MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
AVIATION AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CENTRES
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Education Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments through to section 5?
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 6:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that section 6 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) Subsection 59(9) of the said act is amended by striking out 'and such determination is effective for a period of four years or until the number of members for the school division is increased or decreased under subsection (3) or the boundaries of one or more county or district municipalities within the school division are altered or are to be altered effective on or before the first day of January next following the election' in the 26th to the 32nd lines."
and that subsection (2) be renumbered accordingly.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why the last line is included in the subsection. It looks to me as though that is an instruction as to the number of lines between which this section is to be added. That does not seem to follow. The quotation ends with the word "election," so what does the last line mean? That confused me.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: The minister could probably help you. It is her own wording.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: The amendment is that portion within quotation marks in the 26th to the 32nd lines of the act.
The rationale for this proposal is to try to bring the Education Act into closer line with the Municipal Elections Act now that the school board elections will be at three-year intervals.
I am not convinced it is an absolute necessity that this amendment be included, but I think it will clarify the act for the purposes of those who will be reading it.
Motion agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 11:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that section 11 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"11(1) Subsection 158(1) of the said act is amended by inserting after 'and' in the sixth line 'subject to subsection (1b).'
"(2) Section 158 of the said act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1982, chapter 32, section 42, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(1b) Where, pursuant to a collective agreement, or a policy of the board, an employee to whom subsection (1) applies has elected to accept a reduction in employment from full-time to part-time employment in respect of one or more years or school years, as the case may be, including the year or school year immediately preceding his termination of employment by reason of retirement, the limitation upon the amount of the gratuity payable under subsection (1) does not apply to the employee and, in lieu thereof, the maximum amount receivable by the employee shall not be in excess of an amount equal to one half of the full-time annual rate of the earnings received by the employee for the last complete year or school year, as the case may be, in which the employee was employed by the board.'"
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment was probably the greatest bone of contention in the committee proceedings that took place on this section of the bill, section 11. The Ontario Teachers' Federation was quite pleased with the original that appeared before us because it addressed the problems for two specific sets of people. Some concern was expressed by the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario and perhaps by other trustees, but the only group of trustees I recall making representations at the committee was the group representing the large school boards in Ontario.
As I understand it, this attempts to address a problem in the original act. There is a problem with part-time people, those in their last couple of years who chose to teach half time, two-thirds time or one-third time, as many people decide to do in their latter years. With a reduced work load, they still maintain a foot in the education profession, if one can say that, while at the same time work sharing or providing an opportunity for others to be involved in education. As I understood it, under the legislation as it existed, there would be a problem with pension benefits.
8:10 p.m.
In an attempt to address this, the Ministry of Education included the following version of section 11 in the original Bill 119:
"Subsection 158(1) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:"
"'A board, by resolution, may establish a system of sick leave credit gratuities for employees or any class thereof provided that on the termination of his employment no employee is entitled to more than an amount equal to his salary, wages or other remuneration for one half the number of days standing to his credit and in any event not in excess of an amount equal to one half of the full-time annual rate of the earnings received by the employee.'"
Under that are clauses (a) and (b) which state:
"(a) in the case of a person employed as a supervisory officer, under a teacher's contract or as an occasional or a temporary teacher, for the last complete school year in which the employee was employed by the board; or
"(b) in the case of a person other than a person described in clause (a), for the last 12 months during which the employee was employed by the board."
This provision was quite acceptable to the Ontario Teachers' Federation, which wanted to address the problems confronted by two different groups of people. The first group is comprised of those people who chose to become involved in work sharing -- I suppose "work sharing" is the phrase we would use today.
The second group of people that had to be addressed through this bill is made up of long-time part-time service employees in the teaching profession. There are many people who for a large number of years have decided it would be best to teach on a part-time basis and they did so.
We indicated to the minister that the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario had shown a willingness or desire to be heard in committee. Some representatives of ALSBO indicated a lack of satisfaction with the degree of consultation that had taken place. The minister disagreed that it was necessarily lacking, but ALSBO persisted in stating its case.
We went to committee and had representations from both the Ontario Teachers' Federation and ALSBO, and we attempted to reach a compromise.
As far as the Ontario Teachers' Federation is concerned, with the amendment that appears before us this evening we have solved the problem for only one group of people. That group is made up of those people who have decided to become involved in work sharing, usually in their latter years of teaching, including the year immediately preceding their retirement.
It would be desirable from the teacher's point of view to allow boards to have the flexibility to deal with long-time part-time service employees. If the minister were prepared to go with what she originally had in the bill, she would certainly have the acquiescence of those of us in the official opposition. If she saw fit to say, "I have decided Bill 119, as we see it, is fine and we will proceed in that direction," she would certainly have the support of the critic for the Ontario Liberal Party.
However, what she has here is what is described in politics and other things as half a loaf, which many people consider to be far better than no loaf at all. When playing poker, if that is what we are doing this evening, one hates to reveal the cards one has to play, but given my druthers, I would prefer the original in the bill. I say the minister was wise in the original section 11 of the bill.
If she felt she has had a conversion on the way to --
Mr. Conway: York Mills.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Damascus.
Mr. Bradley: No, York Mills; I wanted to make sure it was not Don Mills -- and feels this is better, I guess if we have to accept this or nothing, we would accept this. If she changes her mind, I would not tell anybody in Ontario that she had changed her mind and gone back to the original section 11, which might well be superior in that it allows the maximum flexibility.
I intend to support this amendment if the minister does not decide to go back to the original section 11. If she decides to go back to section 11, I will support that. I am being very acquiescent, very co-operative and very jovial this evening.
Mr. Conway: One wonders why.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, in this blinding light one sometimes thinks one might well be experiencing some kind of conversion setting. I think it is already converting my head from a relatively stable state to one that is rather agitated and getting somewhat painful.
If those circumstances are not playing upon the minister in the fashion my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) mentioned, I am certainly prepared to take what is offered here. It has been the section around which most recent negotiation has taken place, at least since the bill was presented to us.
I would much rather the minister had managed to devise a scheme whereby the longer-term part-time employees who opted to work in that fashion, not under the policy of the board and not under a collective agreement determined by those considerations, would have fallen heir to the same generous treatment with respect to those gratuities.
None the less, that not being the case, I am happy those being considered by this new section are at least getting the benefit it provides them. Without any further ado, I will say that I and my party wish to support this amendment.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am delighted to hear the remarks of the two critics. I am also somewhat bemused, because there might not have been the necessity to hold the hearings in committee had it not been that the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario was somewhat concerned specifically about this section of the bill.
I must tell the members that ALSBO is apparently very pleased with the amendment that has been drafted. It feels it meets the original intent, which was to ensure that although reasonably equal treatment would be assigned, the same kind of benefit would not accrue to the individual who had never taught full-time, but had always chosen to teach part-time, as that which accrues to the individual who manages to teach full-time.
Therefore, I feel strongly that it is the appropriate thing. We may not have solved all the problems, but I think we have solved one very significant problem and we have provided the kind of framework within which the other problems can be solved. I think we should support the amendment as it is presented this evening.
Motion agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 15:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that section 215 of the act, as amended by section 15 of the bill, be further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(11) The council of a municipality that is required by subsections 1 to 10 to pay an instalment on a date that falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or any other day on which the offices of the boards are not open for business shall comply with subsection 9 on the day on which the offices of the board are open for business next preceding the instalment due date."
Mr. Bradley: I would contend to the minister that ALSBO was as interested in this section as it was in section 11, the reason being that this deals with money.
There is a long-time quarrel between boards of education and municipal councils. I can recall working for one and being on another and wrestling with that quarrel was often difficult. In those days, nobody even talked about conflicts of interest. Nowadays, one has to declare all these conflicts.
There is a problem in terms of the delivery of funds to boards of education. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) retains funds as long as possible. Of course, she will explain that is because of the fiscal year being different for a board of education and for the Ontario government.
Just as the minister is stingy in the early months of the year in providing funds to boards of education, so municipalities are reluctant to give up the money to boards of education until the last possible possible moment. At least, that is the case with some municipalities; others are a little more flexible.
