Hansard Transcripts 1984-Dec-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege that I believe is quite important. The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke), speaking in the Legislature on June 5, 1984, at page 2184 of Hansard, said I was absent from a vote on private member's bill 108 on November 17. 1983. I was in attendance at the vote, as is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of November 17, 1983.

I do not think it is proper that one member can stand in his place and put an untruth on the official record of this House. I know you cannot force someone to correct the record, but I hope you will do whatever you can. If not, twill have no alternative but to put a motion in the House that proper proceedings be taken against the member.

Mr. Speaker: It is not my role to act as judge.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a point of privilege. I would like to bring to your attention that the member for Windsor-Riverside, speaking in the House on June 5, 1984, at page 2183 of Hansard, said I was not present for a vote on Ms. Copps's resolution on equal pay for work of equal value. That is a complete falsehood. As the Votes and Proceedings of October 20, 1983, will verify, I was in attendance on that day. I, therefore, demand a retraction of that statement from the member. I think it is time he got his facts straight.

[Later]

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for several months for the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) to bring forward his resolution sol could correct the record. Both he and the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) are quite correct.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Perhaps you can be of assistance to me. On October 11, 1984, I asked the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) if he would table in the Legislature the reports from the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League. He indicated at the time that he would, but I am still awaiting them. I wonder if Mr. Speaker could use his good offices to obtain the reports the minister promised to table here.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege, but I am sure the minister heard your request and will act accordingly.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I am sure he did.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INTERNATIONAL YOUTH YEAR

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all honourable members that 1985 will be International Youth Year. This year, which has been proclaimed by the United Nations, will be celebrated in 113 countries around the world. Canada is participating through the office of the Secretary of State.

In Ontario, an International Youth Year co-ordination unit has been set up within the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development, and work is under way to focus next year on the 1.5 million Ontarians aged 15 to 24 years. With the imaginative theme of "Visions for the Future," our co-ordinating unit will reach out to youth organizations, community agencies, municipalities, our education system and the private sector. We hope all segments of our society will take part in this recognition of our young people.

Thoreau said, "Dreams are the touchstones of our characters."

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Dean: I thank members for that support.

I believe the dreams of the young are the touchstones of our changing society. Young people are worried about their world, about the physical planet we inhabit and about the social order our people develop. It is up to us to give them cause for hope, for it is only with hope that their visions of the future will mature and unfold in a world in which they can live in peace.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Dean: In the year ahead, all of us have a collective opportunity to assure our young people that we have faith in them and that we need their dreams. While mindful that there will always be a small portion of our young people who need extraordinary support from our society, this year we hope to focus on the young achievers in Ontario. Through them, our visions of the future will be transformed into a new and better world.

PRICING OF BEVERAGE ALCOHOL

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the government, along with citizens' groups and organizations such as the Ontario hospitality industry and law enforcement agencies, is concerned about the effect of excessive drinking prior to driving. A particular concern expressed is with discount pricing of beverage alcohol in some licensed establishments.

As a result, it has been decided, in consultation with and with the support of the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association and the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, to amend regulations of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to require that no price variation be permitted on beverage alcohol sold by licensed establishments, except when live entertainment is provided. The ministries of Tourism and Recreation and of the Attorney General have also been consulted and they support this decision.

Hospitality industry officials point out that 80 to 85 per cent of all alcoholic beverages are purchased for home consumption and that the majority of alcohol abuse takes place outside of licensed premises. They are prepared, however, to endorse the new regulations in the hope that they will contribute to the lessening of the potential hazards of drinking and driving. Hospitality representatives share our concern and have assured us they will do whatever they can to help prevent death, injury or property damage resulting from drinking and driving. I commend them for their unselfish support.

We do not take lightly the imposition of additional regulations on this industry, but our response to a growing public concern leaves no other responsible choice. The introduction of such programs as RIDE, the reduce impaired driving everywhere program, and the recent establishment of the drinking-driving countermeasures office reflect the growing concern of the government and the public over drinking and driving.

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would be good enough to inform me whether the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is going to be in the House today. He is listed as being here. Perhaps the government House leader knows the answer to that question. We are expecting him?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I will await his presence for one of my questions.

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

Mr. Peterson: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question of the Minister of Government Services about his policy, or lack thereof, of preserving the integrity of the Premier (Mr. Davis) with regard to his commitment to stop Spadina.

I read today in the Toronto Star that the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) will push for more expressways, particularly from the northwest, which presumably means he supports the Spadina expressway extension; at least, that is the way I read the article that was printed today.

Is the Minister of Government Services in a conflict of interest between preserving the promise of the Premier and supporting the Minister of Industry and Trade, who aspires in that great job and who would change the policy of the present Premier? How can he expect to judge this question rationally when he is the one responsible for executing the Premier's policy?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister going to do anything, or is he going to let this question lie? Is he going to honour the Premier's commitment? Is he going to preserve the Premier's promise, or is he going to do nothing? Time is running out, as he knows. What is he going to do? He has been handed a number of options. Is he going to act, or is he going to break the promise?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: As I indicated both yesterday and the day before in response to similar questions, as far as I am concerned the government is fulfilling the commitments that were made by the Premier.

The transactions concerning the ownership of the land have already taken place. I have signed the leases that transfer the lands in question by way of a lease for 99 years to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and to the city of Toronto. As I have indicated before, they will be finalized before Christmas. As far as I am concerned, they are completed now, they require only the signatures of the other two municipalities; and that, to me, fulfils in spirit the commitment made by the Premier.

It is very easy to bury in these exchanges the fact that a number of years ago negotiations went on in relation to this so-called three-foot strip, and an offer of a three-foot strip was turned down by the jurisdiction known as the city of Toronto. Without the concurrence of the other municipality, in this case the city of York, it would be arbitrary and unfair for this government and this minister to try to bring about such a situation, which could be done only by legislation at this time.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, for the third day in a row the Minister of Government Services has repudiated written commitments by the Premier, who I assume is at the other end of this microphone somewhere and who is refusing to come into the Legislature and uphold his policy.

Now the Minister of Government Services refers to the "so-called three-foot strip." Does the minister understand that the Premier made solemn commitments to legislate a three-foot strip in the city of York if a negotiated settlement could not be achieved between the city of Toronto and the city of York? Is he saying for the third time in a row that he intends to repudiate those solemn commitments made by the Premier of this province?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, nothing is being repudiated in the commitments made by the Premier. The Premier said that if and when agreement was not reached between the city of Toronto and the city of York -- and I do not think we are at that stage yet -- the province could consider taking arbitrary and unilateral action.

That is not the course this government follows. We like to see neighbours getting along with each other, and that is exactly what we are talking about. Can the honourable member tell me when the mayor of Toronto last approached the mayor of York on this issue?

Mr. Peterson: That is nonsense and the minister knows it. He knows York was opposed to it when the Premier made the original promise, and nothing has changed in that regard. He made the promise; the minister's job is to fulfil it, and he is backing off now. His friend and associate, the one he supports for the leadership, now is saying he is going to renege on that promise.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: What guarantees do we have from the minister that this promise will not be reneged on by some future successor of the present Premier? And remember, his words now will he remembered.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, Hansard works both ways.

The important part of this issue, which some members opposite do not appreciate, is that the will of this body is supreme. Regardless of who is the leader of this government in the future, whichever member on this side becomes the leader of this government in the very near future, this body, through an act of the Legislature, can change its mind on virtually any issue within its mandate, It has nothing to do with who the Premier will be.

There is no conflict on this issue. The Minister of Industry and Trade has not even discussed the issue,

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General, who I understand is attending. Oh, he is not coming now? Perhaps he is phoning Dr. Morgentaler; I do not know.

Is the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) here? I do not see his sweater.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He is in committee.

Mr. Peterson: Perhaps I will wait for him then.

Mr. Speaker: Let us proceed with the first question for the New Democratic Party

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I had a question as well for the Attorney General, who we understood was going to be here, and then one for the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker), who was here and has since left the chamber.

PRICING OF BEVERAGE ALCOHOL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of both those gentlemen, which makes it very difficult to proceed, and in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish), I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a question relating to the statement he made today.

Can he explain why a tavern will be exempted if it provides either table dancers or strip-tease artists and will therefore be allowed to have a happy hour? Can he explain why that exemption was put forward in his statement today?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, that is not a new exemption; it was in the act before it was amended in 1982. It has nothing to do with the nature of the entertainment; it simply relates to the fact that entertainment of any variety will cost the licensed establishment more, and it reflects that.

Mr. Rae: The minister says he is interested in solving this problem, and he says the happy hour provides an inducement to people to drink too much, I assume, and then go out and drive. Is it not true then, according to his statement today, that it would be perfectly possible for a licensed establishment simply to provide live entertainment and thereby totally evade the purpose of the statement he made today?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the honourable member will read the regulation, it says the board may require a filing of information, including information on prices, if it deems that anything inappropriate is going on. It really does not change anything from what it was before 1982; that is not the issue at all.

Mr. Conway: Does Mary Brown know about this?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Does the member's mother know about it?

Mr. Rae: The minister has stated that hospitality industry officials have said that 80 to 85 per cent of all alcoholic beverages are purchased for home consumption and that the majority of alcohol abuse takes place outside licensed establishments.

If that statement is not true, I assume the minister would not have put it into his statement. If it is true, the obvious question to ask the minister is why is he not doing anything about lifestyle advertising, which the minister would surely admit contributes to alcohol abuse in the home outside licensed establishments. If he is really interested in dealing with the problem, why does he not start to deal with it?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I have mentioned in the House before, the Attorney General, the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) and I have already had meetings on this very issue. We are arranging to meet with the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario in the near future to discuss the issue, and to meet with the industry to get down to the business of getting rid of lifestyle advertising that may be contributing to the problem.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your assistance. The Provincial Secretary for Justice was here until a moment ago. The Attorney General was supposed to he here. Surely the least the government can do is ensure that ministers who are in attendance at the start of question period remain here to allow us to ask questions. It is impossible to carry on if at least that minimum is not provided. I will stand down my question until one of those ministers returns.

CHEDOKE MEDICAL CENTRE

Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Speaker. a question for the Minister of Health that is coming up a lot faster than I expected.

The minister will be aware that Chedoke medical centre spreads over 175 acres of land, and that for a long time there has been a problem at the facility to rationalize the use of the buildings. In 1981, approval was given to a plan of redevelopment by his predecessor twice removed. Approval of a master plan was received in August 1983.

In the interests of quick funding support, Chedoke has agreed to put up half the $55 million required. Given this is a long-standing problem and they want to get at it, is the minister prepared to put up the other half?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, any time an institution is prepared to make such commitments it is obviously very appealing from my perspective to try to be co-operative. However, in considering such requests I also have to bear in mind the other existing priorities across the province. I do not have in my capital budget for this fiscal year the money that would allow me to make that commitment.

I have not personally seen any such request from Chedoke, but I am quite prepared to look at any proposal that is forthcoming and to consider it in the context of the other competing priorities. If it is possible to make a commitment, of course I will do so.

Mr. Sweeney: The minister might be aware that while Chedoke is prepared to put up this money, like some other hospitals it is having to dip into the fund for operating expenses as time goes on, so it really is important that a decision he given quickly.

At present, more than 500 people in the Hamilton area are awaiting long-term care placement. Of these, 150 are currently in acute care facilities. On Monday, December 3, the district health council approved an additional 111 chronic care beds. Will the minister be approving this allocation as part of the redevelopment?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The tinting of any approval of further beds in the system across the province depends on the availability of an allocation of funding to operate them. Within the last few days, as the member is likely aware, I have announced additional beds in chronic, acute and extended care facilities across the province. I believe the total is in excess of 700.

The recommendation that may be forthcoming from the district health council has not reached my desk at this stage and will have to be looked at in the context of capital requirements, if it involves capital requirements -- if it is chronic care beds, I assume it would -- as well as the availability of operating funds in next year's funding allocation for the operation of chronic care beds.

By the way, I suggest any hospital that is dipping into its capital resources for --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can tell us how he found time to make a political announcement last week in Ottawa with respect to new beds but did not find time to do the same thing for Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member or his staff had been watching the local media lately they would have discovered that on the day the announcement was made in Ottawa there were announcements made in other communities, such as York. There were two major announcements there. The following day, there were announcements in Chatham, and to the best of my knowledge there was no by-election in Chatham. There have been announcements in Thunder Bay, and I am not aware of any by-election in Thunder Bay.

