Hansard Transcript 1988-Oct-19 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Farnan: Today, I challenge the government to initiate or to support legislation that would require the Legislature to sit on Sundays until such time as this assembly deals with Bill 113 and Bill 114.

Indeed, I am introducing such a private member’s bill this afternoon, and I am sure that if the government would support it, the opposition parties would be pleased to co-operate and ensure its speedy passage.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that MPPs have firsthand experience of working regular Sunday shifts before we decide to pass legislation that would require retail employees to work Sundays.

Before the standing committee on administration of justice this past summer, several delegations expressed support for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario sitting on Sundays. Members of the public have a great deal of cynicism about politicians passing legislation to make them work Sundays while legislators do not have to work.

To make my private member’s bill more attractive to the members of the Legislative Assembly, I have included the provision that MPPs may have Tuesdays off in lieu of working on Sundays. I urge the government to demonstrate to retail workers that we will not pass Bill 113 and Bill 114 before we ourselves have experienced the disruption to our family life of working regular Sunday shifts.

CHILD CARE

Mr. McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney).

Being a single, working mother in Ontario is a virtual impossibility in this province. I know of one single mother in the village of Coldwater who, for the past six months, has been able to make ends meet only because she has been living with relatives. She knows this situation cannot last for ever. By choice, she would like to depend upon herself to support her child and have her own place of residence.

This single mother approached the ministry for assistance in providing day care for her son, but there is no such service in her village. She was told it was up to her to find someone to care for her child. She discovered that the person providing day care would be faced with two inspections of the home for fire and health safety, would have to provide liability insurance and would be paid only every four to six weeks. The day care provider would also be on call whenever the single parent had shift work. She asked, “Would you do it for $10 or $15 per day?”

If this is all the minister has to offer for day care assistance, then it is no wonder that single parents have to stay at home and attempt to survive on welfare assistance. He is not allowing these women to use their many years of public education and hidden potential out in the workforce. If he would provide proper day care assistance, it would probably cost much less than having single parents stay at home.

This young lady wants day care, not welfare.

TOM ROBINSON

Mr. Ballinger: I am pleased to address the members today from my new seat on the rump side of the House and pay tribute to Tom Robinson of my home town of Uxbridge, Ontario, in my great riding of Durham-York.

Several years ago, while he was a very active Lions Club member, one of his responsibilities was to find a suitable Lions Club to twin with, which in turn would foster common interests and friendships between the two organizations.

During his search, he discovered that the first Uxbridge settlers, a small band of Pennsylvania Quakers, originated from a quaint borough in the hills of Pennsylvania named Catawissa.

At his own expense, he travelled to Catawissa and, to his astonishment, was informed that the residents there were about to form their very own Lions Club. Tom Robinson could not believe his good fortune. The timing was perfect.

Thanks to the tenacity and tremendous enthusiasm of Tom Robinson, both the Uxbridge Lions Club and the township of Uxbridge officially twinned with Catawissa, Pennsylvania, on June 19, 1982. On six separate occasions since that historic date these two communities have alternated hosting across-the-border visits called Heritage Treks.

On October 28, approximately 150 Uxbridge residents will travel down to Catawissa to enjoy a weekend of wonderful American hospitality. They will be living up to their state motto, “You’ve got a friend in Pennsylvania.”

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Charlton: Last Saturday I attended the official opening of the Los Andes of Hamilton Co-operative Housing Project. The project contains 90 units of town housing, including five units for the disabled, and 72 per cent of the units are geared-to-income.

The Los Andes of Hamilton Co-operative was organized by immigrants and refugees from Central America and South America. These people should be proud. I congratulate them for their determination and hard work over the past three years, which has brought their dream of decent and affordable housing to fruition.

However, the housing needs out there are still enormous. Already they have 120 families on their waiting list and they have only just opened. Fortunately, these people had a focus around which to organize: the Spanish-speaking association of Hamilton. Unfortunately, most of the disadvantaged in our society, those in need of affordable housing, have no natural or existing focus around which to organize.

The Ministry of Housing should spend some small amounts of money to place organizers and facilitators out in the field to assist those in need to organize. We have thousands of names on waiting lists to work with. Perhaps some direct action and a little initiative on the part of the ministry would eliminate those unused allocations of housing money that we have seen over the past several years.

MADAWASKA HIGHLANDS REGIONAL TRUST PARK

Mr. Pollock: On Monday, October 24, 1988, the Fish and Game Club of Belleville and District is hosting a public meeting to discuss the proposed Madawaska Regional Trust Park. This regional trust park is being proposed by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has stated that he is not in favour of a one-million-acre wilderness park in eastern Ontario.