It seems to me that this section, including this amendment, is designed to alleviate some of those concerns for the boards of education. It is a positive move so that the boards will have those moneys in their hands. I certainly speak in favour of this amendment, and I will support it.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, without wanting to prolong the debate on this section, I simply want to note our concern that this amendment does not fully address the problems that school boards have had with municipalities over the years concerning timely transfers of moneys to give them some advantage from the interest that those tax moneys accumulate when they are stored in a deposit in a bank, which from a school board's point of view could obviously be used most expeditiously and effectively for schooling purposes.
None the less, it is an amendment that does at least regulate those transfers somewhat more effectively, and in that respect my party and I are certainly quite prepared to support the minister's amendment.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, there are continuing problems with transfers of funds to school boards, which relate to the concern of boards that they would like them to be delivered more regularly than they are at the present time.
If the day ever comes when the collection of taxes is regulated entirely throughout the province in every single jurisdiction -- in every county, every township and every municipality -- in a way that will ensure regular collections on the first of every month, then I suppose it will be feasible to transfer funds to the school boards on the second of every month. But since there is great variety in the ways that municipalities collect taxes there must be some flexibility, although we have regulated some of that away already in the delivery of those funds to school boards.
This simply ensures that the municipality does not reap the benefit of retaining the funds for an extra four or five days simply because the date of delivery of funds is on a holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday. Some reasonable amounts of money thereby accrue to the municipality as a result of the interest collection in the bank before it transfers the funds. We are making sure that if there is to be any interest collection, it is for the school boards to benefit from it. I am delighted the members are going to support this amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
On section 17:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that clause 258(4)(b) of the act, as set out in section 17 of the bill, be amended by inserting, after "transportation" in the first line, the phrase "in a manner determined by the board."
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, this amendment seems to be relatively minor. It arose out of some discussion we had in committee and it was asked that it be inserted. Certainly I am prepared to agree to that insertion.
Mr. Allen: Likewise, Mr. Chairman.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, one portion of section 17 deals specifically with transportation. The amendment I have is the addition of a subsection 5.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Allen moves that subsection 17(3) of the bill be amended by adding a new subsection 5 to the act, as follows:
"(5) A board that provides a French-language instructional unit for elementary school instruction shall provide transportation for those pupils whose residence is over 30 minutes distant by public transit from the unit."
and renumbering the remaining subsections accordingly.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, the transportation provisions included in this section are ones that pertain to those students who manage to avail themselves of French instruction when it is purchased by another board. What that provides for them is transportation, as the minister has amended, in a manner provided by the board for all those students in question.
What this does, however, is to set up a somewhat anomalous and somewhat inequitable situation for students who attend a school where the board itself offers French-language units or a complete French-language school for Franco-Ontarian students.
As we know, quite frequently those schools, especially in the south-central part of the province where the French population is not densely concentrated, provide for students who are quite widely spread. Often the unit is the only unit that is provided by a school board, or perhaps it is the only school for that whole school board jurisdiction that is provided for the instruction of French students in that unit or in that school.
As a result, unlike the students of the majority population, who usually have schools relatively close on a community basis, they are sometimes involved in very lengthy transportation on the public system. Frequently, in a city like my own it entails several transfers from one bus to another, or, in another city, from one streetcar to another. The end result is that some of them spend incredibly long periods of time in transportation.
What I am trying to provide by the amendment to this section, which deals with elementary students, is a requirement for the board in question to provide transportation for those students that overcomes both that immense amount of time of waiting and transferring to get to their school and provides for them something that is much more efficient and direct and less time-wasting as far as they are concerned.
Obviously many educational facilities these days are accessed by provision of transportation which would not otherwise make them accessible. It seems to me this is a consideration that more and more must be on our minds. Those students must not have to undertake lengthy journeys, which take away from their playtime, their study time and their home time and do exhaust them needlessly in many cases.
I make this amendment with those purposes in mind, and I hope not only my colleague the member for St. Catharines will support me but, in the high spirit of co-operation that has marked the discussion of this bill to date, the minister also will support this kind of provision.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, the matter we have before us is one that was discussed in committee as well. It did prove to be an inconvenience at the very least, if not an impediment, to attendance at a French-language instructional unit or elementary school for those in municipalities, for instance, in and around Hamilton, a good example that the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) mentioned, or any of the municipalities where the public transportation does take a period of time.
At the time it was discussed in committee, I certainly thought this matter had to be addressed in some way. It is not simply a matter of the number of miles or, using the metric term, kilometres, away; it is a matter of time as well. The description the member for Hamilton West has given of students who have to take a good deal of time on a public transportation system is potentially a pretty accurate one for many of those students.
The inclusion is one that is supportable and can be worked out in a practical sense. I do not know what the minister's reaction is going to be to it, but on behalf of the official opposition, I am certainly prepared to support this amendment. I think it is going to remove, if not a distinct impediment, certainly a great inconvenience for students who attend a French-language instructional unit.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the responsibility for education in this province is shared between the Ministry of Education and the local, duly elected board of education. Within the area of responsibility of the duly elected board of education is the provision of educational programs and the provision of transportation, where necessary. It has never been the policy of the ministry to interfere in the internal arrangements established by a board for the purposes of transporting children within the board's own jurisdiction.
The amendments that are here in sections 17 and 19 relate specifically to the purchase of programs from another board and the transfer of children from one board to another by means of bus, or the provision of accommodation, whichever seems to be most appropriate in the manner determined by the board for the students who are going to be studying within the French language.
It was certainly never our intent to attempt to intrude upon the autonomy of each individual school board in the determination of its transportation policy. We provide funds in support of that transportation policy, but we do not direct it, because there are many different kinds of activities carried on by many of the boards in the province to ensure the accessibility of school programs to children within the boards' jurisdictions.
I really feel it would be an inappropriate inclusion in this act, particularly since the purpose of this act is to integrate French-language instruction fully within the educational programs of schools boards right across this province. By "fully" I mean available to every francophone child, no matter where that child lives.
To establish a program that intrudes for one language group, be it either the French-language group when it is in a minority situation or the English-language group when it is in a minority situation, for the purposes of providing access within the board's jurisdiction and directing the board to provide a transportation program that is not made available to other children, could be disruptive and probably unsupportive of the principle we are trying to support in this bill.
I therefore feel strongly that we should not support the amendment proposed here.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made two points with respect to this subject. One is the question of interference, and the other is that these amendments are intended not only to provide French-language education and make it a right but also to provide the facilities by which that right can be accessed. The courts we have heard on this subject make it quite plain that to have a right and not to have the facilities that make it accessible is to have no right at all. That is the gist of the way in which the recent decisions might be looked at.
With respect to the interference question, it might appear that this interferes with the internal workings of a school board in a way the present section does not, but surely one has to say that the whole premise of this section was to interfere with the internal matters pertaining to a given board, inasmuch as those boards now are being directed that they must provide for the French-language education of the French population in this province.
The whole presentation of this section and all the amendments being made to the act with respect to the ministry determination that every child, regardless of numbers of concentration of French population, shall have a right to French education, is an interference. It is premised upon a right; that right must be attended by the facilities.
This amendment the minister has proposed with regard to the transportation where a board purchases services from another board to fulfil that also interferes with their rights; it interferes with their right not to provide transportation. However, it does insist they must provide transportation when they access that service from another board. That is an interference. I do not see any other way of describing it.
What I am proposing is an extension of that to accommodate what appears to me to be not only an inconvenience but also an absolute problem in some respects for accessing that educational right. Just because it happens to lie within the board and not between boards is no argument against it.
Perhaps I might refer to the conditions, since I suspect our debate on this amendment is also the debate that pertains to my subsequent amendment to section 19 and there would be no point in going through it all over again.
For example, let me take quite a specific case in my own community where it is much easier to access the George P. Vanier school from Oakville with respect to travel time than it is from Stoney Creek or the west end of Hamilton.
Surely there is an inequity in that. Not only is it an inequity, but it means French families simply make the decision that, because it is going to take an hour and a quarter or an hour and a half to get to school, it runs up against the limits of tolerance. Not only does it run up against the limits of tolerance, but surely it also must be seen to run up against the limits laid down in terms of what is required to provide for the fulfilment of their right to access that education, namely, that there must be reasonable facilities and access.