There have been announcements in every part of this province over the last two or three days and I can assure the member that the timing had only to do with the difficulty, in a time of fiscal restraint, of getting the resources. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the timing of any by-election. If his view is that he would have rather had it delayed in Ottawa, why does he not stand up and say so?

Mr. Rae: I just want the minister to stop discriminating against Hamilton, that is all.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for --

Mr. Speaker: Just for my own information, is this one of the leader's questions?

Mr. Rae: Yes. I was going to say we will see how it goes, but yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: We have been slipping back and forth.

Mr. Rae: I am the leader and this is my question.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt.

CUTBACKS AT CBC

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. It is about the very disturbing announcements that were made yesterday with respect to layoffs by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. I am sure the minister will know that at least 48 jobs are going to be lost in Windsor, 262 in Toronto, 174 in Ottawa and three in northwestern Ontario.

What is the response of her ministry and her government to these very serious cuts in programming? They are very serious cuts in terms of culture and very serious cuts in terms of jobs. What is she doing about the situation, particularly as it affects those four regional centres affected by these cuts?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to indicate yesterday, the cuts are under the purview of the CBC and its officials. I take the view that their decisions are appropriately the decisions of the officials of the CBC. I do hold very strongly to an arm's-length principle with respect to the particulars of the decisions.

I am advised, however, that the overwhelming majority of the decisions taken by CBC officials are to find economies within the administrative areas rather than the programming areas and that I certainly hope those will be the priorities established by the officials per their announcements.

Mr. Rae: The minister does not know what she is talking about. Arm's length should not mean complete and total ignorance as to the effect of these decisions. If it was done by any private sector employer, she would be far better informed.

What is the response of her ministry in terms of the effects on programming? It is going to have an effect on programming in Windsor; it is going to have an effect on programming in northwestern Ontario; it is going to have an effect on programming in eastern Ontario, and it is going to have an effect on programming and jobs in the city of Toronto, and all of Ontario as a result of that.

What is the response of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture to a cutback which impacts severely not only on an industry which is basic to this province, the cultural and communications industry, but it is also going to have an impact in terms of jobs and in terms of culture? What is the minister's response? Why is she being so abject and sitting back and saying nothing when it affects 1,150 jobs across Canada and nearly 500 jobs in Ontario alone?

Hon. Ms. Fish: I do not think increased decibels have any particular correlation to concern, interest, involvement, understanding or knowledge.

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Fish: When I spoke of an arm's-length perspective, I spoke very seriously about that. The member is fully aware that restraints have been applied by the federal government across a number of ministries, crown corporations and agencies. The specific decisions within constraints that have been applied to the CBC are properly the purview of the CBC.

Mr. Mancini: That is what we get for electing a Tory in Essex county. We lost jobs right away. As soon as we elect Tories we lose jobs.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Fish: I am surprised the member would suggest that I have any other particular involvement in the details of --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) will please not participate unless he is asking a direct question.

Mr. Mancini: Their kissing cousins in Ottawa are --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not caution you again. Resume your seat.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the minister's concern is almost as nonexistent as her knowledge on this issue.

In Windsor, five producers have been cut, 11 technicians of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, 17 workers employed with the Canadian Union of Public Employees and one with the Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists. When did they become administrative people?

The minister will be aware that in the city of Windsor, every program other than news on a Monday-to-Friday basis has been cut. That includes weekend news, all variety programming, the agricultural program and every other program on that station.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: One of the mandates of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act is to ensure the creative and participatory nature of cultural life in Ontario. In view of this, what representations is the minister making to Mr. Masse and/or Mr. Juneau to roll back the Tuesday afternoon massacre?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, the information I have --

Mr. Mancini: As a minister, you know there is a fairer way to do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Fish: The information I have been working on has been the information supplied directly by the CBC officials, particularly Mr. Juneau and his representatives. It has been made very clear that the overwhelming source of the economies they were striving for were in the administrative area. They did not suggest it was 100 per cent; I do not suggest it is 100 per cent.

I would like to deal very specifically with the question of whether there should be involvement by me in the particulars of the decision. I find the suggestion shockingly contradictory that this minister should probe inside the CBC or any other arts agency to deal with the particulars of the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: I suspect we would get quite a different answer from the minister if another political party was still in power in Ottawa,

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is so well informed on this situation, does she realize the implications for a city such as Windsor? It has about eight Detroit radio and TV stations with lots of American news. On weekends, we will get no local Canadian news whatsoever from Windsor. It will all be American local news. Neither will there be any local news on CBC radio on weekends.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: As the Minister of Citizenship and Culture, is she prepared to protect Canadian culture? Will she allow that to happen or will she make representation to the federal government and object on behalf of our citizens? We happen to be part of Ontario and Canada, even though the Conservative Party does not seem to accept that. Is the minister going to make representation and try to protect our people and the jobs that are lost, or is she just going to sit back and try to protect the Conservative government in Canada?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, neither the members on this side of the House nor those on that side can have it both ways. They cannot say on the one hand the decisions respecting programming and the conduct of our cultural agencies are appropriately within the ambit of those agencies and should not -- I repeat, should not -- be the subject of direct involvement and instruction from the political end, and at the same time suggest that should be the case.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Fish: TVOntario's board is responsible for its programming, I do not --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker. I gather the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is not going to show up in the House today, so I will refer my question to the Solicitor General, his colleague in the whole Morgentaler matter.

Have the Solicitor General and the Attorney General now had the opportunity to convey personally to Dr. Morgentaler their message calling for restraint? What was his response to their call for restraint? What has he communicated to them? Do I interpret the words of the spokesman for Dr. Morgentaler as stating the position they are taking, that they are not going to close down?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker. I have never talked to Dr. Morgentaler or given him any messages. I have no knowledge of what the Attorney General has done between the time he made his statement yesterday and today.

Mr. Peterson: I find it extraordinary that sometimes the minister does have knowledge and sometimes he does not, when it suits his purposes. He was the one who said he was going to move in and close down that clinic. To the best of my knowledge, it is still running today and has refused the invitation of the Attorney General to exercise restraint.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: My question to the Solicitor General is a very simple one. What is he going to do now?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I never made any statement that I was going to close down the Morgentaler Clinic. The member has not put a proper preamble to his question so I cannot answer it. He is a lawyer and I am sure he read the statement the Attorney General made last week and understands there will be no trial proceedings. The police or any other individual can secure the evidence, talk to the crown law officers, lay charges if they so decide, and if the evidence is sufficient police officers can exercise their discretion to lay those charges.

Mr. Rae: Mr Speaker, can the Solicitor General explain to us why in all the statements he has made in the last few days with respect to his private view that the police more than likely will conduct a raid, he has never stated, nor has the Attorney General, that four times in the last 12 years juries in Quebec and Ontario have found the defence of necessity to be a compelling defence against a breach of section 251 of the Criminal Code?

Does he not think that the findings of four juries should have a persuasive impact on the conduct of the police, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General of Ontario with respect to this matter?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member would no more want me to have the power to instruct the police to lay charges than he would want me to have the power to instinct them not to lay charges.

Mr. Rae: That is not what I said. That is not what I asked the minister to do.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The member knows the law as it stands in Ontario. The Attorney General speaks for the interpretation of that law. I have not said the police will raid the Morgentaler Clinic. I made a statement that I expect the police will lay charges in the matter; no more and no less than that.

When one looks at what the member has said in regard to four discharges, they have been separate instances. The law still stands. The Attorney General is appealing that particular law to find out whether there is such a defence of necessity in our courts and then possibly in the Supreme Court of Canada, if that is the route it goes. I am sure the members of this Legislature understand the law as it is. We are trying, in a very emotional and difficult situation, to have that law applied as equally to this individual as we would have it applied to anybody else in Ontario.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, can the Solicitor General not put to rest the minds of all law-abiding citizens of this province by simply going out into the lobby, picking up the phone and calling Police Chief Marks, then coming back here and letting us know that he has consulted with the crown law officers and determined there is sufficient evidence for him to go out and lay charges against the illegal acts being committed at 85 Harbord Street?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, although the honourable member has a very compelling interest in this particular matter, which is topical, I do not go out and phone the different police chiefs and ask whether they are going to lay charges and whether they are investigating.

If they are investigating and if they inform me that they are investigating -- indeed, in some situations I tell them to investigate -- I would usually answer the same thing. If they are conducting an ongoing investigation, I can answer no further on it. I can give no information on whether a police chief is consulting on the evidence that is coming forward. If he is collecting evidence and consulting with the crown law officers, if that is taking place, I am sure he will inform us, as he has the duty to do at the appropriate time, but I will not be consulting the chief of police on that.

Mr. Peterson: I am amazed at the occasions when the minister and his colleagues choose to plead ignorance.

Apart from that, the minister is aware that his colleague came into this House yesterday and made an extraordinary plea, the like of which I have never heard in my life, asking that people desist from certain kinds of conduct without even communicating directly with the parties. Presumably, those parties have not even heard, because the Solicitor General has not communicated with them, or maybe the Attorney General has not communicated with them yet, so they would know what the request is.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please,

Mr. Peterson: They are carrying on with that so-called illegal activity.

Was it a legal ploy or was it a political ploy that the minister's colleague chose to exercise yesterday? What is the minister going to do if Dr Morgentaler does not follow his advice and close down the clinic? Clearly the ball is back in the minister's court. What is he going to do?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The members heard the Attorney General reply yesterday to a very similar question. His statement speaks for itself. I will not interpret his statement for the honourable member; he can formulate his own opinions.

The member asks what am I going to do concerning the other matters. It is at the discretion of the police to decide whether to lay charges or not. That has been repeated many times to the member in this House.

[Later]

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Solicitor General. If he is not prepared to go out and call Chief Marks about the matter I discussed with him a few moments ago, will he consider going out and calling the chief to ask him why nothing appears to have happened there in the past 48 hours and why they still have the police guards around 85 Harbord Street?

Why will the chief not call off his police officers so they are not left in the humiliating and disgraceful position of having to provide protection to someone who considers himself above the law so he can engage in criminal activity with impunity?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr, Speaker, I believe the police are there, although if one may interpret it as the honourable member has, I think they are there for the primary purpose of keeping the peace in the area. Previous situations have resulted in difficulties, and they are there to prevent those difficulties from happening in the future.

If the chief thinks it is worth having them on duty, it is within his discretion to leave those officers there so that nobody brings harm to himself, or to other people, while the individual is conducting whatever he is conducting in that clinic.

Mr. Williams: Surely observations can be carried out without having to surround the building like an armed camp and in that way intimidate people who are lawfully walking back and forth along the street. Some discretion could be exercised by calling off the police officers and maintaining a watching position some distance away, without having them encamp on the front step of that building. They are there to serve and protect the law-abiding people of this province, not those who are engaging in criminal activities.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: If it happened to be crowd control outside on our steps, some strike situation or a parade, the police officers would always be there to protect the people engaged in the situation to ensure it was done in a peaceful manner. I recognize the individual's very personal concern about this matter; we all have that.

Recognizing past experience, it is within the discretion of the chief of police of Toronto to deploy his officers where he thinks necessary, for the safety of the people in that area and for other reasons.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about no harm coming to anyone. I wonder if the six aborted babies on Monday, the 10 on Tuesday, and God only knows how many today would agree with that. How many babies are going to have to be aborted before this government or this minister does something?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has expressed his opinion on it. The chief of police still has to act within his discretion based on how he sees the situation and how it is developing in regard to all the people in that vicinity.

RENAMING OF BURLINGTON BAY SKYWAY

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications on a somewhat less contentious matter.

In view of the fact that he received an 18,000-name petition, and in view of the fact that this petition was unanimously endorsed by the Halton regional council, the Burlington city council and the Burlington Chamber of Commerce, and approved by Mayor Robert Morrow of Hamilton, will the minister tell us whether he is going to rescind his decision to rename the Burlington Bay Skyway as the James Allan Parkway and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with the delegation from Burlington yesterday. I had discussions with them and received the petition they brought me. We discussed some options. I advised them it was a decision of cabinet and a cabinet minute to change that name. I told them I was prepared to go back and discuss the matter with cabinet, but they asked me not to do so at the present time. They wanted some time to think it over and they will get back to me in January. Naturally, I abided by their wishes.