There is no question that the general public in the area is very concerned. This proposed park could eventually ban all trapping, hunting, fishing and logging.

The president of the Ottawa chapter of the society, Ted Mosquin, is lobbying for this park and has drafted a 64-page document with the proposals and changes. The question being asked is, does Ted Mosquin have an influential contact in the Liberal government, or why would he go to all this work and expense to prepare this document before checking out his chances of success?

Mr. Mosquin, Jack O’Dette of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and a senior official of the Ministry of Natural Resources at Tweed will be at this meeting in Belleville.

1340

GUS HARRIS

Mr. Faubert: Many members of this Legislature, and certainly all Scarborough members, have come to know Scarborough Mayor Gus Harris as an institution in the city. After 1O years as mayor and more than 40 years of service in public office in Scarborough, this amiable, populist mayor has decided to give up the gavel.

Having served with Gus Harris during the last two of his four decades of public service, it is with pleasure that I commend him on his great commitment and dedication over these years to Scarborough and to Metropolitan Toronto.

Perhaps one of the most noteworthy characteristics that Gus brought to the mayor’s chair was his intense pride in the city and his efforts to rid the city of its unearned journalistic misnomer of Scarberia.

He fought to bring the municipality city status and was one of the founding fathers of the Scarborough City Centre, which established a focus or a heart for the community of Scarborough.

During his 10 years as mayor, he led the municipality from an emerging suburb to a still-growing city of over half a million people and helped it assume its present role as an influential and significant part of the Metro Toronto area.

As well, he has served as an example for all who hold or aspire to hold public office. His great personal integrity was beyond question. Indeed, in order to preserve his honesty and independence, he never accepted financial donations to his political campaigns from any source. He was a rare breed of politician. Indeed, I urge all members of this Legislature to join in wishing Gus Harris and his family every success and much happiness in what I hope will be an active and enjoyable retirement from public office.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Gus is a great New Democrat.

Today, an interesting congruence of events has taken place. I was at Jarvis Collegiate Institute this morning to hear young grade 13 students talking about their concerns for the underfunding of the university sector and what is going to happen to them as they try to get access to an increasingly underfunded system. At the same time, there was an article in the paper today on this report, “Financing Universities in North America: Can Ontario Compete?”

Again this year, the Council of Ontario Universities has shown that we are not funding our universities in this province to the same degree as private or public institutions in the United States are being funded in Reagan’s America, if you can imagine that shame.

I suggest to the government that if it wants to talk about centres of excellence, if it wants to talk about really competing, then we had better start funding our universities appropriately.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRUG ABUSE

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Earlier this week, we received the report of the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) on illegal drug use in Ontario. At that time, I assured the House of this government’s commitment to swift action against drug abuse.

Today, following cabinet discussion, several ministers are proceeding with initiatives to meet the challenge of the task force report. My colleague the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) will make a statement later, and other ministers will have announcements soon.

The report urges us to provide visible leadership. We must form a partnership with parents, teachers, police, courts, the health profession, correctional services and community groups to instil in our young people the values they need to make responsible lifestyle choices.

In our effort to achieve that goal, I am appointing the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay as my special adviser to continue his excellent work. He will serve as an advocate for drug abuse prevention.

Building on the co-operative relationship he has established with many community groups and agencies, the member will act as government liaison. He will also monitor the progress of ministry responses.

I know that every member of this House puts a high priority on the battle against drug abuse, particularly among our youth.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am sure all members read with a great deal of interest earlier this week the report of the task force on the use of illegal drugs in Ontario. I am equally sure that all members of the Legislature share the profound sense of urgency felt by many parents throughout this province as we attempt to address this critical issue.

It is appropriate that our school system is being asked to play a critical role in the fight against drug abuse. As the report of the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay points out, effectively fighting drug abuse requires a partnership of parents, families, the community and the police as well as our teachers and our schools. We need to form a common front against drug abuse, especially by our young people.

Let me review the steps we have already taken this fall to improve drug education in our schools. In our revised curriculum guideline for health and physical education, we have made drug education mandatory for the first time. We have made education about tobacco a requirement for students from grade 4 through to grade 10 and education about alcohol and other drugs, such as cocaine and marijuana, required from grades 7 to 10.

We have strongly urged each Ontario school board to develop a drug education policy. I have met with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and the Ontario School Trustees’ Council to discuss the drug education issue and have received their strong support in our fight against drug abuse.