In that light, it seems to me the minister's arguments do not hold water. As to what she is trying to do through this act with regard to fulfilling that right by interfering with the internal workings of boards, in principle and in fact my amendment does not breach either of the two objections the minister made to us.
Mr. Chairman: There is an amendment by Mr. Allen for consideration, that subsection 17(3) of the bill be amended.
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
Section 18 agreed to.
8:40 p.m.
On section 19:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that clause 261 (3)(b) of the act as set out in section 19 of the bill be amended by inserting after "transportation" in the first line the phrase "in a manner determined by the board."
Any comments?
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, exactly the same as the last time, we support that.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, I have a further amendment, which is parallel to the earlier one, with respect to section 19 of the bill.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Allen moves that section 19 of the bill be amended by adding subsection 4, which reads as follows:
"(4) A board that provides a French-language instructional unit for secondary school instruction shall provide transportation for those pupils whose residence is over 30 minutes distant by public transit from the unit."
Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, I should say that the argument essentially is the one we just went through. There is no need to repeat it. I presume the voting will be in the same pattern.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Allen's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Vote stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Any further comments or amendments to any other section?
Sections 20 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.
Sections 1 through 3, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. McKessock: Mr. Chairman, we have opposed this bill because we felt the 16- and 17-year-olds should have been handled by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I am not sure why the minister did not take the opportunity to get rid of these 16- and 17-year-olds to allow more space in his overcrowded facilities. It would have been a good opportunity. Also it would have been a good move for everybody. It would have helped the Ministry of Correctional Services in its space and it would have helped the offenders in what I feel would have been better rehabilitation facilities in Community and Social Services.
Under clause 4(a), where it says, "provide for the custody of persons awaiting trial," I would like to ask where the minister intends to keep these offenders while they are awaiting trial and at what cost?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Chairman, the intent is to provide pre-trial disposition, to have temporary facilities that would be both secure and open, depending on the need. The overall cost for the secure facilities is $49.36 million. That is for the secure custody accommodation plan which will be for the secure facilities for the four or five post-dispositional facilities and also for the predisposition accommodation.
I am sorry. I gave a total figure for the cost of both of those. The pre-trial detention facilities are estimated at $17 million.
Mr. McKessock: Is the minister saying the pre-trial facilities will not beat any of the existing detention centres for adults?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: There will be about 17 sites across this province. The reason for that is to keep the young offenders close to their homes for purposes of trial as well as for post-trial disposition. Some of those facilities will use the prefabricated units we are currently building ourselves, which will be added on to existing facilities. That is the intent.
Mr. McKessock: If I understand the minister, there could be a facility set up at the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre to handle young offenders awaiting trial.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: That is a possibility. What we are building at the Toronto West Detention Centre is a wing, a new addition, primarily for women offenders, but it will be flexible in its design and part of it could be used for a young offenders' facility if the need arises.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I wonder if you would allow me to encourage the other members of the chamber to welcome back to chairmanship of the committee of the whole the most heavy-handed chairman we have ever had in this chamber.
The Deputy Chairman: That was not a point of order, and I do not accept it as such, but heavy-handed perhaps in some things.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I think you should accept the compliment.
The Deputy Chairman: I accept the compliment then.
Mr. McKessock: In our discussion the other night, the minister mentioned, and I read from Hansard, "The member for Grey also stated that staff should not be interchangeable, that adult staff cannot deal with 16- to 17-year-olds." I want to point out that I was not saying staff were not capable of handling both young offenders and adult offenders, I was saying they should not be handling both.
My concern is that if there is going to be a detention facility set up at the west detention centre or at other detention centres now in place, the same staff will be handling young offenders part of the day and handling adults the other part of the day. I understand they are capable of handling one or the other, but I do not think they should be handling both at the same time.
8:50 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: The intent of this legislation is that the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds will be held separate and apart from adult offenders. We will be utilizing our present staff who have expertise in handling this type of offender, since at one time we did have responsibility for the training schools and have had a considerable amount of experience with this type of offender. We would also be hiring additional staff to supervise this type of offender in our secure facilities.
Mr. McKessock: Mr. Chairman, I feel the young offender should have somebody looking after him who is not dealing with the hardened offender at other times of the day. The young offender has a greater chance to change his life and make something out of it, but to do this he needs the right kind of staff as well as the right environment. Is every effort going to be made to see that the same staff are not handling the two different types of offenders?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Yes, the staff will be selected and will be assigned to the young offenders. We will not have the same staff handling both types of offenders, adult offenders and young offenders, at the same time.
Mr. McKessock: What are the types of programs under clause 4(e) of the act as set out in section 2 of the bill? In our discussion the other night, the minister mentioned that planning for education, health services, food services, volunteer programs, recreation programs and counselling services is complete. Could the minister give me a list of these programs and anticipated costs, especially in the light of the fact that at the present time the community does not know what to expect?
The Deputy Chairman: The member for Oshawa.
Mr. Breaugh: I do not have anything.
Mr. McKessock: I think the minister was going to respond. I see him moving.
The Deputy Chairman: Does the minister wish to respond?
Mr. Foulds: He would like to, but he is not able.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: The minister is able to respond. We currently have a number of programs in place. I think we should mention that the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds have been in the adult correctional system for some time. We have developed educational programs, vocational programs and programs for life skills in our institutions for this type of offender. We would be utilizing and building on those programs.
In both the community and custodial programs, we are actively encouraging and developing with the Ministry of Education the concept of divestment with boards of education across Ontario for the delivery of services from a full range of educational resources to this young offender group.
The ministry has had a great deal of experience in providing educational programs, in many of which the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds have taken part while they have been part of the adult system. We have had a number of proven programs, such as the basic literacy for adult development program, or BLADE, which is a multimedia and multisensory reading program for functionally illiterate adult individuals. We have programmed language automated teaching operations, referred to as PLATO, which is a commercially developed program of computer-based instruction courses and basic academic and life skills. This would be included in our program for young offenders.
As well, I mentioned that vocational skill development in workshop settings will be an integral part of the education plan.
We are currently exploring strategies for the assessment and treatment of youths with learning disabilities and, of course, the extensive correctional educational expertise now in existence in the ministry will continue to be available to youth programs.
In our young offender facilities we expect to make available programs of the type that are now provided at Maplehurst Correctional Centre. I think the PLATO program is there. We have a high school as well as a vocational training workshop at Maplehurst. I do not know if the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) has had an opportunity to visit this facility, but if he has not, I would strongly urge that he do so. I think he will be quite impressed with what he sees there.
The programs are necessarily adapted to groups of individuals who possess a wide range of educational achievements and, where possible, vocational training programs allow for apprenticeship and secondary school credits through a linkage with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Education.
Mr. McKessock: Am I right in assuming there will be approximately 35 offenders at each of the 10 facilities the minister will have set up across the province?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I do not know where the member gets the figure of 10. If we are talking about secure facilities, we have had approval for two such facilities, one at Bluewater in Goderich and the other at Maplehurst in Milton.
Discussions are going on for the sharing of facilities in the northern region with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. We have not at this point had any approval of one or more facilities to be used jointly or shared in the northern region. Similarly, we have not had approval at this point of a facility in the eastern region.
It is not our plan to have 10 such major secure facilities. If the member is talking about pre-trial detention or temporary detention facilities, we are talking about 17 or so such facilities across the province. They would be pre-trial and in some cases post-trial facilities in order to have some of these younger people closer to home, particularly those who might require open settings rather than secure settings. We would have both open and secure settings in the temporary facilities, as well as different levels of security.
Mr. McKessock: The minister mentioned on second reading that there were five regions and said he was going to have two facilities in each region, which would make 10.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: The 10 we were talking about are the 10 open-custody facilities. They would be similar to the community residential centres that we operate now in our adult system.
Mr. Foulds: The minister says he is having talks about sharing facilities with the Ministry of Community and Social Services in northern Ontario. What kind of facilities would he share?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Possibly the secure facilities.
Mr. Foulds: Secure?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Secure and open custody.