Mr. Samis: Since the delegation made it clear that it does not accept the minister's compromise, in true Yuletide spirit will the minister, being a man of generous resources, use the full weight of his position to get the James Snow Parkway name changed to the James Allan Parkway and satisfy everybody?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think the honourable member will have to contact the town of Milton in the region of Halton to do that, since it is not our road.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications concerns the accidents, delays and cost overruns of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. transit project in Detroit. In the latest in a series of accidents, there were reports yesterday of a 95-foot, 100-ton steel and concrete beam slipping from its mooring and plummeting to the ground.

A newspaper reported that a top UTDC official, Phil Stevenson, admitted the problem-plagued Detroit project could hurt future international sales. Last week in this House the minister assured us that the UTDC is not to blame for the cost overruns. However, regardless of who is to blame for the cost overruns, accidents and so forth, the reputation of the UTDC now is on the line. What action is the minister taking to protect the reputation of the UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the reputation of the UTDC is in jeopardy at this time. I was made aware of the hoisting accident that took place over the weekend. As I understand it, the erection contractor was raising a large segment of the beam with two cranes. Due to the slippage or release of one of the locks on one of the cranes, the beam swung, consequently overloading the other crane, and the beam fell to the ground and was broken. I do not know at this time whether it was a mechanical or manual error.

It is my understanding from the UTDC that this mishap will be covered by the insurance of the crane operators and erection contractors, whichever is responsible. It was an unfortunate incident. Luckily, the way it was handled, no one was injured.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Eakins: The Toronto Sun reports Mr. Stevenson has further suggested this project may have to be halted altogether if United States federal funds are withheld. Can the minister assure us that the project will continue and that the project is going to be brought to a successful conclusion?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No. I am afraid I do not have control of the federal funds of the United States of America. I am sorry if the honourable member thought I did, but I do not have the control of the federal treasury.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Justice. I would be glad to send over to the provincial secretary a full page of headlines on the Attorney General about family law reform, all the things that are going to be done. The Attorney General wants all family assets equally shared in divorce --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I wonder whether the minister can confirm that in discussions today with the women's groups that appeared before his caucus, as they appeared before ours and before the Liberal Party's caucus, that the provincial secretary said there was still some argument within the cabinet with respect to the question of division of assets. Is that the case? If that is so, why is it that the Attorney General has been going all over Ontario, not to say even further, promising things which apparently he cannot deliver?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Attorney General can be asked any questions relating to things he may or may not have said and any reports that may have come forth on that subject.

I can, however, confirm there has been some ongoing debate for many months on the issues related to family law reform. Indeed, that particular item was discussed this morning with the coalition that met with us. We talked specifically about some of the family law reform proposals.

There are a number of concerns and a number of issues. It is fair to say there are a lot of concerns. We have certainly been discussing it within our cabinet committee. It has been before that committee in the form of discussion, but that does not take away from the fact that at some point there will no doubt be some amendments put before the House.

Mr. Rae: We all will watch with glee as the Attorney General attempts to pull the knives out of his back.

Can the provincial secretary explain this betrayal of a basic commitment that legislation to amend the Family Law Reform Act would be in this Legislature before the end of this session? We had a commitment that it would be here by December 3, a commitment which started on December 14, 1982. The women of this province, the people of this province and this Legislature had a commitment from the Tory government with respect to the reform of family law --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: What has happened to that commitment? Why has the government betrayed the basic promises made to the women of this province with respect to family law reform?

Hon. Mr. Walker: We simply have not been able to get it in yet.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that the parliamentary secretary, speaking on behalf of the Attorney General, today told the Women's Lobby Coalition that the draft bill is ready and is circulating. Is the minister telling us now that --

Mr. Rae: No, it is not circulating.

Mr. Peterson: That is what he said this morning, that it is circulating in cabinet. He presumably said, "The bill is prepared and it is ready to go." Is he telling us now that the only hold-up is that he has not been able to squeeze it into the legislative agenda; that we have been so busy here this session that there has been absolutely no room for it? Is he is telling us it is just a lack of room on the agenda, but there is agreement and it is ready to go?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I was at that meeting and a number of others were as well and I do not remember him using those specific words. I remember him saying there were some proposals that have been put forward to various committees, including Management Board and cabinet. The way the honourable member has translated it certainly does not sound like what I remember.

WATER AND SEWAGE SYSTEMS

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment regarding the drop in provincial funding for the Hamilton-Wentworth region sewage treatment system. I would like to know why the Ministry of the Environment has cut its funding for upgrading Hamilton-Wentworth sewers at a time when there is such a critical need to improve the water quality of Hamilton harbour and the Great Lakes. Why did the ministry reject nine out of the 12 sewer upgrading projects the region submitted for funding this year?

Interjections.

Mr. McGuigan: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, could I have the floor?

Mr. Speaker: I think you have the floor.

Mr. McGuigan: Thank you. Why is the ministry willing to provide only $325,000 when the region requested $1.7 million for the 15 per cent upfront grants provided by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: As the member is aware, we develop all our programs on the basis of priorities. The highest priority in my ministry is the protection of health. In the case of the Hamilton projects, I am not familiar with the dozen or so pointed out by the member, but I will certainly look at them and review them again.

The moneys are allocated on the basis of need and where the most serious problems exist in our various communities. I would like to point out to the member there is certainly no position on the part of this ministry whereby we are turning our back on the Hamilton area. We consider that a very high priority.

I might add that within the last week I have committed a very substantial increase in funding to the solid waste reduction unit project, along with a number of --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. McGuigan: I agree with the minister that health should be a priority, but surely clean water is a matter of health. Why has his ministry rejected adequate funding for the Greenhill diversion and the containment project?

This project would catch and hold 15 million gallons of raw sewage and toxic street runoff generated during storms that now go directly into Hamilton harbour. These toxic wastes contain polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, furans and mercury. Much of these could be taken out by the sewage treatment plant if the runoff was caught by the Greenhill diversion.

Will the ministry provide $900,000, which is 15 per cent of the cost of the $6-million project? This project has been delayed over a year as a result of the lack of provincial co-operation. Why will the minister not let these things go forward?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I think we are all aware this is a time of restraint. We have to allocate the moneys in all our ministries in the most appropriate fashion. Hamilton has been well treated. In fact, it has probably received more moneys than a number of other communities. I will take a look at what the member suggests is now a priority for Hamilton.

However, I have to assure him that we have in no way reduced or minimized our commitment to that community with respect to environmental control programs. The very project mentioned by the member is only one of a vast number of programs we have to look at in this province. We have to allocate our dollars in the most effective, efficient and propitious fashion possible.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, in his answer the minister indicated he was quite aware of the major problem of pollution in Hamilton harbour and in the supply of water in that vicinity. He is also aware of the recent federal cancer incidence study in the Hamilton area.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: If I understand the minister's answer correctly, why has he treated the particular issue about which he was asked with so low a priority that he now believes it must be given a higher priority? What was wrong with the issue earlier when he knew that information? Why did it have a low priority when it obviously needed a higher one?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, if the project on which the member is commenting is such a high priority to Hamilton, surely to goodness the 15 per cent supplementary funding received from my ministry would not hold it back.

It frustrates me somewhat when I talk to the members from Hamilton about this question. I have just committed $4 million to Hamilton on the expansion of the energy-from-waste plant in that particular community. They cannot have all the money all the time. I have made a very major commitment to that community. Perhaps other things may have to be set back.

There are other important communities such as Timmins, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and many others that have to be looked at as well. I try to allocate these funds in a very equitable and fair manner.

3 p.m.

REGULATION OF REST HOMES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, who will recall that on many occasions when we raised the matter of regulation of rest and lodging homes with him he said it was the responsibility of municipalities.

I wonder whether the minister is aware that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has requested enabling legislation of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing so it can adequately regulate the rest and lodging homes at the regional level. That request was made in the spring of 1984 and to date a positive reply has not been received; in fact, no reply has been received at all.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I am aware of a request from another municipality, but cannot honestly say I have seen the request from Ottawa-Carleton. I do not know what its status might be within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. If there has been consultation between the staff of that ministry and the staff of my ministry, it has not come to my attention.

Mr. Cooke: If the minister is refusing, as he has done, to bring in province-wide legislation for rest and lodging homes, does he not agree that at the very least it is about time he dealt with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, so there is a policy in that ministry that will give municipalities the appropriate powers to regulate rest and lodging homes properly?

How can the minister tell us constantly that the municipalities have adequate powers when the legal staff of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has clearly indicated that it does not have those powers? The municipality wants to do it; should the minister not be doing something to give it those powers?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have not seen the specific proposal the honourable member is referring to, although I have seen what sounds like a similar one from another municipality.

It is my view that the municipalities already have in part the powers they are asking for. Alternatively, the authority already exists with the local medical officer of health and through the local property standards enforcement bylaw route. I am not suggesting I am not prepared to support the expansion of municipality authority in this area if it is required, but I am not prepared to see a duplication of resources that already exist in those communities.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I am extremely dissatisfied with the statement of the Attorney General yesterday. Will the minister convey to the Attorney General the concern of this House about his failure to be in the House today to answer questions?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will be honoured to be the honourable member's messenger. I am sure the Attorney General will get the message quite accurately and quickly on his own, but I will convey the members message to him.

Mr. Hennessy: Before we adjourn, will the Solicitor General bring back a statement to this House about his discussions with the Metropolitan Toronto Police regarding their policy on laying charges?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I do not propose to have any discussions on their policy on laying charges. I am not aware they have a particular policy other than that under their sworn duty the police have the power to exercise their discretion where they see violations of the law.

ARREST OF FARMER

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Correctional Services, but my real job is to get a man out of jail today. The minister and I have talked about this over the phone, but I think the public should know what the hell is going on.

It is no secret that the farmers in my part of Ontario have been harassed and degraded by law enforcement officers and the courts. At a recent meeting of a large group of farmers, it was the consensus of all those highly respected farmers that there is no justice north of Highway 7.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sargent: A friend of mine, George Bothwell, was arrested for driving a slow-moving vehicle on the highway when the sign was off it. They put him in jail for that. The fraud squad was there and clamped a charge against him of theft of more than $200 from the bank. He has been in jail illegally for two months.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: A $20,000 bail was part of the act. He has been held there illegally for more than two months.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sargent: He is hooked into the system and will never get out unless he will consent to having his fingerprints taken.

Will the minister tell the House why the system does not comply with Mr. Justice Maloney's ruling and have George Bothwell released? In his ruling, paragraph 1 states that it does not require him to consent to having his fingerprints taken. He must comply with the provisions of the Identification of Criminals Act. That is where it lies now.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the member for Grey-Bruce has had several discussions with members of my staff who have told him clearly what the situation is. I am advised that bail for the person in question was granted by Mr. Justice Maloney of the Supreme Court of Ontario and that it is subject to a number of conditions, including that Mr. Bothwell must comply with provisions of the Identification of Criminals Act.

My staff and I have been advised by the office of the local crown attorney and the crown law office, criminal, that Mr. Bothwell is not eligible for release until such time as he chooses to co-operate in the taking of his fingerprints, which he refuses to do.

Mr. Sargent: It is about time we brought in the Columbia Broadcasting System program 60 Minutes to show what the hell is going on in this province in the field of justice.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sargent: Just a minute; this is goddamned important.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: We have millionaires such as those in the Greymac affair who made $500 million in profit running around our streets free, yet this thing is allowed to happen in Ontario.

Mr. Justice Maloney said all the man had to do was to comply with the Identification of Criminals Act, which reads --

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister is aware of what it says. Will you please place your question?

Mr. Sargent: I want to clarify to the House what the act says. It puts no obligation on a person in custody whatsoever. To comply, Mr. Bothwell need not do anything at all. On the contrary, it is the duty of those in whose custody he is to effect the measures referred to in the act. It is the ministry's job, and yet it is happy to keep this man in jail for the rest of his life because of a simple interpretation of the judge's order. I think it is nothing but damned rotten.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.

FOREST REGENERATION

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact there will not be time for a supplementary, I will try to be brief.

The minister will recall that about a month ago he signed a document with the federal government to pump $150 million -- $75 million from each jurisdiction -- into the forestry industry. I wonder whether he agrees with the following statement in the document he signed:

"Constraints affecting the economically available wood supply include the following: the ever-increasing accumulation of forest land which naturally regenerates to currently unpreferred species such as aspen, following disturbances by harvesting, fire diseases and insects; and an ever-increasing accumulation of productive but unstocked forest lands which have the potential to add significantly to the forest resource but remain idle after disturbance by harvesting or fire."