We are recognizing the need for awareness and understanding among our educators by financially supporting the attendance of one school board representative -- two representatives in boards with French-language sections -- to the annual Drug Education Co-ordinating Council’s conference here in Toronto from October 31 to November 1.

We are ensuring that teachers have access to up-to-date resource lists of drug education materials. We are releasing to school boards this fall, through TVOntario, a computer program for grades 7 and 8 entitled A Week in the Life Of.... This program lays out decision-making strategies to help students deal with such issues as drugs and peer pressure.

Let me now turn to the six recommendations in the member’s report that directly concern the school system. In step with the member’s first recommendation, I have directed an immediate review of our recently announced mandatory drug education program contained in the new guideline for physical and health education. I am confident the information offered in this curriculum is sound, but I agree with the member that drug education must do more than just convey information. It must change attitudes and encourage positive behaviour.

Our schools must help students acquire the values and good judgement they need to cope with the presence of drugs in our society. An essential goal of our mandatory drug education program must be to help students develop the personal responsibility and decision-making skills necessary to make the right choices, to say no to drugs. The four-month validation process for this guideline is already under way. Copies have been sent to all school boards and interested groups for comment by early in the new year.

The second recommendation deals with the question of when to begin education on drug abuse. The member had recommended “that age-appropriate drug education be an essential component of health education courses beginning in the primary division.” In the light of his findings, I am prepared to consider developing drug education in the primary division to introduce children to various aspects of drug use appropriate to their age level, but I will not take this step without consulting closely with school boards and educators throughout our province.

To seek their advice, I am informing all school board chairpersons of this recommendation by the member and requesting that their input on this critical question be contained in their responses to our new health and physical education guideline during the validation period.

At the same time, I will ask boards to respond specifically to our plan to introduce the topics of alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in grade 7. I am prepared to require the schools to teach our children about the dangers of these substances earlier than currently planned, but again only after consulting with our school boards and educators.

As suggested in the third recommendation, my ministry will, as soon as possible, begin negotiations with our faculties of education to develop and implement courses to update teachers on drug education.

1350

Fourth, the member has suggested we consider encouraging the integration of units on drug education into subjects such as English, science and family living. He has also suggested additional compulsory credits in physical and health education, along with the use of a wide range of special presentations, speakers and seminars related to drug education.

My ministry will begin, in January of next year, a review of OSIS -- Ontario Schools: Intermediate and Senior Divisions. This review will include a new look at options for providing effective continuing drug education in secondary schools, including the choices offered by the member.

The fifth recommendation deals with a requirement that all school boards develop and implement a drug education policy.

To assist boards in this regard, I am creating an advisory committee to develop a framework within which boards can establish such policies. This framework will address the policy needs of all Ontario school boards and give them direction on what should be included in a drug education policy. The work of this committee is to be completed by September 1989 and available to all school boards shortly thereafter.

The final recommendation covered assistance to school boards for the in-service training of teachers. I am pleased to announce a cost-sharing grant to school boards over the next three years to assist them in developing local in-service teacher training programs relating to drug education. Ministry staff are currently working on developing this grant program and I will release details in the very near future.

The member’s report on the use of illegal drugs has provided us with a sound blueprint for action. I am pleased to assure the House today that Ontario’s education system will play a comprehensive role in helping to fight drug abuse among young people in our province.

1989 ONTARIO GAMES FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I rise today to inform honourable members that the 1989 Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled will be hosted by the cities of Nepean and Ottawa from July 13 to 16, 1989. For the first time, the Ontario games will be held in two cities.

My ministry is proud to contribute $130,000 of the total games cost of more than $220,000.

The games have grown in size and complexity over the years and are now a major challenge for any single municipality. The co-operative approach these cities are demonstrating may prove to be the model for the future.

The success of the games will depend on more than a year of hard work by the members of the organizing committee, and the many volunteers who will be donating their time and talents to make the games a reality. All should be commended for their dedication, and I know that when the athletes, families and friends meet at the Nepean Sportsplex and the Terry Fox Athletic Centre next summer, they will get the kind of warm welcome that makes Ottawa-Carleton such an enjoyable place to visit.

For the athletes and their supporters, the Ontario games will be the culmination of many years of effort. They will have won the right to compete in regional meets across the province. The winners at Ottawa-Nepean will move on to the national championships. Some will eventually represent Canada internationally, like Judy Zelman and Jim Enright of Ottawa, who are competing at the Paralympics in Seoul this week. Some may become world champions like Joanne Bouw of St. Catharines and Stephane Lecours of Hearst, who both set world records and won gold medals earlier this week.

The Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled are an important occasion for those who pursue their sport with challenges unknown to most of us. I wish all the athletes well in their training and in the Ottawa-Nepean Ontario games. I congratulate Nepean Mayor Ben Franklin and Ottawa Mayor Jim Durrell, and especially Chairman John Elliott and the members of his organizing committee, on their ground-breaking joint bid.

NUCLEAR COSTS

Hon. Mr. Wong: Today I am pleased to announce the establishment of an inquiry into Ontario Hydro’s cost projections for nuclear and other key electricity supply alternatives.

In instituting this inquiry, the government of Ontario is adopting a recommendation of the Electricity Planning Technical Advisory Panel, an independent panel of experts appointed to review Hydro’s draft demand/supply planning strategy. The panel suggested that there be a thorough review of Candu nuclear costs before any commitment is made to additional nuclear installations.

The inquiry will operate independently and consist of two members.

Ralph Brooks, who chaired the Electricity Planning Technical Advisory Panel, will serve as chairman. Mr. Brooks is the former vice-chairman of the National Energy Board and is a specialist in electricity matters. He has wide knowledge of Canadian and American electricity utilities and specific knowledge of electricity exports and purchase opportunities.

Howard Bowers, the second member of the panel, is a senior staff member of the National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Mr. Bowers has 39 years of experience in technical and economic evaluation of energy systems and has served as a consultant to the International Atomic Energy Agency on power plant construction costs and economic analysis of bids for nuclear power plants.

The inquiry will examine Ontario Hydro’s projections for the cost of future nuclear-generated electricity from Candu reactors in Ontario. It will also review the method and assumptions Ontario Hydro uses for estimating the cost of key alternatives to nuclear power. As such, the mandate of the inquiry will be to determine whether Hydro’s methodology provides an appropriate basis for preparing plans to meet Ontario’s future electrical needs.

In addition, the inquiry will examine and report on the concerns expressed in the report of the Electricity Planning Technical Advisory Panel regarding Ontario Hydro’s nuclear cost estimates.

I have the assurance of Bob Franklin, the chairman and president of Ontario Hydro, that the utility will co-operate fully with the panel and provide whatever information and assistance it may require. Furthermore, the panel may commission specific reports and retain the services of independent advisers, as it deems necessary.

The broader social and environmental issues involved with electricity generation are outside the scope of the present inquiry. These are important issues that will be addressed separately in the planning process.

I have requested that the panel report to me as soon as possible. I am confident the inquiry will provide the government of Ontario and Ontario Hydro with information that will help us to make the best possible decisions in planning the future of the province’s electricity system.

RESPONSES

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. B. Rae: I hate to rain on the Premier’s parade, but it seems to me we have to start coming to our senses here about what is going on.

The first point that needs to be made is that I find it astounding that this government would be making piecemeal announcements in this particular area, but when it comes to fundamental problems like poverty and housing, the real causes of the kind of unhappiness that is producing the turn to drugs among our young people, and indeed among older people, this government has nothing to say, nothing on Thomson, firing John Sewell, refusing to deal with the causes of the problem and simply attempting to get on the media bandwagon, which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is managing to do so far very successfully.

The second point I want to make, and I intend no particular disrespect to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black), is that it is impossible for the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay to serve in the variety of roles he has been given by the Premier. He has been told he is a special adviser, which means he is working for the Premier of the province. He has been told he is the government liaison, which means he is working for the Premier of the province. Then he is also being described as an advocate for drug abuse prevention.

The definition of an “advocate” is somebody who is independent, independent of the Premier and independent of the government. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay cannot be an independent advocate. He works directly for the government of Ontario. That is how he should be described and that is how he will be seen by those of us on this side of the House.

1400

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is clear that the much vaunted drug education announcement has stood the test of time -- what is it, four weeks? It has now been thrown out. Of course, it was not going to come into effect till next September anyway, but it almost made it.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) is willing to accept now that most of the major premises were incorrect and that the blistering attack by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay on his initiatives is something he should take seriously and reconsider. For instance, the fact that the minister would start talking about drugs to kids in inner-city schools in grade 7 is one of the most ludicrous notions he could have come up with. The idea that he would not demand more health program mandatory courses and expect real drug education to take place in the schools is also ludicrous.

It is good to see the minister is going to review those things and perhaps, at some point in the future, bring into play some of the things that were self-evident to most of us before he made his rather silly announcement several weeks ago.