Mr. Foulds: What secure facility does the Ministry of Community and Social Services have?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: In Sudbury, it has the Cecil Facer Youth Centre.
Mr. McKessock: Mr. Chairman, how many contracts have been signed or negotiated with community organizations such as the Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society for services for the treatment of young offenders? Can the minister also tell me the cost of these?
9 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I do not know if I can give the honourable member a specific number of contracts. Negotiations have been going on with a number of private agencies that provide this type of service to this ministry, including the John Howard Society and agencies of that type. I am advised that apparently there are no contracts signed at this time.
Mr. McKessock: My understanding was Central Toronto Youth Services has not negotiated any contracts, but it is extremely curious as to what is happening. Seeing the deadline is coming up on April 1, it is not far away. How long will it be before contracts are arrived at with these associations for treatment for these young offenders?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: As was mentioned, it is our intention to have 10 open-custody facilities available with approximately 100 beds by April 1. For that to happen, we would have to have the contract signed some time prior to April 1.
Mr. McKessock: Under clause (f) --
The Deputy Chairman: Will the member help me? I am on page 4 of Bill 149. Section 4 says, "Clause 10(a) ... " Is that right?
Mr. McKessock: We are on page 3, section 4, at the bottom of the page under clause 4(f) for the parole system.
The Deputy Chairman: I thought that was passed.
Mr. McKessock: No.
The Deputy Chairman: I am sorry. I have that initialled. That has been carried. I thought we were on section 4.
Mr. McKessock: We are on section 4.
Mr. Foulds: We are on section 2, if I can clear up this misunderstanding.
The Deputy Chairman: You can help me any time.
Mr. Foulds: Section 2 is what the member rose on. It replaces section 4 of the act. That is what the confusion is about. You assumed he was over on section 4 of the bill, but he was speaking on section 2, replacing section 4 of the act.
The Deputy Chairman: In replacing the Chairman, I was of the opinion that sections 1 to 3 have been carried. Is there a general understanding that we can go back to an earlier section to discuss this matter? You are going back to an earlier section.
Mr. McKessock: There was confusion about section 2 taking over section 4. Actually, it is section 2, page 3, at the bottom of the page.
The Deputy Chairman: I have that as approved. I will ask for the general consent of the House to go back to clarify these concerns. Do we have that consent? I assume we do.
Mr. Breaugh: I am a little disturbed at this turn of events. We voted against the first three sections and they voted for them. Now they want to argue against it. I am having a little problem with this.
Mr. McKessock: We have not voted for anything.
The Deputy Chairman: This is why I am raising the question.
Mr. Breaugh: As a matter of fact, they did vote. I heard the vote called by the previous chairperson. I heard them vote in favour of it. I am having a little difficulty with this. I would be quite happy to revert to that section if you want to open it up again. I do not know how we do this. It seems that every time you get in the chair we have all this confusion.
The Deputy Chairman: The last thing I want to do is cause any more confusion than we need in this beautiful House.
Mr. McKessock: I am dealing with the same section I started with on page 3.
The Deputy Chairman: I think we have general consent that you can continue.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I was under the impression we had passed the first three sections and were now dealing with section 4. The member for Grey has put us back to section 2. He has been talking about clauses under "Section 4 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor." We have gone backward instead of forward.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order which I think is a pertinent one, I find this surprising. The minister has been answering questions for 10 or 15 minutes on a section he thought was passed. It is getting odd in here, is it not?
The Deputy Chairman: That is why I thought I would raise the question even before you did.
Mr. McKessock: I will clarify that, if we had been at section 4 as the member just mentioned, we would have been talking about inserting the word "Canada." That is all section 4 pertains to. We have been talking about functions of the ministry, which comes under section 2.
The Deputy Chairman: Will the member for Grey please clarify this? Will we be long on this little part? Otherwise, I think I will have to get a ruling. We are really going over items that have already been passed.
Mr. McKessock: This was the section I started on and I will relate most of my remarks to it because it pertains to the functions of the ministry.
Mr. Breaugh: I think I can help you out, Mr. Chairman. It is as simple as this. First he voted for it and now he wants to argue against it. It is a classic Liberal position.
The Deputy Chairman: I have to have unanimous approval from the House to go back and deal with a section I believe has already been passed in this House.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I agree with having unanimous approval and I urge the government and the members present to give that unanimous consent. The chair is right. The first three sections had passed.
The member who rose to his feet thought he was speaking on section 4, but it happened so rapidly he was actually speaking on section 2. It is quite clear from the discussion that took place it was section 2 he wished to speak on. There has been tacit agreement by the government, because the minister has been replying to questions that could only be legitimately debated on that section. I encourage the House as a whole to agree to unanimous consent.
The Deputy Chairman: I like the spirit of Christmas. You are helping me in a wonderful way. Are we agreed that the member for Grey can go back?
Agreed to.
Mr. McKessock: That was a great diversion, but I want to point out to our New Democratic Party members that we were not agreeing to any part of this bill --
Mr. Foulds: The first three sections passed and the Liberal members said, "Yes." Let us get that clearly on the record.
The Deputy Chairman: We have agreed to go back for the time being.
Mr. McKessock: Mr. Chairman, the hearing of the NDP is a little off.
Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) is entirely right. We did pass sections 1 to 3, but let us get on with it.
Mr. McKessock: Under clause 4(f) on parole, I would like to ask the minister if the probation and parole officers dealing with the young offenders are going to be different people from those dealing with adult offenders. Will the same probation and parole officers in the field be dealing with both ages, or will there be a new group for the young offenders?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: First of all, under the Young Offenders Act dealing with Criminal Code matters, there will be no parole. Where we are dealing with matters under the Provincial Offences Act, I believe parole will be available, as it is at present, for 16- and 17-year-olds in the adult system. The officers will be designated to deal with those young persons, but not at the same time as they deal with adult offenders.
Mr. McKessock: So the minister is telling me it will be the same staff dealing with both young and adult offenders.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Yes, it will be, but they will not be dealing with adult offenders and young offenders at the same time.
The Deputy Chairman: Before the member for Grey continues, if members are wondering why the lights are on, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. French network obtained permission from the previous Chairman. I do not see him watching the cameras. Could we turn them off? I find it a little bright in here.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. McKessock: This raises the same concern as I have in the case of the staff looking after young offenders in the detention centres and correctional centres. Having the same parole and probation people looking after the same people, the same concern arises. If they are subjected to the older, more hardened criminal, that may have an influence on the way they treat the younger offender.
In this regard, this might be a good chance for the minister to add some new parole officers and probation officers to the system. Why are the parole and probation officers not keeping proper records, as was pointed out by the Provincial Auditor recently? Is it because they are overworked? Why are they putting down more people than they are actually looking after? Is it because they are overworked? If that is the case, would this not be a good chance to add more of them to the system, strictly to look after the young offenders?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I believe the ministry will be adding more probation officers.
To go back to the background, I do not know why the member for Grey continues to feel that because certain staff in this ministry are working with adult offenders they are not capable of dealing with younger offenders in a fair and compassionate manner. These 16- and 17-year-olds have been in this system now for a number of years and our staff have been able to do just that with them in the present system. I would like to point out that the training for probation officers who will work with 16-and 17-year-old offenders in the community in particular will include a number of areas of concern.
Mr. Foulds: Does the minister know what he just said? The staff can deal with these people because they dealt with them when they were youngsters.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: No. I said they are dealing with them in the present system because the 16- and 17-year-olds are in the adult system. They have been dealing with those offenders. I do not know why the member for Grey persists in stating that the staff would not continue to deal with them in the same compassionate and fair manner in which they are dealing with them at present under the young offenders system.
Mr. Foulds: If they failed with them when they were youngsters and they are still in the system, are they going to continue to fail with them?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: They have not failed.
Mr. McKessock: When I was doing my tour around the facilities and my research into the correctional system, one of the first things I realized was that 50 to 60 per cent of the offenders in the system are repeaters. I am continually looking for ways of changing that around.
As the minister says, the probation and parole officers are now dealing both with 16- and 17-year-olds and older ones, but maybe they should not be. If they dealt strictly with the one group and another set dealt with the older group, it might be a chance to stop some of these repeaters. I think we have to look continually for what is causing this problem of getting so many repeaters back in the system.