Does the minister agree with that statement in the document he signed? If he does, how does he square it with his response to the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) in an answer to a question on October 19, 1984?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement with the federal government to obtain an additional $75 million of federal funding is a very important initiative in federal-provincial reforestation in this province; to get that $75 million, I will sign any agreement.

3:10 p.m.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Just to correct the record, yesterday private member's notice of motion 54 standing in my name read, in part, as follows:

"The decision by the government to abruptly reverse its position on the extension of funding to the separate school system, without debate or consultation and with the consequence of confusion and hostility among all members of the post-secondary school system."

That is in error. I regret that I did not catch it. It may have been my responsibility. It should have read, "confusion and hostility among all members of the secondary school system."

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by secondary school teachers in my riding, which reads:

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

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

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

"Whereas there is an understood convention in democratic societies which respect the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters should be debated in the Legislative Assembly with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

That petition is signed by about 50 secondary school teachers in my riding.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to present a petition to the House by people who are on the staff of St. Catharines Collegiate Institute and Vocational School:

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

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

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

As I indicated, this comes from most members of the staff of St. Catharines Collegiate.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is worded identically to the petitions just presented and it is signed by some 40 people associated with one of the schools in my riding.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of secondary school teachers in Thunder Bay:

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

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

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

It is signed by 67 people.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), the member for Oakville (Mr. Snow), the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, district 12, I have petitions worded identically and similar in nature to the one just read by my colleague the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessey).

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition with the same wording from the staff of Sir Frederick Banting Secondary School in London, Ontario, signed by 50 teachers. It is my pleasure to present it to the House.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, reading identically to the preceding petitions and signed by a number of persons from the Hamilton-Burlington area.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Kolyn from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 140. An Act to revise the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act. 1981.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Which bill is it?

Clerk of the House: Bill 140.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Has committee of the whole been done on Bill 140?

An hon. member: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It has been done? Okay.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can have the indulgence of the House. Bill 140, which we just put to third reading, has to go to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Nixon: I think it went to committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, it did not. I just checked and it has not received clause-by-clause consideration. Can we agree that it go to committee of the whole?

Mr. Speaker: Agreed.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

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

Ministry administration program, $46,353,100; policy planning and research program, $10,410,700; safety and regulation program, $70,908,000; provincial highways program, $498,149,700; provincial transit program. $95 million; provincial transportation program, $7,445,600; municipal roads program. $520,344,500; municipal transit program, $287,970,600; and communications program, $2,741,300.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding the previous order of the House, on Thursday afternoon, December 13, private member's ballot item 30 be taken up at 5 p.m., and the provisions of standing order 64 will apply with respect to the debate and voting.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Laughren moved, seconded by Mr. Foulds, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance: namely, the decision a month ago by Stelco Inc. to close its iron ore mine at Ear Falls in April of 1985; the fact that the Premier met with Stelco officials on Thursday, December 6, 1984, and to date no report has been made on the results of that meeting to the workers concerned, the Legislature or even, apparently, to the Minister of Northern Affairs; the fact that the decision was made unilaterally by the company without any public consideration of alternatives the fact that the loss of 283 jobs at the Griffith mine will literally destroy the economic base of the town; the fact that the Ear Falls closure is the sixth iron ore mine closure since 1977; and the lack of any plans or policies in the government to deal with the issue of the economic vulnerability of one-industry towns, despite the fact that a cabinet committee has supposedly been dealing with this issue since 1977.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all honourable members that the notice of motion was received in my office within the time limits prescribed by the standing orders. I will be pleased to listen for up to five minutes as to why the honourable member wishes to set aside the ordinary business of the House.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, this is our party's second attempt to have an emergency debate on the devastating blow to Ear Falls in northwestern Ontario.

A month ago, the decision was made to close the mine in April of 1985. Since then, meetings have been held but no announcements have been made. At the most recent meeting, which was last Thursday, the MPP for that area, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), was not in attendance and apparently he has not been prepared to report to the House since that time.

Those who work at the mine, and for that matter everyone in that area, are really in limbo. They do not know what is going on. It is terribly important that the people know what is going to happen. The stakes are enormous. These are their jobs, their families are there, some of them own their own homes. The cost of moving is horrendous; as high as $5,000 according to one quote.

The question is, should those people be looking for other jobs? Should they be out there taking other jobs or should they wait for a more opportune time to move? No one knows. Neither the minister nor anyone else has made a public announcement on it despite a number of meetings with Stelco.

Should the workers leave now or should they wait in the hope there will be an enriched severance package negotiated on their behalf? Will relocation assistance be available? We do know that the workers have been told by the federal Minister of State for Mines, the Honourable Robert Layton, that they can expect no less than the workers at Schefferville got when that company was shut down by Conservative Prime Minister Mulroney.

Of the more than 280 workers at that mine, 48 of them are over 50 years of age. One worker said at the meeting: "We have been living on faith up till now. Next year it will he hope. After that, it will be charity."

We want this debate this afternoon because we think we have some positive suggestions to make as to how to best resolve the problem. We are concerned about the insecurity of the workers. We are told that blasting and drilling will cease at the end of December in anticipation of an April 1 closure. That is what we are being told, but we do not know for sure. The Premier (Mr. Davis) has requested an extension.

The government cannot continue to leave those people in the dark. They do not know what is going on. The Minister of Northern Affairs may not either, but if so, we want him to at least stay here and discuss it in a meaningful way this afternoon.

We believe the local people are the ones who should know. They are the last to know what is going on. They were the last to know the announcement had been made that it was going to close, and presumably they will be the last to know if something is negotiated down here in southern Ontario. That does not seem to bother the Premier or the Minister of Northern Affairs.

If a shutdown is unavoidable, if the company is determined to go ahead with the shutdown, which we hope it is not, then there must at least be an honourable package negotiated for those workers.

I would like to know what this government plans to do. I would like to have an exchange with it this afternoon. Does it intend to see that the workers in Ear Falls get no less a package than the workers in Schefferville when the iron ore operation in that town was closed down by the Honourable Brian Mulroney? We would like to know what is going on, because at the present time no one seems to know.

Did Stelco even reply to the Premier? It is two weeks ago now, I believe, that he wrote to Stelco, and as far as we can tell there has never been an answer. We think the people have a right to know. This concerns their lives, their future; and the government sits there and does nothing about it.

We were supposed to have a committee on one-industry communities. Where is it? What is it doing? We have some suggestions to make, but it is not possible to have an exchange during question period on all these matters that need to be raised. That is why we feel it is very legitimate to request that the ordinary business be set aside and a debate held this afternoon.

We had a debate when the Black and Decker operation closed down in Barrie, and when the two economies are compared, this is a much more devastating blow to Ear Falls and the Red Lake area than the Black and Decker closing was to Barrie. We supported that debate and were pleased to engage in it, and I think we should have one on the Ear Falls problems.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join in the introductory debate on this motion, and I hope it will be the pleasure of the House that we can carry on with this debate through the course of the afternoon.

Not very long ago my colleague the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) spoke in support of this same motion, the motion of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). It is really a motion from all the members opposite in both parties who time and time again have expressed their concern on northern issues, particularly as they relate to the success or failure of a community, the life or death of a community whose whole being centres on a single industry.

I can go back to the estimates debate in this chamber for 1983 -- as a matter of fact, earlier this fall -- and for 1982, the three different years I have been involved. In getting ready for the critic's role, I did a fair bit of reading of the estimates of preceding years. There is no question that time and time again we have raised the issue of the whole mining industry.

Our party in particular has hammered away at the necessity of a separate ministry for mining so that the needs of the communities of the north might be better addressed, so that they might get a little closer attention and so that we can properly address the marketplace in which they operate, the various technological changes that affect them and the variety of things related to mining and whether it survives. Time and time again this issue of a separate mining ministry has failed to get any serious debate in the House. I hope a debate this afternoon will at least open the door on that theme.

More important, the issue at hand for the people in Ear Falls at this time is the issue that has to be addressed. They, like us, are operating and surviving on innuendo and on rumour, and the frustration level has to be extremely high for those people and that community. They simply do not know what is going on.

Surely it is the responsibility of the government and of the minister to allow information to flow so that people will at least have an idea of the things that are going to shape the remainder of their lives, so again we support this motion.

I would point out that there are a variety of other reasons one could examine, at least in a cursory way to make the case for proceeding this afternoon. For example, it is our information that the equipment in this venture is leased equipment. We also understand there is very little chance, if any, that this equipment might be removed. We would like to see that whole theme pursued.

Is there, for example, any way of encouraging or negotiating a resolve so this facility could carry on under another form of ownership? Who knows? I do not. At least we should take the opportunity here this afternoon to lay some of these things on the table.

A couple of years ago, in the closing days of the preceding parliament, in the late fall of 1980 and the early winter of 1981, we had a very productive committee in this Legislature; that is, the select committee on plant closures and employee adjustment. It looked at issues that were not necessarily the same in so far as geography is concerned but were the same in so far as the lifeblood of communities was being cut off because an industry was closed down.

That committee was almost at the point of being able to come forward with excellent and useful recommendations, but it was stopped when the election was called. There is another reason for carrying on with this debate. We feel many alternatives could be considered.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to enter into this discussion. I want to express my personal thanks to the member for Nickel Belt for displaying his concern and his interest in this very sensitive issue. As many members know, Ear Falls is in my riding. I am very close to that community. I have family and friends living there. Many of the workers affected are personal friends of mine, so I am very familiar with the situation into which they are thrust at this point. I do not want to minimize that one iota.

I want to point out again that numerous meetings have been held. It is fair to say that in the last three or four weeks no other issue has taken more of my time nor have I put more of my time into anything other than this issue, because it is of so much importance to this government and to northern Ontario.

Numerous meetings were held with my cabinet colleagues the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope). The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has been involved in numerous meetings with the company, with the union, and with the reeve of Ear Falls, to discuss all those issues. I can assure the member for Nickel Belt that Stelco did tell us at one of those meetings it was prepared to review the Schefferville settlement. They indicated that direction, and I was most encouraged by that.

I want to put on the record two paragraphs of a letter the Premier sent to Mr. Allan on November 15:

"We would ask, therefore, that Stelco review the situation and see if it can reverse the decision to eliminate this Ontario source of ore in favour of ore from the United States and elsewhere in Canada. If the economics are simply not there, then surely the April 1, 1985, deadline can be extended. We feel that Stelco has a responsibility to Ear Falls to assist it to diversify so that it can remain in a relatively healthy state.

"Given such an objective, I would suggest that Stelco defer the closure of the Griffith mine for two years to permit the company, the government and the township of Ear Falls to review the decision and to put into place measures that will ensure it remains a viable community." That was signed by our Premier.

As the member has correctly pointed out, there have been numerous meetings. We went out of our way to put the members of the Red Lake chamber of commerce in touch with all the principals just last week when they were down for the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce convention. The Commerce Northwest people were in touch with the principals to express their personal point of view as to how it affects them and their communities.

We have opened the door to all those discussions and they are going on now. The member is correct in saying that just last week there was a meeting of the Premier with the senior officials of Stelco. I want to make it abundantly clear that yesterday I was waiting for questions from the members. I would have been glad to answer them.

Mr. Laughren: We will debate it. Why did you not make a statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I waited for the members question and he did not ask it, so I went on the radio in northwestern Ontario and explained the government's position to the people.

The discussions are ongoing at a very high level. I know the members would not want to proceed with this debate at this time because that would jeopardize the discussions and put them in uncertainty. I am not against the debate; I think we should have the debate, but not at this time because it would put the discussions in severe jeopardy. In the interest of getting the best --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the honourable members would condemn us if we did not put our best effort forward. We are trying to do that. We are trying; they should bear with us, join us and be with us.

We are prepared to debate this issue, but the timing is not correct in the interest of getting the best possible solution, of getting an extension, even of asking them to reconsider. While we have no objections to the debate, we do not think it should proceed at this time.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the points put forward by the various members. The question before the House is, shall the debate proceed?

3:33 p.m.

The House divided on whether the debate should proceed, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bradley, Bryden, Cooke, Edighoffer, Elston, Foulds, Grande, Laughren, Lupusella, Mancini, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Ruprecht, Ruston, Sargent, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bernier, Brandt, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McEwen, McLean, McNeil, Norton, Pope;

Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J.A., Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Wells, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 28; nays 48.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am going to table the answers to questions 517, 518 and 519 [see Hansard for final day of session].

Mr. Nixon: And about time, too.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They are all there and they are about this high.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Chairman: We adjourned at section 32, which was carried. The next amendment we have indicated is to section 37. Shall sections 33 to 36, inclusive, carry?

