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour --

Mr. Haggerty: I have asked the minister a direct question. We on this side are entitled to an answer. There should be no ifs or buts here. There should be a statement from the minister on the full intent of those two sections.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to save the time of the House. In the statement I read in entirety earlier this afternoon, I answered all the concerns the honourable member has mentioned. If he wants me to read that all over again I will do it, or I will send him a copy of the remarks, whichever he wishes. I did respond to his concern.

Mr. Chairman: The question is whether subsection 36(13) shall stand as part of the bill.

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. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 36(1)(5) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"Where at the time of death of the worker there is no spouse entitled to receive a lump sum payment under clause 36(1)(a), the worker's dependent child or children shall be entitled to receive in aggregate a total lump sum payment of $50,000 in addition to the compensation payable under subsection (4)."

Mr. Chairman: I point out to the member so his notes will be in concurrence that subsection 36(1)(5) was mentioned; I think he really means subsection 36(5).

Mr. Mancini: Subsection 36(1)(5).

Mr. Chairman: We do not need (1) in there.

Mr. Mancini: Do we not need (1)?

Mr. Chairman: It is just subsection 36(5). I will correct mine if the member will correct his.

It is subsection 36(5) of the act under section 9 of the bill.

Mr. Mancini: Earlier on, Mr. Chairman, we dealt with the formula in clause 36(1)(a) and found it wanting. We changed the formula. The Liberal Party proposed that the formula be dropped completely and that we institute instead a lump sum payment of $50,000, which is easily explainable and which we find fairer. We did the same thing with a following section that I do not have before me right now. It is what we want to do with subsection 36(5).

Our intent is to keep the amendments we are making uniform, and therefore it is incumbent on us to change the $40,000 to $50,000. The explanations for the change were given during my discussion of subsection 36(1). I do not want to repeat those discussions. That is the reason for and the intent of the amendment.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to go through the content of this section. I understand the member decided to choose $50,000. I think our previous formula was an improvement to the system. By the calculation I went through with some people, I finalized the formula enunciated by the member, which is in the final anaylsis that surviving spouses will receive less in comparison to what we are giving them. I will recalculate the situation and express my position when the vote is placed before the House.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I would like to see those calculations. To suggest that in some way $40,000 is greater than $50,000 is something I cannot accept at the moment. Therefore, my amendment stands and the continuity of my amendment stands.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Mancini's amendment to subsection 36(5) of the act under section 9 of the bill will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mancini, I believe you have an amendment to subsection 36(7).

Mr. Mancini: This might be a good time to adjourn.

Mr. Chairman: You never know. How long is it going to take?

Mr. Mancini: It is going take some time. On motion by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

December 3, 1984