Clause 4(h) in section 2 of the bill sets out the following: "provide supervision of noncustodial dispositions, where appropriate." Can the minister explain that to me?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Clause 4(h) refers to the provision of programs and the supervisory services for such individuals. We anticipate under this new legislation that extensive use will be made of community dispositions by the courts. To this end, we have already set certain standards. There would be additional training for probation youth workers in intensive supervision and other areas such as family counselling and community development. Programs, for example, which are noncustodial would be similar to our community service order programs currently in use in the present ministry; programs like the fine option program, restitution, compensation to victims of crimes and personal service orders.
Mr. McKessock: Under clause (i), what programs does the minister have in mind for the prevention of crime?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: We have a number of programs now. A number of days have been designated as law days where at local high schools throughout the province we have a full-day session with people from the justice field such as judges, members of the local police forces and people who are involved in community corrections who meet with students and talk about preventive measures. We have crime weeks designated in this province where, during the full designated week, similar types of programs go on in various communities. We have programs at present on petty thefts, which seem to have a very positive effect on former inmates.
Mr. McKessock: I would appreciate it if the minister could send me a list of those preventive programs.
The minister mentioned the cost earlier. How many millions for the facilities?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Let me just get those figures again. Pre-trial detention -- that would be the cost of the facilities at some 17 locations -- would be valued in the area of $17 million. I said the overall cost was somewhere around $49.3 million. Let me just check that figure. Yes, $49.36 million is the estimated cost of construction of the secure facilities with some 564 post-dispositional beds and 193 beds for predispositional use. We are talking about secure custody. The predisposition accommodation would be valued at $17 million. Combined, it is $49.36 million.
Mr. McKessock: What is the cost of the added programs for the young offenders?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: At this point, I do not have a costing. I will get that.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. McKessock: I do not believe that money has been set aside anywhere in the ministry's estimates for this year. I was wondering where the minister is going to get the money for these new facilities and programs.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: We have been before Management Board of Cabinet for approvals for capital funds for facilities as well as for the necessary programming.
Mr. McKessock: Would the minister table in the House the additional staffing and resources that have been and will be allocated to implement the Young Offenders Act? Does the minister have an agreement with the federal government? If so, could I have a copy of that agreement? How much money is the minister --
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Just on that point, what was the question prior to the question on federal government participation? I am sorry.
Mr. McKessock: Does the minister have an agreement with the federal government for --
Hon. Mr. Leluk: No. There was a question raised prior to that about providing certain documents.
Mr. McKessock: Yes. Would the minister table in the House the additional staffing and resources he has allocated and will be allocating to implement the Young Offenders Act?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: That information would not be tabled.
I have just received this information. The estimated cost for operating the secure custody programs would be in the neighbourhood of $36.9 million.
Mr. McKessock: Does the minister have an agreement with the feds? If so, could I have a copy of it? How much money is the minister getting from them for the implementation of the Young Offenders Act? When will he be getting it?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: The federal government is providing no capital funding for either post-dispositional or predispositional facilities. There is a cost-sharing on the operational costs. That figure is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 million.
Mr. McKessock: Could I have a copy of that agreement?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: No. That agreement is not going to be tabled.
Mr. Foulds: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Because it is not going to be.
Mr. Foulds: That is pretty arrogant. Is there any reason that document should not be tabled in the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I am advised this agreement has not been finalized and signed.
Mr. Foulds: Will it be tabled? Can it be tabled?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: It cannot be.
Mr. Foulds: When it is finalized?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Yes, when it is finalized.
Section 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7:
Mr. McKessock: Mr. Chairman, section 7 states in part: "Section 13 of the act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"13. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may pay a compassionate allowance ... " Can the minister tell me what we are talking about here and how much that compassionate allowance is?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Chairman, this compassionate allowance is extended to young persons injured while in the ministry's custody and to individuals who have been injured by young persons in our custody. I would take it that would be based on individual cases. There is no set figure I can give in this House to the member for Grey.
Mr. McKessock: Are we talking about a disability pension?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: That is what we are talking about.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I have a question or two on that. I am somewhat concerned that the minister does not seem to have any grasp of what he really does mean by a compassionate allowance. Can he give us some term of reference? Is he relating it to something like a disability pension, and would he pay it at the same rates, or what is he doing?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Chairman, under this new section, we are extending it to young persons who are currently in our adult system. It is the same type of thing as a disability pension. It is provided to young persons who are injured while in the ministry and any other young persons who may be injured as a result of young persons in our custody under the young offenders legislation. It is based on the Workers' Compensation Board scale.
Mr. Breaugh: Perhaps the minister can clarify that for me then. Can he tell me what the compensation board scale would be, for example, if there were a fight in the yard and someone lost an eye or was injured in that kind of fisticuffs? It seems to me he has a little difficulty drawing parallels between what the compensation board might allocate under its system, which I think is unfair, and the kind of situation that might occur here. Is he thinking this is like the compensation board system for young people who would be working, for example, in training programs? Is that the concept he has in mind?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I believe it goes beyond that. The legislation is intended to extend to the young persons housed in our young offender facilities who might be injured while in ministry custody and to individuals injured by young persons. As the honourable member probably knows, inmates are assessed by Workers' Compensation Board doctors, who would decide the level of compensation to be paid.
Mr. Breaugh: Although the example might seem a little extreme to the minister, it is not unknown for people in custody to be physically abused by those who are holding them in custody. Would this kind of provision provide that a young kid would be able to qualify for compensation for damages of a physical nature if he were beaten up in a Correctional Services institution?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I said earlier this allowance would be extended to young persons injured while in ministry custody and to individuals who might be injured by other young persons in custody.
Mr. Breaugh: Not to make it too difficult, can we try for a yes or a no -- yes, they will be covered for that activity; or no, they will not? That gave the pages time to bring the note down with the answer.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: The answer is no.
Mr. Breaugh: No, they would not be?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: That is right.
Mr. Breaugh: Then how would they get any kind of compensation? For example, would they be covered under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? Would that kind of provision apply to them?
Mr. Foulds: There are nods from the gallery.
Mr. Breaugh: The answer has arrived now; so perhaps the minister could read it for me.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: An inmate would be eligible for criminal injuries compensation, if the injury was a result of some criminal act.
Mr. Breaugh: I wish the people in the gallery would write yes or no answers here so we would not have to pursue this too much longer.
The minister is saying they would be eligible for this program, which the minister is saying would be similar to and is operated by the Workers' Compensation Board. In addition to that, there would be an opportunity to go to something such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Is that right? It is hard to put a nod of the head on Hansard. Let the record show that the minister nodded in the affirmative.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I said yes to both of those.
Section 7 agreed to.
Sections 8 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
9:30 p.m.
On section 13:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Leluk moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:
"13a. (1) Clauses 1(c), (d) and (e) of the Young Offenders Implementation Act, 1984, being chapter 19, are amended by adding at the end thereof in each case, 'and operated by or for the minister.'
"(2) The said act is amended by adding thereto the following section:
"3a. (1) With the approval of a provincial director, services may be provided under this act to a person 16 years of age or more who is a young person within the meaning of the Young Offenders Act (Canada), but not within the meaning of clause 1(i).
"(2) A person who is the subject of an approval under subsection 1 shall be deemed to be a young person for the purposes of this act."
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Chairman, these consequential amendments to our act will result in minor modifications to Bill 28, the present Ministry of Community and Social Services young offender legislation, An Act to provide for the Implementation of the Young Offenders Act (Canada). These amendments are being put forward to ensure consistency between the Ministry of Correctional Services Amendment Act and Bill 28 in the three-month hiatus between April 1, 1985, and the proclamation of Bill 77 on July 1,1985.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this is a suitable way to conclude the debate this evening on this matter. This is perhaps typical of the problem. This whole young offenders process seemingly went on for a long time. The purpose of the exercise was to provide the lead time required to change a major portion of the judicial system, at least in how we look at young people who are in conflict with the law.