Sections 33 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.

4 p.m.

On section 37:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that section 37 of the bill be amended by deleting in the proposed subsection 41(2) of the act the first and second lines and line 3 up to, but not including, the word "where."

Mr. Lupusella: If I may speak on that particular amendment, it incorporates principles that have been previously enunciated in the amendments we were able to move throughout the content of this bill, amendments that were rejected by the minister and the government when we had the opportunity to vote on each amendment.

Even though the minister has been living in the stratosphere for several days during the course of this debate, I hope he is now living in the real world, close to injured workers and their concerns.

My particular amendment speaks about the Canada pension plan. I am sure the minister will recall the lengthy debate we had in relation to that section on the Canada pension plan. My amendment would delete the words, "In determining the amount that has to be paid under clause (1)(b), the board shall have regard to any payments the worker receives under the Canada pension plan."

I have a few concerns. Under subsection 45(9) of the act, the minister was able to introduce a new amendment that was passed, in which the Canada pension plan was not a bar to determination of the amount of money that is supposed to be paid to the injured worker. I am not sure if there is any need to clarify this particular subsection in view of the introduction of the minister's amendment about the Canada pension plan, which was not supposed to be a bar to the determination of the total amount of money to be paid under a different process.

I understand subsection 41(2) of the act has to do with the payment the injured worker has to receive under clause (1)(b). Maybe there is no particular relationship between subsection 45(9) of the act as set out in section 11 of Bill 101. If the minister would like to end the injustice with which injured workers will be treated, even when this bill is passed and the board implements the particular sections of Bill 101 -- and I think the issue of the Canada pension plan is really offensive throughout the content of Bill 101 -- we strongly believe the first three lines of subsection 41(2) of the act should be deleted.

We understand the principle that the board will move towards the implementation of a different principle of the 90 per cent ceiling to determine the total amount of money injured workers are entitled to receive in light of the implementation of Bill 101, whenever it is going to he passed. The minister did not accept our proposal to take the 100 per cent principle into consideration that was supposed to be implemented in determining the total amount of money injured workers received.

I think the penalty in regard to the Canada pension plan is still a penalty in the implementation of other sections such as this. It is a penalty this party will not tolerate because injured workers will suffer from the unjust implementation of this bill when there is a review of the total amount of money to which they should be entitled.

The discretionary power incorporated throughout the content of this bill is also offensive. It offends injured workers and it offends this party. We are sick and tired of seeing sections penalizing injured workers all the time. I think the minister has the message, unless he has been living in the stratosphere for several days, that we are against that principle. We have to take into consideration the overall package of benefits injured workers will receive in light of Bill 101.

The meat chart will also be implemented to determine the total amount of pension injured workers will receive as a result of Bill 101. That is not a new feature. It is an old feature that goes back to 1914. We know from experience that injured workers have been paying the price of the implementation of the meat chart.

Through the years injured workers have had the onus of demonstrating that their degree of disability was higher than that assessed by the board. The onus was on the injured workers' shoulders to show the opposite to the board by using the appeal system and other ways available to them as a result of the present and the new Workers' Compensation Act.

Bill 101 becomes more stringent when injured workers are supposed to fight their case in relation to the increase in their pensions. We are faced with the old system under the new system with stringent guidelines when injured workers have to bring their cases before the new independent appeals tribunal. We cannot proceed with the implementation of Bill 101 until we bring up the issue of the CPP being a penalty. We feel this penalty will hurt injured workers. Instead of being an improvement, I think the new system will deteriorate and collapse a few years after the implementation of Bill 101.

4:10 p.m.

I do not want to see such a deterioration and such a collapse. I do not want to see injured workers paying the price for something in this bill that is not fair and just. When we deal with a law that is open to interpretation and when we see the principle of the law, that discretionary power is given to the board to decide whether an entitlement should be given to injured workers, the law becomes confused and ambiguous.

The injured workers will have to gamble when they present an appeal or make a demand before the board. As legislators and as politicians, we cannot tolerate the fact that the bill speaks two languages. The message is incorporated here within the bill, but the Workers' Compensation Board will also have the discretionary power to decide whether or not a particular benefit should be given to an injured worker.

We feel offended by the whole process that will be implemented as a result of Bill 101. The injured workers are offended as well. The minister should be sympathetic to the process that has been clearly spelled out in hours and hours of debate in committee and now in the Legislature. We are not wasting time. We are trying to enlighten the minister that he has to change his mind, even though his mind cannot be reversed. As I said before, he has become so inflexible that I get the opinion he has been living in the stratosphere instead of in the real world.

Unless he can show us the opposite, the Canada pension plan has been implemented as a penalty throughout the course of Bill 101. We cannot support that ministerial and government action. We are going to condemn that action not only in the Legislature, but with injured workers when we have the opportunity to talk to them. They will pay the price of the implementation of Bill 101 and they will come to our constituency offices or the constituency offices of the government members to complain about the unfairness of Bill 101.

I know the issue that has been before this minister in the past and at present was to see an improvement within the system. As far as we are concerned, we were able, and I am sure we succeeded, to tell the minister on several occasions that Bill 101 is not an improvement. Injured workers will pay the price immediately as a result of the implementation of Bill 101. Because of the past history of the Workers' Compensation Board and its performance, we cannot accept the good faith the minister has in the system.

It has been shown in the past, and we will be able to show in the future, that the administration of justice within the principle of Bill 101, which is the new act under the old act, has been very poor. The implementation of justice on the part of the board must be condemned and it will be condemned in the near future.

We are going to collect evidence that Bill 101 will not work on behalf of injured workers, but it will be a new mechanism for the Workers' Compensation Board to get more money from employers as a result of the so-called marginal improvements. The board will think about the principle of saving money and, at the same time, investing money to reduce its unfunded liability, which is a concern now to the board, to the minister and to employers across Ontario.

Injured workers have been the ball in this particular game played by the Workers' Compensation Board and the government. When packages of so-called improvements are brought to the attention of this Legislature, the board will have ammunition to go back to the employers and say: "We need more money. The unfunded liability is so big we have to raise this amount of money."

I think the unfunded liability is used as an excuse really to raise money, to save money by taking money away from injured workers and investing more money to make more money. I do not know whether I make sense, but that is the procedure that has taken place in the past and will take place in the future.

Injured workers will be more upset when Bill 101 is implemented by the board. I am particularly concerned about pension supplements. There is no indication of this. Even though the minister told us the meat chart will be revised, there is no urgency about the revision of the meat chart. There are so many penalties attached to particular clauses of Bill 101 that I have great resignation in supporting some of them. The improvements appear to be so marginal that they are not really improvements at all.

I once again urge the minister to support our amendment. It makes sense and it brings a measure of justice and fairness to injured workers. I am sure everyone in this Legislature would like to see a system that is very progressive, one that would bring real benefits to injured workers and would not penalize them. Injured workers have paid the price for their injuries for many years. They have been living with injuries. To see this type of penalty imposed in Bill 101 is very offensive.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, it looks as if we are coming to the end of our discussions on Bill 101. The discussions have been lengthy and detailed. The amendment placed by the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) refers to section 37 of the bill, subsection 41(2) of the act. The intent of the amendment is to ensure there shall be no integration of Canada pension plan benefits with the benefits paid by the Workers' Compensation Board.

This is a principle our party has put forward ever since the Weiler report came in. Under no circumstances could we support the integration of these two payments. I would remind the House that we have steadfastly stood for this principle throughout. This was the case in section 11 of the bill, subsection 42(9) of the act, when the government moved a motion which was going to be supported by the New Democratic Party. After they heard the remarks of the Liberal members, they decided to withhold their support, and I think they did the right thing.

We have to be fair about this. We are either going to oppose the principle or we are not. We cannot be voting for some of it in some sections and against it in others, We are against the integration. There is nothing more to say. We have spent a lot of time telling the minister why we are opposed. The record will show anyone who is interested why. We will have to vote in favour of the amendment and against the proposal of the government.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to involve myself in this section. However, when I sat here and watched the government members block a vote on the survival of a town in northwestern Ontario, I was provoked enough to get involved yet again in this bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Where are those members now?

Mr. Laughren: The government members? One of them is sitting there as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).

My colleague the member for Dovercourt has argued long and eloquently throughout the debate against the Canada pension having anything to do whatsoever with this bill. At some point, I hope someone will take this bill to court to determine whether or not this government has the right to reduce payments to injured workers as a result of a federally funded program. What they are doing is having the Canada pension program subsidize the private sector in Ontario.

4:20 p.m.

If I were the federal government, I would tell this government to stick this bill in its ear, because it should not have the right to do that. If the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Brian Mulroney, is as concerned as he says he is about the public sector and about the deficit, then he should be concerned about what this bill is doing with the Canada pension.

Mr. Mancini: Slasher Mulroney.

Mr. Laughren: We will see. On the other hand, he might say, "If my Tory cousins in Ontario want to have the Canada pension plan subsidize the private sector in Ontario, let them do it." Nothing would surprise me any more.

When it comes to having the public sector subsidize the private sector yet again, nobody is better at doing that than the federal and provincial Conservatives. They talk out of one side of their mouth about free enterprise and private initiatives, and the next time we turn around they are sticking it to somebody who is trying to show some initiative, as in the ceiling on workers' compensation benefits, Some day the government will have to answer for that too. It does not seem to have to; there seems to be a mood out there that the government can do pretty well what it wants to injured workers, or to anybody in the public sector for that matter.

When my colleague argues that the government has no business sticking its nose into the Canada pension plan vis-à-vis payments from the Workers' Compensation Board, he is absolutely right. I just wish I had the funds to take the government to court on this one. I am not a lawyer -- and believe me, it is the last thing I would ever apologize for not being -- but I would be surprised if this held up. I do not know how the government justifies it. It is saying, "If the Canada pension plan is paying, then we have to pay less."

What it is saying with these sections is, "If the Canada pension is making any payment to the injured workers, then the private sector will be required to pay less." I do not know how it justifies that. Where does it get off saying that the Canada pension should subsidize the private sector in payments to injured workers? I do not know who it thinks it is. If it were the other way around, I would hear the gnashing of teeth now. But as long as the public sector is subsidizing the private sector, those bandits say, "Go to it." That is what they do; we see it over and over again.

I did not think we would be engaging in this debate on the Canada pension plan this late in the bill. It seems to me we have made this point from time to time before. I can recall sitting here and hearing my colleague the member for Dovercourt make some of these arguments, some of them better than I am making them.

I saw the government's concern earlier this afternoon for the fate of about 280 workers in northwestern Ontario. It did not even have the courage to debate that, just because it happens to be in the riding of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier). What shoddy treatment that is.

As though the government is just topping it off, it comes in here again this afternoon and asks us to support a section of the bill that has the Canada pension plan subsidize the private sector. Out of the other side of its mouth, it will be complaining about the actuarial soundness of the Canada pension plan. I can hear it now: "The Canada pension plan has to be actuarially sound. We have to have the workers pay more into it." That will be the next argument. It will be arguing for higher contributions from workers to the Canada pension plan after it has done this to it.

I do not think the government should expect us either to support it in that kind of nonsense or to have any interest in expediting the speedy passage of the bill when it plays those kinds of games.

I am offended by what has gone on here this afternoon, and readily admit that what rankles is what happened earlier. Those people think they can have it all their way. They think they can block legitimate debate because they have a majority. It does not matter; the legitimacy of the debate has nothing to do with it. They just do what Big Leo tells them to do. They stand up and vote against it whether or not debate is legitimate. Then they come in here with this section of the bill and say. "We expect the opposition to support this and to help us get this bill through before the end of this week."

Mr. Barlow: To help the injured workers in Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: They help the injured workers of Ontario by taking into consideration Canada pension plan benefits when they compute how much the Workers' Compensation Board will pay them. Is that what my friend calls helping the injured workers of Ontario? I am glad that is his interpretation, because it is not my interpretation. If he thinks that is the way to help injured workers, he and I view the welfare of injured workers in a totally different fashion.

Mr. Barlow: We agreed to that two years ago.

Mr. Laughren: Who agreed to it? We did not agree to it.

Mr. Barlow: We agreed that we were going to disagree.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, yes; and because of its majority the government steamrollers on through. The honourable member should listen to his colleagues over there and stop interjecting. He is prolonging the debate.

Mr. Chairman: Let us return to this section and the debate on this amendment. Do not let the interjections sway you. You are getting off the track.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I will take your advice and ignore the interjections from those bandits over there.