The purpose of the long lead time was to provide various levels of government with the opportunity to negotiate these agreements. As we have seen in the course of this evening's debate, some of the agreements are not yet negotiated and yet the act is just about due to be in place. Part of the debate this evening indicated pretty clearly, and this is the reason I wanted to speak briefly on this amendment, that we are ill prepared, to say it politely, around this whole concept, around this program and around this bill.
I would like to put on the record tonight my own personal reservations that, sadly, one or two years from now, members of this Legislature will be rising in their places talking about the kind of facilities that were described earlier this evening, talking about the kind of legislation that has to be amended at this late date with an amendment such as the one we have now. It points out as succinctly as anyone could that we are not well prepared to implement this new program. This government has not really thought through the process. We do not have in place now the facilities to handle these young people.
It may be true, as the minister said earlier this evening, that they have some programs. They have dealt with young people before. There is no question about that. However, I was at one time the critic for Correctional Services and had an opportunity to visit many of the facilities and observe programs we had in place. Some were quite good.
The concept of a new Young Offenders Act was to try to provide, not an extension of existing programs but a new concept of dealing with young people in conflict with the law. My concern, and this is why I want to get it on the record tonight, is that I do not think we are prepared to do that.
We went through this long battle when the argument raged behind closed doors about whether it would be Community and Social Services or Correctional Services that would take on this responsibility. It turns out, in this bill, that Correctional Services in some vague sense of the word won the battle or got the responsibility, whatever terms one might want to use.
It is a sad day because it means we are not prepared to do what really was a great panorama of promises built into the Young Offenders Act. I do not think they are going to happen. This bill, as one goes through it, indicates pretty clearly this province is not ready to do that now, and yet we will very shortly have to assume all those responsibilities.
This program as it will be operated in Ontario will have young offenders on the same site as other people in correctional institutions across Ontario. This bill as it is now before us will provide, quite frankly, a lot of makeshift operations around this; there is no question about that. I listened to the minister talk about building portables at correctional institutions. It happens that since I come from an education background I have a lot of friends who are teaching in portables. A makeshift facility is hardly a way to accommodate any young person.
We can build whole portable schools now; so I suppose it is quite conceivable that this minister can build whole portable institutions. But complaints will come in, I think, from members on all sides of the House that this process is not nearly good enough. I think that as we get into this program we are going to be running something that we will not be very proud of. In fact, I think members on all sides will be after this minister a year from now, saying: "We cannot hold young people in this kind of institution. We do not have the programs we need to have to respond to all the responsibilities that are laid out for us under the Young Offenders Act."
I wish we could say otherwise, but I do not think that is true. When one looks just at this amendment, which seems rather straightforward and does a couple of simple things, it is clear to me that this government is not in a position to undertake all those responsibilities. This government does not even know what all those responsibilities will be at this point. It is just not ready to respond to what was touted at one time as the great new approach to young offenders, a dramatic change in the way young people in conflict with the law are dealt with by governments and by the judicial system.
With all the hope there was in the discussions, the documents that were tabled around the Young Offenders Act and the great deal of promise that was there, it is sad to me as someone who is greatly interested in that field, particularly in young people, that we are so ill prepared to implement what I thought was a very good idea. There is no question in my mind now that, as the program gets implemented, tales of horror will be put on the floor of the Legislature.
Frankly, I do not expect the staff of the Ministry of Correctional Services to do bad things; I do not expect that at all. I know a number of people who are employed by Correctional Services. I know they try. But I also know our detention centres are bulging. It varies somewhat from season to season, but they are full. I know people there are trying to do a good job under difficult circumstances, and now we are going to add a system that will respond to the Young Offenders Act, a kind of adjunct to it.
It may be true that the minister has been to cabinet, it may be true that the money is in the bank; but it is also true that the facilities are not there now, that the programs are not there now and that the staff are not there now. It is true, as the minister said earlier this evening, that he has people who have run similar kinds of programs before. In fact, some of them have worked with young people before. I suppose it is the hope of the ministry and of the government that this will be a simple transfer, a simple changing of gears, and that it will be able to gear up in short order to take on its new responsibilities under the Young Offenders Act.
I wish the ministry well; I really do. But as I listen to this evening's debate on this bill, I have to say that I do not think that is true. I want it put on the record, regretfully, that I am afraid it will not be very long before the complaints will be rolling in and the minister will have to say: "We are doing the best we can. We cannot be all things to all people."
There is no question about it in his answers to some of the questions that have been raised tonight. There are going to be complaints when some young person supposedly under the new, enlightened Young Offenders Act is transported a lengthy distance to get to a secure facility. There will be complaints about it because that is going to happen, and there is no question about that. He has two secure facilities in Ontario in his mind at this moment. That is one area where there is going to be a problem.
9:40 p.m.
There is going to be difficulty as he tries to move into agreements with the Ministry of Community and Social Services on institutions which he could not identify very well for us tonight and I do not think he will in the foreseeable future. They are already under duress in their own responsibility and if they try to assume additional responsibilities under the Young Offenders Act, there is going to be a problem.
There is going to be some difficulty in operating what he calls the open facilities. I wish him well, I honestly do, and I hope all my concerns prove wrong. The problem is I have been around here long enough to know that if a government has not made up its mind and had sufficient lead time to get that thing in place and in operation, a government always has difficulty with it.
As we finish up with this one little amendment to Bill 149, there is no question in my mind that this government has not thought this process through very well at all. It does not have the allocation of funds in place, it does not have the institutions in place, it does not have the program in place and it is still not sure how the act itself should be written.
It is with regret that we look at one last amendment to Bill 149. To keep it consistent, I want to vote against this amendment, not because it is a particularly bad amendment, but because an ill-conceived scheme is at work here. It has not been thought through properly. I think they are going to regret that so much of what was touted as lead time in getting the Young Offenders Act in place -- better than five years to prepare for this -- was lost in squabbling between levels of government and in arguments between ministries about who should assume what responsibility.
In my mind, the tragedy of all that is the Young Offenders Act brought an opportunity for the first time in Canadian history to do something for young people in conflict with the law, something that was at least different, to try a different approach to it all.
Many of us in the coming years are, regretfully, going to be made painfully aware that across this province there is an act in place that is somewhat farcical in nature. The resources and the programs to deal with those responsibilities are not there.
This government is going to be in a somewhat ironical position. In my area, for example, they had what used to be a training school that was closed down and sold, I am told, to a group of foreign investors to construct some kind of a private school. They will be cranking out institutions like that one again.
This is a government that is ill-prepared. The sad part is there will be young people who should have had a better chance under the new Young Offenders Act and they will not be getting that.
The other tragedy is that a population that is struggling and having great difficulty with the judicial system as it is, is going to have even more difficulty because this government is not very well prepared.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Hon. Mr. Leluk's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.
On section 11:
Mr. Chairman: When we left this at 6 o'clock, I believe the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) was moving a motion on subsection 45(5), to replace, in the fourth and fifth lines, the word "may" with the word "shall."
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I had the floor and had moved the amendment, but did not really have time to pursue the debate on the issue. I would like to say a few words about my amendment. We were talking about subsection 45(5), if I recall correctly.
I have to rethink my thoughts on my reason for making this amendment. I made a presentation before a commission of inquiry dealing with the use and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls across Ontario and my brain is recalling the content of the presentation. There is a relationship between spilled PCBs and these sections within the framework of Bill 101 which will eventually be detrimental to the well-being of injured workers across Ontario.
Even in cases where the board recognizes the importance of certain benefits being awarded to injured workers and there is no doubt whatsoever about recognizing the implementation of this benefit on their behalf, we are still faced with the discretionary power given to the board. My party, therefore, is rejecting completely the idea that the board should have such discretionary power, because from past history we know that discretionary power has been utilized against the well-being of injured workers.
Mr. Laughren: In other words, they misused it.
Mr. Lupusella: Yes, they misused the discretionary power. If the past history of the board had been different from what we know it to be, as the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and others in my party know, we would have accepted the principle of this discretionary power even in cases where there is no doubt the benefits should be awarded.
By the use of the word "may," even in cases where there is a clear recognition that the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker is significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury, which means -- I would like to get the minister's attention or he might come out with another position and never discuss this issue before the committee.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I remember this one.