I am still at a loss to know why the minister thinks it is legitimate to deduct Canada pension plan benefits when earnings are being computed. I have never had a legitimate reason. I would actually support this section of the bill if -- and it is a very big if -- the government agreed that what is needed in this province is a comprehensive social insurance program to compensate people for injury or illness, regardless of where the accident or illness occurs and regardless of the fault. Then I do not think we would have stacking; we could integrate everything. That is not what these people do, and it is not what these birds are after; they are after a subsidy for the private sector from the public sector through the Canada pension plan.

I know the Chairman is one of the most fervid free enterprisers in Ontario. I suspect that if he were allowed to speak out from his prestigious position as Chairman of the committee, he would agree that the private sector can stand on its own two feet without a subsidy from the Canada pension plan. That is what I believe and I have never failed to believe it. I really believe the private sector does not need this assistance. However, the Minister of Labour has decided it does.

Does the minister think there would have been a groundswell out there in the private sector if he had decided not to include the Canada pension plan? The Canada pension plan trick did not come from the private sector; it came from Paul Weiler. It was not the chamber of commerce, the Canadian Organization of Small Business or anybody in the private sector that called for this to be implemented; it was Paul Weiler, who did the original report, Reshaping Workers' Compensation for Ontario. That is what started it; it was not the private sector.

I do not know why the minister felt he had to throw this little tidbit to them. I do not understand it, unless it were to say, "We are still your friends and we will still do what we can for you." Perhaps it was because of the increase in the ceiling and the increase in some of the benefits. Is this why the minister thought he had to do it?

There must be a reason. The minister would not bring in the Canada pension plan nonsense without a reason. My suspicion is there was a tradeoff somewhere. I do not know where that tradeoff is, but I would like to know. Was it a tradeoff with a particular increase in benefits, or was it just a general tradeoff? Perhaps the minister said, "I am going to increase these benefits regardless of what you in the private sector say, but relax because I am going to have Canada pension plan benefits included in the computation of earnings and that will subsidize you people at least a little."

4:30 p.m.

It does not make up for it all, but it is a subsidy for the private sector. I will bet they did not demand it. I know they complained about the assessment rates, but that is another debate we can get into; I would have trouble getting away with it on this section, with this Chairman. If the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) were in the chair, I would have no problem getting away with any divergence from the section, but not with this Chairman.

I know the private sector was angry about the assessment rates, but I do not believe it demanded that Canada pension plan be included in the computation of earnings. That was simply a gift from the Minister of Labour, so he would still appear to be on side. When members of the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation stomp into the Tory caucus some Tuesday morning and rant and rave about assessment rates, the minister can say: "Relax now. Yes, you are right. We did increase some benefits, but look, we brought in the Canada pension plan as an offset."

I suppose in some camps that is a hit of a feather in the minister's cap, but it is not in the camps of injured workers or of those of us in this party. I ask the minister to tell us, so I can sit down and be quiet on this section and we can move to another section, just what the tradeoff was. Why did he bring in the CPP offset, which appears throughout this bill? If I could get some kind of response from the minister on that we could move on to another section.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to support the amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party critic. I share some of the concerns mentioned by other members, particularly about the section that includes the Canada pension plan item, to bring it along with the principles of the Workers' Compensation Act and integrate the two insurance schemes. I am a little concerned about it because in the long run the injured worker will be shortchanged by this move, particularly as it works through the system.

No doubt workers' compensation will be piggybacking on the Canada pension plan. Subsection 41(2) of the act deals with where an injury occurs; now that will be dovetailed with the Canada pension plan so a person who has accident insurance with the Canada pension plan can piggyback on to that portion too along with workers' compensation benefits. For example. if a person is injured, he can get 15 weeks of CPP for a disability. A person pays a portion of that until the age of 65 and then he is cut off because he will continue on CPP benefits and old age security.

I think of the nest-egg of money sitting there that belongs to the injured worker. There could be an assessment award of $15,000, $20,000 or $30,000 sitting in a trust fund handled by the Workers' Compensation Board. When one applies the Canada pension plan along with this until age 65, when one receives the old age pension, that sum of money should follow a person if it is going to cut it off at age 65. That money belongs to the injured worker because of all the hardships he has gone through and the health problems he has endured during his disability.

I cannot accept the principle of the bill as it is written, because that money belongs to the injured person. The person has sat on it for years, thinking he has generated a source of income. Anybody who understands the Workers' Compensation Act knows that when an assessment is given, an award of five or 15 per cent or whatever, all the person has been getting over the years is the interest on the money that is put in trust. No more.

The final outcome of this bill is that the government wants to steal from the injured worker what is rightfully his. I do not know if other members look at it that way, but that is what is going to take place. That amount of money could be $15,000, $20,000 or $30,000. It could go back to the Workers' Compensation Board and be used in whichever manner it want. When that person reaches the age of 65, he is no longer entitled to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act. Dovetailed into that is the Canada Pension Act and old age security, and there may be only a little bit left.

What I am saying is there is a nest egg that belongs to the injured worker. If he dies, the portion that remains in the trust fund should pass to the survivor. Rightfully, it belongs to the survivor as well as to the injured worker.

I cannot go along with this bill, because I think the approach taken is wrong. As the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) said, there should be a comprehensive insurance scheme regardless of where the accident occurs. Back in 1968, the then member for Niagara Falls introduced a resolution which was discussed here in the House. At that time, the party to my left did not support that principle. But it has been a principle of the Liberal Party of Ontario that there should be a comprehensive scheme for injured persons, regardless of where the accident happens.

In debating the last stage of this bill, I suggest it almost takes every right away from the injured worker, because it is going to shortchange him further. At one stage of the game we have 90 per cent of net income, and now we are coming back to 75 per cent of gross income. I believe I mentioned to the minister before that I think 75 per cent of gross income gives the injured worker a few dollars more a week than does the net income calculation.

I cannot accept the bill. I want to see changes, but I want to see fair changes in the workers' compensation system. It has not been fair in the past, and with this legislation it will not be any fairer today than it was yesterday, because this bill is going to make it much tougher for an injured worker to receive compensation for an injury or an industrial disease. I cannot accept it.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As usual, the comments made by the four members were eloquent and to the point. They have all been said before many times during this debate and in previous debates. There is nothing I can add to what I have said before.

I was asked one direct question by the member for Nickel Belt, and that was whether there was a tradeoff involved with the employer's council or the private sector, whatever the case may be. I can state most emphatically that there was not.

Mr. Foulds: Unfortunately I have not been able to participate in the entire committee stage of this debate. I would like a simple answer to a direct question: Why is the minister including Canada pension?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With respect --

Mr. Foulds: The question was not that mean.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, it was asked in a very straightforward manner as is usually the case with the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). If he wishes me to go back and read the comments I gave earlier in the debate, I will do that; but it is all in Hansard. It has been said at every committee stage and so on.

Seriously, I just have nothing more to say.

4:40 p.m.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member for Dovercourt beat me to my feet, as he usually does. He is agile and alert at all times. However, I had an amendment that should have come before his.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ramsay moves that subsection 133(1) of the act, as set out in section 37 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) Sections 21 and 22, subsection 36(2) and sections 37,42 and 49 of this act, as continued by section 132, are repealed.

"(2) Subsection 36(2) and section 37 of this act, as they read immediately before the coming into force of this section, apply to a dependent widow or widower or a dependent common law wife or husband who remarried or married, as the ease may be, before the coming into force of this section."

Hon. Mr. Ramsay further moves that subsection 133(2) of the act, as set out in section 37 of the bill, be renumbered accordingly.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Earlier in the debate I dealt with our proposals regarding the enhancement of pensions for existing survivors of fatally injured workers. One other aspect of the treatment of existing surviving claimants warrants mention.

At present, such benefits are discontinued on remarriage following a lump sum payment composed of two years' benefits. Bill 101 proposes that such benefits continue regardless of subsequent remarriage, on the principle that one's marital status should have no bearing on the amount of pension to which one is entitled.

I have, therefore, proposed the amendment to ensure that this feature of Bill 101, the permanent nature of survivorship pensions, be extended to existing survivors who may remarry in the future. I believe that the more symmetrical treatment of these two groups of survivors, both in terms of the comparability of continuing pension levels and in terms of the remarriage provision, will enhance the perceived rationality and fairness of the workers' compensation system.

Mr. Lupusella: I do not have any problem. My colleague the member for Nickel Belt can have precedence in speaking if he wishes.

Mr. Laughren: I am a little concerned with this amendment as I understand it. Let us say, for example, this bill gets royal assent on February 1, 1985, If that happens, this new legislation will apply to everyone who gets injured after that date. Is that correct?

The minister is nodding his head. He is moving his head in the direction that to most people means "Yes," but one never knows with this minister.

I am concerned that if the bill becomes law on February 1, and someone gets killed on January 31, the surviving spouse of that worker would not get any lump sum payment whatsoever. Am I right? I think I am correct. This bothers me.

In committee, we tried hard, long and loudly to convince the minister. We protested and tried to make the point that there should be some lump sum payment to make up for existing widows or widowers, whatever the case might be. The minister was very stubborn, unyielding and inflexible in that regard.

We think there is something wrong with this section when it says that after a certain date people will get a lump sum and the day before that they will get nothing. It could be $60,000. There could be a $60,000 difference between 11:59 p.m. on January 31 and 12:01 am. on February I if the bill were to receive royal assent then. We think that is wrong.

I know that when we bring in legislation there has to be a date on which that legislation becomes law; obviously that is true of all legislation. What we are saying is that this is not sufficient reason to ignore all those people out there now who got a really rotten deal from the Workers' Compensation Board when their spouses were killed on the job.

I really mean it is a rotten deal. In the last few years the benefits have improved somewhat for spouses, but there was no lump sum payment and, until about the last four or five years, widows in some cases were getting WCB pensions of $200 or $300 a month. We think that is wrong. Here someone is going to get $60,000 and someone else is going to get absolutely nothing.

I recall that we put a number of amendments to the minister in the committee on the sliding scale. All right; it would not have to be an equal amount, but what about a reduced amount? It would at least acknowledge the plight of those people whose spouses were killed on the job. Oh, no; the minister dug in and would not make any changes. For that reason we have always been a little concerned about the way existing spouses are being left behind.

Mr. Lupusella: I am always fascinated by the flexible mentality of my colleague the member for Nickel Belt, because we are confronted with the rigid mentality of members on the other side of the House.

We have stated several times that some flexible retroactivity should exist within the principle of the law, and if the minister will come down to the real world where human beings live, I want to try again with another example, if he will pay attention to it.

Let us say there was a very serious accident that leads to the death of the injured worker. In other words, the injury causes death; it is a fatal accident, but it is not a sudden death. The injured worker goes through agony for four or five days and then passes away as a result of the industrial accident. His or her spouse will be penalized under this section.

I have been telling the minister not to live up in the stratosphere above the atmosphere, but rather to live with human beings. These people will be penalized; it is as simple as that. Let us make the law reasonable to take into consideration cases in which people are having problems. If the minister is particularly concerned about those survivor spouses and about improvements in the law -- or marginal improvements, as the member for Nickel Belt has stated on several occasions -- we are penalizing these people as a result of the inadequate, inflexible and rigid law.

We are dealing with fatal accidents in which the injured worker does not die immediately as a result of the accident, and the spouse will be penalized as a result of that. Are we willing to introduce within the principle of the law some sort of retroactivity to take into consideration genuine cases like the one I have been talking about? Or do we want to live above the atmosphere, outside this world, where these particular cases will not be taken into consideration?

4:50 p.m.

If the injured workers are faced with two or three days' agony, the survivor spouses will not get the benefit of the lump sum because the accident took place three or four days before the enactment of this legislation.

I am getting so frustrated because this type of principle and the retroactivity issue has been widely debated in the committee. I know a lot of people are sick and tired of listening to this type of argument, but as far as we are concerned the principles are clear in our minds. If we want to reflect the needs of our population, the citizens and the workers of this province, I do not understand why the minister is so inflexible and so rigid in determining certain principles of the law when some sort of retroactivity should be in place to take into consideration the example I have given to the minister.

If we reject that, we are going to see survivor spouses going to 400 University Avenue crying to the minister and saying, "Why are other people receiving a $30,000 lump sum and my husband passed away and I did not receive the lump sum?" The retroactivity clause becomes important. Even though we understand the position of the minister and the government that the principle behind any legislation governing workers' compensation in Ontario is dollars and cents, and I am sure the actuaries down at the board are playing a big role in determining the disclosure of the money injured workers are entitled to, I would urge the minister to become more flexible, to face human need problems and take these problems into consideration within the framework and infrastructure of the law of this province.

Mr. Laughren: I do not know whether I was absent or asleep, but I missed an improvement the minister made and I wanted to acknowledge it. That is the catch-up on the pension levels for spouses. I believe it is three per cent a year for three or four years until the spouse whose husband or wife was killed on the job has caught up to the level of pensions for people whose spouses are killed on the job after this bill becomes law, I want to acknowledge that.

Of course, we were hoping for at least some kind of lump sum to ease the burden a bit as well.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Hon. Mr. Ramsay's amendment to section 37 of the bill will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have another amendment --

Mr. Lupusella: If I may, I need an answer to the matter I brought to the attention of the minister about the retroactivity clause. It concerns people who are involved in serious accidents before the enactment of this legislation. The person may pass away one, two or three days after the passage of this legislation. Does the legislation cover these people or reject them?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We have gone through this over and over again. I cannot add anything new to the debate. I understand what the member is saying and I respect him for what he has said. What date do we pick? I have nothing to add.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ramsay moves that section 136 of the act, as set out in section 31 of the bill, be amended by striking out "Subsection 43(5) of this act, as continued by section 132, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:" in the first and second lines and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"Subsections 43(4) and 43(5) of this act as continued by section 132, are repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"Where the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker does not exceed 10 per cent of the worker's earning capacity and the worker does not elect to receive compensation by a weekly or other periodic payment, the board shall, unless the board decides that it would not be to the advantage of the worker to do so, direct that such lump sum as may be considered to be the equivalent of the periodic payment shall be paid to the worker."

Mr. Mancini: I would like to ask the minister to help me understand this a little better. The amendment states a worker whose impairment of earning capacity "does not exceed 10 per cent." Are we talking about the worker's pension?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: This is a concession to some points that were raised during debate earlier, and I made an announcement to this effect at the start of the proceedings. I believe it was on Monday afternoon. I thought the member greeted it with --

Mr. Mancini: I am just asking some questions. Is it still allowable?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes. I was not trying to be flippant. I was just indicating that I thought at that time the member had approved. I indicated I would be introducing an amendment of this nature, and my understanding was that the member had approved of the amendment.

Mr. Mancini: That may be correct, but I have to understand the legalese as it is written by the staff of the minister. We may agree in principle on a certain item, but once we draw it up in legal fashion it may reflect a different view than we thought. All I am asking for is a clarification of the legal description of this section, which is done all the time.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: This may throw a little light on the subject. When I brought this forward the other day, I moved an amendment to section 11 of the bill, subsection 45(4) of the act, and this is exactly the same amendment that was made at that time.

Mr. Mancini: Give us some further explanation of what we are doing here.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I apologize but I just do not have my notes handy. I did not realize this was going to have to be made in this section as well as having been made in section 11. If we can stand it down for just a moment, I am sure I can give the member a very concise explanation as soon as I find the notes.

Mr. Mancini: I would agree to have it stood down.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The amendment is exactly the same amendment as was made to section 11 of the bill with reference to subsection 45(4) of the act. It allows a worker to refuse to permit the board to commute the weekly periodic payments to a lump sum. If the worker objects, the board cannot commute. That was something that was suggested by both opposition parties.

5 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: That is absolutely correct. The minister's amendment states, "the board shall, unless the board decides that it would not be to the advantage of the worker to do so ... "That is a lot different from the worker asking the board to have the payments made in one way or another. I agree with the intent and I agree with the principle, but the drafting is a little sloppy, if I may say so, and I say that with great respect.

Mr. Laughren: I should remind the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) that some of Ontario's most finely honed legal minds drafted this section, so he should be careful whereof he speaks, or the wrath of the law society will be down around his ears.

I do not have a copy of this, unless it is the one the minister wrote out by hand before.

I have the same concern as the member for Essex South. There is a big difference between saying an injured worker can refuse to have a pension of less than 10 per cent commuted and having the board decide in its wisdom whether it will be in the best interests of the worker to commute it.

Our problem is with the way subsection (4) reads now: "Where the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker does not exceed 10 per cent of the worker's earning capacity and the worker does not elect to receive compensation by a weekly or other periodic payment, the board shall, unless the board decides that it would not be to the advantage of the worker to do so, direct that such lump sum as may be considered to be the equivalent of the periodic payments shall be paid to the worker." It is a very strange way of wording it.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: This might help. These are the comments I made when I introduced this on Monday:

"On Thursday the member for Dovercourt moved an amendment to subsection 45(4) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill ...

"Members will recall that, as it now stands, this subsection requires the board to direct that a lump sum, instead of a periodic payment, be payable to workers whose impairment of earning capacity is less than 10 per cent, unless the board feels it would be to the worker's advantage to receive continuing payments.

"The member for Dovercourt has moved that the worker be given the option of continuing to receive periodic payments, if he or she so desires, by inserting the words 'with the agreement of the injured worker' into the subsection in question ... I am in agreement with the principle that workers should have the option of receiving periodic payments instead of a lump sum in this situation. After conferring with counsel, I have determined that more effective legal language can be drafted to achieve this result."

That legal language was accepted on Monday, but it has not been accepted today.

Mr. Mancini: With respect to the minister, the legal language we accepted on Monday is not what we have before us here today. In no part of subsection (4) does it say the worker has the choice. It says clearly and simply that the board "shall," not that the board may or will consult with the injured worker or that the injured worker will have an option one way or another. It simply states that the board "shall."

As I said earlier, we may have agreed on the principle of what we wanted done, and I raised the same case when we were dealing with the other section and got that straightened out. So it should just be a matter of a few moments and maybe a couple of hand-scribbled notes from the minister's expert legal staff under the gallery, who are always capable of helping the minister in these touchy situations, and we will have the whole matter resolved.

It is not a question that we disagree. But the word "shall" means something completely different from what we intended to do.

Mr. Laughren: I agree with the principle embodied in what the minister is saying, and that is the only reason I am not going to point out the lack of a quorum.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, if the committee wishes to stand it down for a few moments, we will try to clarify it.

Mr. Chairman: Does the committee agree?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have another amendment.

Mr. Laughren: I really am offended by the lack of government members here.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that section 37 of the bill he amended by deleting in lines 10 and 11 of the proposed subsection 43(5a) the words following the word "rate" in line 10.

Mr. Lupusella: Very briefly, I think our position is clear in relation to the principle of the Canada pension plan, namely, that it should not be interfered with by another level of government. What we seek to accomplish with our amendment is just deletion of the last portion of subsection 43(5a), reading "and to any payment the worker receives under the Canada pension plan."

We believe that principle has been elaborated several times throughout the course of debate on Bill 101. This is another case where the Canada pension plan involves a penalty for injured workers. We believe the line relating to the Canada pension plan should be deleted.

Mr. Mancini: We continue to oppose the integration of WCB benefits with the Canada pension plan.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the proposed subsection 43(5a) of the act, section 37 of the bill, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I wonder if we could go back and catch up with the other one here.

I have a copy of the two amendments -- the one made in section 11 and that in section 37 -- and I believe them to be identical. I will send them over to the member for Essex South. I understood he felt they were not identical and that is why he asked me to explain it.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: The minister will please correct me if I am wrong when I say that earlier in this bill we dealt with a section concerning the commutation of pensions, in which it was originally stated that if a pension was 10 per cent or less, the board would automatically commute the pension.

Our objection to that was that the worker should have right to accept the computation in full or to ask the board for the continuance of weekly or monthly benefits, or however it was going to be paid. It was my understanding that was accepted by all and we were going to give everyone the choice. The board could either commute the pension or make the regular payments, and this would be done after an application by the worker.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The answer to the member's question is yes. The amendment I am making now is the same amendment that was made earlier and that the member agreed to.

Mr. Mancini: I may be completely wrong. If I am, I wish to apologize for holding up matters. I know we are under a lot of stress. The minister is talking about subsection 45(4) of the act, as set out in section 11 of the bill, "Where the impairment of the earning capacity ... " That does not deal with the pension. The impairment of the earning capacity and pensions are not the same thing, are they?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In this section we are dealing with existing claims.

Mr. Mancini: That is my whole point.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Section 45 dealt with new claims. This deals with existing claims. We are doing the same for existing claims as we did for new claims. That is all it is, just a legal process we are following, believe me. The third party --

Mr. Mancini: I do not always trust the third party.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With respect, the member agreed to it before. I cannot understand why does not agree to it now.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to clarify the position for the benefit of the member for Essex South. We endorsed and supported the principle of this section.

The disagreement arises out of the terminology used. The statement made by the member for Essex South to clarify the position of this section is clearly spelled out. The injured worker has an option to choose before the board, which has the authority to give either a lump sum or a periodic payment, which will be in the form of a pension, as far as I understand.

There may be some confusion about the terminology used. The board will have an extra opportunity to decide whether the lump sum or the periodic payment should be given to the injured worker after finding out whether it will be to the benefit of the injured worker to receive the lump sum or the periodic payment with the consent of the injured worker. There is some confusion, and I think that is what the confusion is all about.

Mr. Chairman: Yes. I think we have had discussion and we have had reassurance.

Mr. Mancini: I accept the principle, but I cannot accept the terminology. I cannot accept the section the way it is written legally because it will not address the concern we raised and that the minister says he is taking care of. When the section states, "the board shall," it in no way indicates there will be an option for the worker to ask the board to do anything, except to accept the decision the board has made.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Hon. Mr. Ramsay's amendment to subsection 43(5) in section 37 of the bill as set out in section 136 of the act will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that section 37 of the bill be amended by deleting in lines 5 to 7 of the proposed subsection 43(5c) the words following the word "earnings" in line 5.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to say a few words on this. In the past, the member for Nickel Belt, myself and others have argued about the principle of using "may" and "shall" when dealing with the discretionary power given to the board. It has the discretion of using "may" instead of "shall." When dealing with the benefits the injured workers receive, there should be no misunderstanding -- the board "must."

Let me enlarge on the principle enunciated in this subsection which states, "A supplement awarded under subsection (5b) shall be a weekly or other periodic payment and the total sum of such supplement and the award under subsection (1) shall not exceed the like proportion of 75 per cent ... " Here we do not give the board discretionary power to give benefits above the proportion of 75 per cent of the injured worker's pre-accident average earnings

It is clear that when we give authority to the board to decide, the discretionary power prevails. Why do we not say that the board may give more than 90 per cent of the net average earnings to an injured worker when an injury has taken place? No, the law is clear. One cannot confuse the principle of the law. The board must give that amount of money and nothing else.

When we are dealing with discretionary power, then the board "may." The verb "may" is given different interpretations and the first is political interference when Tories call the board. That is why they give the board discretionary power instead of giving a clear mandate to the board that it "must" give certain benefits to injured workers.

I am sure the minister will not deny my allegation that political interference is behind it. They call the chairman or others and the discretionary power is used to serve their constituents. However, we have to go through the appeal system, spending hours and hours to prepare cases and to save people and families who are suffering throughout the province. I feel very offended.

The other reason for the amendment is to delete the other lines which have to do with the calculation of the amount of the supplement, "the board shall have regard to any payments the worker receives under the Canada pension plan." We feel offended by this clause which is incorporated throughout Bill 101.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 43(5c) of the act, as set out in section 37 of the bill, will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ramsay moves that subsection 43(5d) of the act, as set out in section 37 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"Notwithstanding subsection 41(2), as re-enacted by section 135 or subsections (5a) or (5c) of this section, the fact that a worker is receiving payments under the Canada pension plan shall not be a bar to receiving payments under section 41, as continued by section 132 or subsection(5) or (5b) of this section, and the board, in having regard to payments received by a worker under the Canada pension plan, shall have regard only to those payments received by the worker with respect to a disability arising from an injury."

Mr. Mancini: Here we have a situation where it appears the government is doing injured workers a favour by saying Canada pension plan payments, as I understand it, which are being received for an injury not associated with the injury for which one would collect WCB benefits, would be separate. The minister appears to be doing everyone a favour, but we would not have this problem if he were not committed to the integration of the CPP, which in my view is wrong, which our party has stated is wrong and which we will continue to believe is wrong.

Mr. Lupusella: Before I make a few comments, I am wondering whether the minister made a mistake in the use of "shall not be a bar." Perhaps he would like to change his mind, using the verb "may" instead of "shall."