Mr. Lupusella: The minister remembers this, but he did not remember the previous one which emphasized the 10 per cent disability award given to an injured worker. In the opinion of the board, the 10 per cent disability award will not be considered to impair the earning capacity of the worker significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury. The 10 per cent means the injured worker can do the same type of job he did before he was injured.
9:50 p.m.
We are getting into a different scenario. Even if an injured worker will get a disability award from the pension department that is far above the 10 per cent figure, the board will have the discretionary power to award a supplement pension to the injured worker. This means that the board, with its discretionary power, might reject the principle of the supplement pension because, in its wisdom, it decides that the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker is not significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury.
We had case after case. I had an opportunity to sensitize members of the standing committee on resources development to the fact that the 10 per cent mark has been considered by the board as a figure at which workers can still easily perform the same type of job they used to perform at the time of the injury and that therefore there is no change in their earning capacity.
We are now faced with the situation that even though the board may recognize the opposite of that, it has and will use the discretionary power to reject a supplement pension on behalf of an injured worker, even though the degree of his or her disability might be above 10 per cent.
This means that even with a 30 per cent disability award the Workers' Compensation Board might exclude an injured worker from receiving a supplement pension because of the discretionary power incorporated in subsection 45(5). Is this a just and fair procedure on behalf of injured workers?
The minister has great confidence in the board and in the people who work for it, and they might easily say the board will never misuse such discretionary power. We on this side of the House do not understand why such power should be given to the board. In clear-cut cases where an injured worker has a permanent disability award that is above 10 per cent, I do not understand why the minister and the government would be unable to accept the concept that the board must give a supplement pension in cases where there is a clear-cut indication that the impairment of earning capacity of the worker is significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury.
We talk about people complaining about the system, people protesting that the government is unable to come to grips with the reality of the 20th century, and that we are going back to the regressive mentality that injured workers must be kept under control.
The government believes that people employed by the board will use their power in a very fair and just way and that no injustices will take place. We can speak from experience. We had an opportunity to convince the minister that the situation is the opposite. He was not willing to change his mind, nor were his colleagues, and support our position even though we had an opportunity to bring cases to the attention of the committee showing that the board is misusing the power given it by the statute governing the WCB in Ontario.
As I stated before, subsection 45(5) is related to spills of polychlorinated biphenyls that kill people and, in our particular case, is an arm for the board to take money away from injured workers and therefore is an incentive for the board to save money in the long run.
We might even get into the political situation. I do not want to advance this theory. Even though I have my reservations about saying it, the minister is pushing me to say it.
Injured workers eventually will not be receiving this type of supplement pension but if they go to the minister, a simple phone call might change the position taken by the board, because this discretionary power is granted to the board by statute, by authority of Bill 101. Otherwise, I do not understand why the minister is so unwilling to accept our proposal, because it makes sense.
It is fair and just and takes into consideration a clear-cut case where the board will find that "where the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker is significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury, the board" -- must -- "supplement the amount awarded for impairment and partial disability for such period as the board shall fix unless the worker..." Then we have the punitive measures spelled out in clauses (a) and (b).
I do not know how many safeguards or valves we need in Bill 101 to keep injured workers under control. We have discretionary power given to the board to decide whether an injured worker is entitled to receive a supplement pension, even though there is a clear indication that "the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker is significantly greater than is usual."
Then we have the punitive steps spelled out under clauses (a) and (b) that the board will not grant any supplement pension if the injured worker "(a) fails to co-operate or is not available for a medical or vocational rehabilitation program which would, in the board's opinion, aid in getting the worker back to work; or (b) fails to accept or is not available for employment which is available and which in the opinion of the board is suitable for the worker's capabilities."
How many punitive steps do we need in clauses 5(a) and 5(b) to keep injured workers under control? If I recall correctly and I think I do, my colleague the member for Nickel Belt was against the principle in clause (a) about the medical or vocational rehabilitation. I think he emphasized the simple principle that if an orthopaedic surgeon suggests surgery to repair the injured worker's back, the power is clearly given to the board whereby if the injured worker refuses to undertake back surgery, he will be penalized and the supplement pension not be granted.
How many punitive steps and principles do we have to incorporate in three simple subsections when the principle is clearly stated and the board should not have any doubts about granting supplement pensions to injured workers? If he refuses to co-operate, is not available or refuses medical or vocational rehabilitation, the supplement pension will not be granted to the injured worker.
10 p.m.
When the impairment of the earning capacity is greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury, the board has the discretionary power to grant the supplement pension. Where is it? The member for Nickel Belt has been talking for so many years about the adversarial system that has been in place in Ontario, and these subsections are an indication that we want to create an adversarial system that works against the well-being of injured workers across Ontario.
The minister should be reasonable enough to change a simple word on a clear-cut case where the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker is significantly greater than usual for the nature and degree of the injury. If the minister wants, lean repeat this terminology three or four times so we can understand its meaning. Why are we using the phrase "may supplement" when the punitive measures are clearly spelled out in clauses 45(a) and (b) of the act?
I have to request a reasonable explanation from the minister why he has undertaken this type of course to keep injured workers under control. I am looking for a simple explanation. I do not want to provoke the minister, but I think he should have one. I feel his position is clearly unjustified, but perhaps he can show me why the word "may" is appropriate in subsection 45(5). I will sit for a few minutes while the minister makes a short comment on that.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Lupusella: No, if he has no comment to make, I will take the floor again.
The Deputy Chairman: It looks as if the Minister of Labour has the floor.
Mr. Lupusella: We are talking about impairment of earning capacity and why the board should not give the supplementary pension when the clear-cut case is clearly spelled out in subsection 45(5) of the act.
All injured workers are going to suffer as a result of this type of discretionary power given to the board and the minister has to justify that to them. The minister has to justify the political wisdom of why he is using the word "may" instead of "shall" and I do not think he has any choice but to support my amendment.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I know from personal experience what interest the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) has in injured workers.
I would like to talk briefly on this section.
Mr. Nixon: Impossible.
Mr. Di Santo: I will just speak for five minutes. I hope the minister will give us an answer because I am surprised tonight. Both the opposition parties are making some really constructive suggestions and not once has the minister given us a rationale for the position taken in this bill. If we are wrong, he has an obligation to explain to us why we are wrong.
My reasoning is very simple and I speak out of frustration because this section is a carbon copy of the present subsection 43(5) of the Workers' Compensation Act. We know how much trouble the injured workers have with that section because the board has total power to give a supplement or not to give a supplement. We know what kind of excuses it has been able to find in the past.
We are saying that if the government thinks the supplement is something to which an injured worker is entitled under certain circumstances, this should be spelled out very clearly. Injured workers should have the right to that supplement and not be subjected to the bureaucratic considerations of the board and to guidelines that will change from time to time. Sometimes they will ask the workers to go out and get three signatures a day; if they get only two signatures, they are failing to co-operate with the board.
One other aspect that perturbs me is the fact that an injured worker will not receive a supplement if he fails to accept a job that is available and suitable in the opinion of the board. Why should the board be the only entity able to judge whether the job is suitable or not? We know that in many instances we have the opinion of the family doctor and the opinion of the employer. Why should the board be the entity to decide ultimately whether that job is suitable or not?
Of course, if in this bill we had something called the right to re-employment, perhaps we could also discuss the possibility of accepting his proposal, but there is nothing like that in this bill. We know very well that in many instances vocational rehabilitation and the search for a job become a farce. The minister knows very well that jobs are not available today. He said the economy is not recovering. If jobs are not available, it is a farce to send injured workers out in the cold to look for jobs that do not exist.
I hope the minister understands what we are saying. If he thinks we are wrong, I hope he will stand up and explain why we are wrong and why the board needs such discretionary power.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, once more with feeling.
I know the minister has been stonewalling all through this committee debate in the House. I do not understand why he does not accept some amendments that make so much sense and do not imply a substantial cost to the board. Here we have a situation where all the safeguards are built in, as my colleague the member for Dovercourt tried to point out to him.