When we dealt with subsection 41(2) and other sections interrelated to subsection 41(2) of the bill, section 135 and subsections 136(5a) and (5c) of the act, we endorsed the principle that the Canada pension plan shall not be a bar to receiving payments under section 41 and so on.

If we understand the policy utilized by the board within the framework of the present system, an injured worker will be able to receive rehabilitation assistance, but most of the time, or all the time, the pension supplement is denied because the injured worker applied for the Canada pension plan. That means he considers himself totally disabled. The interpretation of the policy of the board then is that the injured person cannot co-operate with the rehabilitation department.

The minister, seemingly showing flexibility towards the injured worker, now states the Canada pension plan is not a bar to receiving a pension supplement, but again there are penalties involved. The first one takes into consideration the partial payment with respect to a disability arising from the injury. My concern is the scale that will be utilized in defining what is the aspect of the disability arising from the injury.

On different subsections the minister has told us the board will be in contact with the federal government to determine in some way the scale and how the deductions will take place.

In all fairness, I have to admit that even though there is an improvement in the principle, which specifies that injured workers will not be penalized from receiving pension supplements if they receive Canada pension plan payments, there are other penalties involved within that particular improvement.

With regret, even though I realize there is a slight improvement, I have to say we will not support the amendment.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ramsay moves that section 137 of the act, as set out in section 37 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"137(1) Sections 50 and 55 of this act, as re-enacted or amended by sections 13 and 14 of the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1984, apply to this act, as continued by section 132;

"(2) Sections 21 and 56 to 86 of this act, as amended, repealed, enacted or re-enacted by sections 15 to 32 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1984, apply to this act, as continued by section 132;"

And that subsection 2 comes into force on the day section 132 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1984, comes into force.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I am proposing that section 37 of the bill be amended to permit those sections of the act dealing with the revised payment of benefits to injured workers to be brought into force at an earlier date, if possible, than those concerning changes in the board's administrative structure.

Members will recognize that a greater interval of time is necessary to establish the composition of the proposed independent appeals tribunal than is necessary to implement new methods of calculation of benefits. The proposed amendment has the effect of achieving the fastest possible implementation of the act to the advantage of all parties concerned.

Mr. Mancini: We understand the bureaucratic procedures will take some time --

Mr. Laughren: They will take forever.

Mr. Mancini: We hope they do not take forever. We understand that to establish this tripartite board of directors, the medical board of advisers and all those important things is going to take some time. We are happy the minister is going to move forward with the benefits that Bill 101 may bestow on workers. We certainly do not want those benefits held up, and we will be supporting the minister's amendments.

Mr. Laughren: I wonder whether the minister will accept a minor change in the way he has presented this --

Mr. Stokes: A friendly amendment?

Mr. Laughren: A friendly amendment is what I am trying to say -- in such a way that any references to the Canada pension would not come into place until the administrative bureaucracy at the board is completely straightened out.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In view of the fact that was a friendly suggestion, I will try to answer in as friendly a way as possible while saying no.

Motion agreed to.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Are there are any further comments, questions or amendments to section 37 or the following sections?

Mr. Laughren: There are two things I want to say; the first is about the title of the bill, the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1984. I am very pleased a private member's bill was introduced in this chamber at one time changing the name from the Workmen's Compensation Board to the Workers' Compensation Board. The mover of that bill shall go unnamed for the moment.

The only other comment I want to make is that as the minister proceeds with the implementation of this legislation, he should be careful of the legal advice he is getting. When I checked on how to interpret a section of the bill, I was told that to understand the amendment properly, one had to read it from the bottom up. It was good advice and I appreciated it. When I did read it from the bottom up, I understood it much more clearly. I do not know what that means. Perhaps it means the bill should be printed upside down.

Mr. Stokes: It is very appropriate that the honourable member should interject that bit of trivia. Many years ago, I asked why the Workers' Compensation Board was having so much difficulty responding to requests for assistance on behalf of my constituents. It was when they had just moved from Harbour Street to Bloor. They said they were having difficulty adjusting their vertical filing system with a horizontal building.

Mr. Lupusella: Before we finish, I would like to state clearly that I disagree with the statement made by the member for Nickel Belt. I strongly object to the short title of this act, the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1984. I would move an amendment that the title should be replaced by one identifying it as the universal insurance scheme in Ontario on behalf of injured workers,

Sections 38 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, may I just take a moment or two to express some sincere sentiments?

Mr. Laughren: Do not blow it now.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No.

I want to thank the members of the official opposition and of the third party who have contributed to what I think is a very important piece of legislation, not only here in the Legislature over the last number of days but also at the committee stage. I extend those congratulations and thanks to the members from the three parties who made up that committee for the numerous times they met to address the matters involved.

I also thank the large number of persons and organizations that brought some very positive and constructive briefs and submissions to the committee. I also wish to mention the various representations I had by letter, personal meetings, etc., with persons from all over this province, from every walk of life, who were terribly interested in this bill.

I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), who commissioned the original study by Professor Weiler, which led to this bill. My thanks also go to the various staff persons in the ministry and at the board itself who have been faithful beyond any level one could reasonably expect. I am indebted to each one who has been involved in Bill 101 at any stage.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

Resuming consideration of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Gillies: I see we have about 10 minutes of debate left before dealing with the previous bill, with the votes that were stacked until 5:45 p.m. If I could get agreement from my friends opposite to pass this bill in 10 minutes, it would be a very productive afternoon indeed.

Mr. Laughren: Keep whistling.

Mr. Wildman: Just move the amendment to section 1.

Mr. Gillies: All right. I understand we do not have agreement.

First, I would like to get some clarification from the critics about the suggestion I made when we last debated this bill as to whether we should stand down subsection 33(1) and proceed with the rest of the bill.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, was there not some discussion that the bill could be split? We could pass the sections on which we had some agreement and, whenever possible or whenever time allowed in our busy schedule here in the House, we could continue to debate the section on which we will not get agreement, which may hold us up and cause the entire bill to die. Was there not some discussion of that?

Ms. Bryden: I understand the House leaders have agreed that section 1 should be stood down and that we should deal with the pregnancy and adoption leave sections. It would be nice if we could have those sections as a separate bill, which this House could deal with before the recess. That could he achieved if the government withdrew section 1.

In that way, the government would have time to reconsider the swell of public opinion against the present section 1 amendments, which do not provide equal pay for work of equal value, despite the protestations of the minister that they do. It would give the ministry time to bring in new legislation after Christmas that would implement that principle and on which there could be a full debate on the implementation methods.

While the government is considering that possibility, I suggest we proceed with the amendments regarding pregnancy and adoption leave. As it is almost a year since we had second reading of this bill, and then it was carried over to the new session, I suggest it would be appropriate for each of the critics to have a certain amount of time to review the proposals in this section. We have not dealt with them in any way at all in committee but only in a very short second reading debate, which concentrated briefly on these clauses, mainly on the equal pay for work of equal value clauses, or the lack of equal pay for work of equal value.

It would be useful if each of the critics look a few minutes to give his or her overview of these sections, which have not been amended since 1974, and indicate his or her general view on the principles and whether amendments will be required. Then we can go into clause-by-clause consideration of amendments. All parties have already circulated some amendments, so there will be a requirement for clause-by-clause consideration; however, I would like to have an opportunity to review the overall intent of this legislation and what Bill 141 proposes to do in the field.

Mr. Gillies: I certainly have no disagreement with my honourable friend about how to proceed. If we have agreement to stand down subsection 33(1), I wonder whether the critics will allow me to make a very brief statement just outlining two further amendments the minister has instructed me to make.

Mr. Mancini: I do not believe the parliamentary assistant has dealt at all with my comments. We now find ourselves two or three days before adjournment dealing with a very important piece of legislation that we have been debating endlessly. The reason there has been endless debate is section 1.

Mr. Stokes: I thought they had called it only once.

Mr. Mancini: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) had the floor for quite a while.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: I am sorry about that, Mr. Chairman. The reason we have not moved forward is the contentious matter that we find in section 1. I do not know how we can proceed in good faith, making, debating and voting on these amendments, and then when we get back ultimately to the section there is a great divergence of views between the opposition and the government.

The matter will just be held up again. We will have gone through the whole process of debating sections, of making amendments, of passing some and having others defeated. Ultimately, when we finish all that, we have to go back to the section where there is not unanimity. I am sure the parliamentary assistant agrees with me on that.

When we get back to that section, what will we do then? Are we just going to debate until the time runs out and have the government say, "These benefits could have been presented and could have been made available to certain people in Ontario, but the opposition talked out the session and, therefore, we cannot pass the bill"?

I have to say to the parliamentary assistant we are not going to get into that game. That is a game that will place the opposition in a position that not only is unfair but also will distort in public the views we hold. We have been talking about this for a very long time. The government cannot try to pretend that our views are only now being made available. It cannot pretend that only now is it finding out there is this tremendous diversion of views and playing this silly little game.

The minister knows as well as anybody else in this House that we have been asking for the bill to be split so we can move effectively and rapidly on the areas that will provide benefits that we agree upon and that can be implemented by the government swiftly. If we are going to move with these amendments, as I said earlier, and try to pretend there is no problem with a section we cannot agree upon, and after we have done all of that have the bill stall in the House, I do not think we can comply. I do not think we can aid the government in trying to create such a situation.

Mr. Gillies: With the greatest respect, if my friend the member for Essex South is concerned that the government will in any way accuse him of obstructing this bill, he is absolutely right. We have been discussing this bill for a year now. There was a period of debate in standing committee back in January and we had a lengthy debate in committee of the whole House in the spring session.

We now stand -- having brought the bill back on the floor with a previous agreement in October from the House leader of the Liberal Party and the acting House leader, as he then was, of the New Democratic Party, to stand down subsection 33(1) of the bill, so we might continue to find some common ground on other features of the bill on which we may agree, to proceed with amendments, to proceed with the clauses and then come back to the first section of the bill to see if we might have made any progress in our thinking towards a consensus on that -- we now stand ready to proceed.

I have to tell the member that as far as the government is concerned. as far as the minister is concerned and as far as I am concerned, there are three very important features to this bill. The first is the introduction of the composite test to enhance the equal pay laws of this province and the other two are the introduction of further benefits in the areas of pregnancy and adoption leave.

I have no instructions to split this bill, and my friend the member for Essex South may rest assured that if he wants to stand accused of obstructing this legislation, the kind of little talk he just gave is engineered to do exactly that.

Mr. Chairman: Can I just canvass for clarification of the chair? There was some comment by at least one critic and the parliamentary assistant about a consensus to stand down subsection 33(1). I take it there is not consensus on that approach.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, the governments game is already unfolding. I explained in detail to the parliamentary assistant, as honestly and as clearly as I could, why we could not at present move forward with those other sections. He knows full well. This has not been a secret around the Legislature. This bill has not been a secret and the contention that revolves around subsection 33(1) has not been a secret.

We have been asking for a compromise in order to move forward with the positive aspects of this bill. Subsection 33(1) is not one of them. The suggestion has been made many times to split the bill. If the government wants to move forward and provide the benefits, as it says it does, a new bill could be printed overnight. We could speak to the sections contained in that bill and we would have it passed by Friday.

The member should not stand in the House and accuse me of being obstructive. because I have given a clear alternative. It can be passed by Friday.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Would the member for Essex South explain to me why his House leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), was quite ready to accept the standing down of the section and proceeding with the rest of the bill, but now the member is saying the Liberal Party is not prepared --

Mr. Chairman: Order. The committee is under express directions to call in the members.

5:56 p.m.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to delete the proposed subsection 41(2) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 31; nays 52.

The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to lines 10 and 11 of subsection 43(5a) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 31; nays 52.

The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 43(5) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 31; nays 52.

The committee divided on Hon. Mr. Ramsay's amendment subsection 43(5c) of the act, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 52; nays 31.

Section 37, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill 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.

The House will meet in the afternoon. After question period, we will deal with Bill 82 in committee of the whole House. If there is any time between consideration of Bill 82 and five o'clock, we will deal with concurrences in the order they appear in Orders and Notices.

At five o'clock, private members' hour, we will deal with the motion of the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella). We passed a motion today to provide for a one-hour private members' period.

At eight o'clock, we will deal with Bill 140, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, in committee of the whole. Following that, we will continue with concurrences in the order they appear in Orders and Notices.

Pardon me -- the first item of business after question period will be to deal with all the private bills on the order paper.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

December 12, 1984