Look at the admission in subsection 45(5): "where the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker is significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury, the board may supplement the amount awarded." There is an admission in there that the disability is greater, that the impairment of earning is greater, for example, than the disability rating of that worker. Since it is already built into the subsection that it must be greater than is normal, what in the world would be unfair or unreasonable about saying that if the earning impairment is worse, the award should be higher? What in the world is wrong with that? It really leaves me puzzled why the minister would not accept that.
10:10 p.m.
The member for Dovercourt mentioned clause 5(a), the reference to the fact that a worker will be disqualified if he "fails to co-operate or is not available for a medical or vocational rehabilitation program which would, in the board's opinion, aid in getting the worker back to work."
Let me give the minister a specific example. There was one case where the board recommended that a worker go to a specialist about a very bad finger that had been crushed. The worker went to the specialist, who recommended the finger be amputated. He said: "That is the only way that makes any sense at all. That is a terribly mangled finger and it is not getting better. You will have problems all your life with that. You should have it amputated." That is a pretty serious thing, to have a finger amputated.
The worker refused to have it amputated. The board was furious and we had to fight to maintain benefits for that worker. The board said, "The opinion is that finger should be amputated." The doctor found a specialist who said: "I can operate on that. I can fix that." The specialist did and the worker's finger was saved and cured. His finger is not a problem now.
There is a case where the board could say under this section, "You are cut off because you did not do what we think you should do." In that situation, the worker was right and the second medical opinion was right. Yet under this section, the board would have the right to cut off any benefits to that worker because in its view he would not be co-operating as it saw best.
The whole bill is rife with the board's paternalistic attitude towards injured workers. All we tried to do in a few places was to remove that component of paternalism and say, "This is the injured worker's life we are talking about."
In the previous section, members will recall that all we wanted was to have the worker consulted and agree to a commutation for disabilities of 10 per cent or less. Once again, it is terribly paternalistic to say, "The board will know best." The board does not always know best, or our constituency offices would not be filled up with injured workers. The front of the Legislature would not have several thousand injured workers before it every year if the board always knew best.
We are trying to bring some sense to this bill so injured workers have some kind of say and the board treats them in a more even-handed way. The minister will not even accept amendments such as this, which just require the board to do what it admits should be done, in other words he would not even put the "may" in. If he did not think that should be done, he would not put the word "may" in there; he would leave that section out entirely. If he always thinks there are cases where it should be done, then why does he not say so?
The minister makes it difficult to get legislation through, to expedite legislation without prolonged debate. Nothing would make us happier than to get this legislation through, just one section after another, if the minister would accept the odd amendment that would make things a little better. I understand why the minister does not want to accept some of the amendments, but I do not understand why the minister is stonewalling on something like this or the previous one, about consulting with the injured worker to get the injured worker's agreement.
This is a filibuster of silence; that is something the minister has become a specialist at. I have never seen his equal in this chamber. Between the minister's filibuster of silence and the committee chairman's filibuster of his gavel, it has taken us much longer to get this bill through than we on this side would have liked.
We would like to expedite this bill so some of its improvements could be realized by injured workers. However, as long as the minister persists in sitting there stonewalling the bill, he forces us to engage in prolonged debate in the hope we will convince him. We could make a point for 30 seconds and sit down, but if the minister did not change his mind, we would feel guilty for a long time that if only we had tried a little harder to convince him, we might have got the amendment through.
So what happens? The member for Dovercourt --
The Deputy Chairman: This is an appropriate time.
Mr. Laughren: To do what?
The Deputy Chairman: To proceed with the stacked votes.
Mr. Laughren: I was just getting cranked up.
The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the honourable member would allow us to proceed with the approved time schedule. We have two bills stacked for presentation to this House. We will have a 10-minute bell.
10:26 p.m.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Education Act.
The committee divided on Mr. Allen's amendment to section 17, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 34; nays 42.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Allen's amendment to section 19, which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 19 agreed to.
Bill 119, as amended, ordered to be reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with certain amendments and progress on another bill.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business for tomorrow and next week.
Tomorrow, December 7, we will do second reading of Bill 140 and, if time permits, committee of the whole House on Bill 141.
On Monday, December 10, in the afternoon our first order of business will be the all-party motion on human rights. That will be followed by committee of the whole House on Bill 101 with votes stacked to 5:45 p.m.
In the evening we will continue, if necessary. with committee of the whole House on Bill 101, with votes stacked to 10:15 p.m. If all the time is not needed for that, we will deal with the Justice policy field concurrences and Bill 141, if time also permits.
On Tuesday, December 11, in the afternoon we will deal with the Liberal no-confidence motion in the name of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) which, of course, will be with a division at 5:50 p.m.
On Tuesday night, we will deal with third readings of Bills 77, 93, 109, 145, 149, 147 and 119, followed by second reading and committee of the whole House on Bill 138, and then the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, and the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development concurrences in supply.
For the remainder of the week, I will announce on Monday or Tuesday what the business will be.
AVIATION AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CENTRES
Mr. Speaker: As previously announced, the member for Nickel Belt has indicated his dissatisfaction with an answer. We shall now hear from him.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) raised a question with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) concerning an inspection done by the Department of Transport on the aircraft of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
The response given by the minister to my colleague prompted us to raise the question again today. In both cases, the minister responded in such a way as to cause us concern and to cause us to want to debate the matter further. The inspection was carried out in September of this year.
Among other things discovered by the Department of Transport were the following: "While there is evidence that your company is not complying with Department of Transport air regulations, air navigation orders and the engineering and inspection manual, this occurred because company management:
"1. Failed to ensure that all maintenance personnel were familiar with and adhered to Department of Transport regulations and the company quality control manual.
"2. Failed to provide an acceptable inspection organization with sufficient personnel to monitor and control the maintenance and inspection of your large, widely dispersed fleet of aircraft.
"3. The chief inspector failed to realize and take action on the inadequacy of your inspection organization which prevented him from carrying out his duties in accordance with the company quality control manual."
It seems to me those are serious comments made by the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport is required by regulation to carry out those inspections. The minister replied in the following way to my colleague, "The Department of Transport should be doing more with its time than trying to cross-analyse another government agency."
Does the minister not understand that the Department of Transport was doing its job and that it is required to carry out that kind of inspection? Is he implying it should not be carrying out that kind of inspection? I remind the minister that the aircraft in question fly 15,000 hours; I gather that is for a year. They are involved in firefighting, surveying, forest cruising and even mercy flights.
The minister has refused to take this inspection seriously from the moment we raised it. When we ask him if he is going to respond in a positive way to the Department of Transport, he merely smirks and says he thinks the people are doing a good job.
We have never questioned the dedication of the personnel at the Ministry of Natural Resources. This minister has better personnel in his ministry than he deserves. The people within the Ministry of Natural Resources do their best. However, when this minister goes along with cutbacks that reduce the required number of people, then it is not the fault of the people who are doing the job.
It should not need to be said that we believe the people who work at the Ministry of Natural Resources are doing the best job they can. However, when this minister does not give them the wherewithal to do it then he is the one to blame, not the employees of the ministry. Even this afternoon, when my colleague made this point, the minister tried to make the same point again that somehow we were criticizing the employees. It is very unfair to shift the responsibility to one's employees. The minister has taken a ridiculous position.
Under the management section, the Department of Transport states, "Management has failed to provide an acceptable inspection organization." That has nothing to do with the people who are doing the best job they can. It has to do with the minister's failure to organize his ministry in a proper way so that the good people can carry out the job they are capable of doing.
Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the cleanup hitter for the New Democratic Party has tried to repair the damage done by the member for Algoma to the workers in Sault Ste. Marie on Monday of this week. He mounted nothing less than an unmitigated and unwarranted attack on the competence of the workers at that work place under my ministry. He knows it and has spent the past two days trying to recoup his losses with those very dedicated and competent people in Sault Ste. Marie.
Mr. Wildman: What a ridiculous comment.
Hon. Mr. Pope: The member should not give me any other nonsense. That is exactly what he is doing. I fly those aircraft on a regular basis. I have every confidence in the ability of the staff in Sault Ste. Marie, Toronto and Timmins to do its job. If the New Democratic Party members do not think the employees of this government can do their jobs, I disagree with them.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Why do we have to listen to a clown such as that?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The House adjourned at 10:37 p.m.