NUCLEAR COSTS

Mr. Charlton: I would like to take a few moments to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). Those of us on this side of the House are pleased that the minister is finally proceeding with this inquiry into Ontario Hydro’s cost projections for nuclear. It is unfortunate it did not happen until October 1988. The minister is well aware that a number of groups across Ontario have been questioning Hydro’s figures and approach to costing for a number of years. Only at the last moment, do we finally get this inquiry. On the other hand, we are pleased to see it proceed.

There are two things that concern me. One is an assurance from the minister that the budget of this inquiry will be completely unfettered, because as the minister is well aware, the only presently existing information on Hydro’s approach to costing nuclear is Hydro’s own figures. That is why the Electricity Planning Technical Advisory Panel to the Minister of Energy had difficulty coming to a conclusion on this question last spring.

The other thing is that the minister will assure this House that the report of this inquiry will happen before the end of this year. As the minister is again well aware, the select committee is scheduled to report by the end of January and this inquiry is a vital part of what the select committee needs to do properly the job asked of it by this House.

1989 ONTARIO GAMES FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED

Mr. Farnan: The official opposition joins in endorsing and supporting the 1989 Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled. Likewise, we commend the co-operative approach of the cities of Nepean and Ottawa. We extend best wishes to the organizers and volunteers who will organize the games and are proud of all the physically disabled athletes who will continue to dream dreams and demonstrate an extraordinary discipline and dedication to achieve their goals.

Mr. McLean: I want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) and commend the cities of Nepean and Ottawa for their hosting of the 1989 games from July 13 to 16 next year, the work that goes into the organizational committee, the many volunteers who are donating their time and their talent to make the games a reality, plus the many disabled, less fortunate people who have the opportunity to participate. I commend the ministry for helping out by contributing some dollars.

This is the third statement the minister has made this week, and I am looking forward to a statement tomorrow with regard to the input he has had into Bill 113 --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Further responses?

Mr. McLean: -- on the Sunday shopping issue.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Jackson: All members of this House share a common concern with respect to the social problem that has emerged from drug use and abuse in this province. All members are pleased with the report of the member of Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr Black), which has focused attention and debate on this subject. We are pleased the government has chosen to react in two short days. The statement of the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) is interesting, given that the minister has not been able to respond to Mr. Justice Sirois’s order with respect to the problems with Bill 125.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) referred to the fact that he found time in cabinet to discuss this report, but he did not have time to discuss Judge Sirois’s order. If I have a copy, I am sure his cabinet has had an opportunity to examine it. It is surprising he is willing to recognize a Liberal backbencher’s report before he recognizes the reality of the courts in this province.

His report makes reference -- I think it is on page 5 -- to values and good judgement. I ask this government, will it be exercising the judgement to invoke section 33 of the Charter of Rights, the “notwithstanding” clause, as its reaction to the order of Mr. Justice Sirois’s, which it received earlier today? Will that be good judgement and will those be the values this government will now espouse on the fundamental issues of francophone rights in this province?

On page 10, the minister makes an interesting statement. He talks about a cost-sharing grant. I ask him again, if he is going to be the minister, to discuss not drug abuse but election abuse. Will he be coming up with moneys to pay for two sets of municipal elections in this province, which are going to be a direct result of his performance and the fact that he would not listen to the truth, to what was going to happen with Bill 125?

Mr. Cousens: When Benji Hayward died, it caused everyone in this province to stop and consider the gravity and the very serious effect caused to our young people because of drugs. In fact, to have seen the recommendations that have come from my friend the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, nothing that I say in any way derogates from the excellent job he has tried to do.

I worry at this point that having met Mrs. Hayward -- our caucus spent some time with her during our break, learning at first hand her own experiences -- I know it is going to involve the family in a very significant way. The words are included in the report that the family is going to be part of the program.

We must get back to supporting the family in our society, and we, as legislators, have to give every encouragement to the family to give that leadership. I believe the family is the core and the most important part of our society, which we must do everything to maintain.

Do not just assume the school boards are going to do it all. I think we keep on throwing things on the teachers and forget that a mother or a father or those who are in the family unit are really most important. So there has to be an educational program to support them. I am really surprised that the Premier has not established a senior cabinet committee, instead of just one member, to become his advisory committee, and I would say that if he were to do that, it would begin to cause some effect on it.

NUCLEAR COSTS

Mr. Runciman: I have a brief response to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). It is regrettable that it has taken this length of time for the minister to establish the committee. We know that we are dealing with perhaps one of the most critical issues facing the province in the years to come, and timing is especially important.

We were faced with the possibility of brownouts this past summer when Ontario Hydro had to appeal to the people of this province to reduce their consumption. As to the way we meet the future energy demands in this province, those decisions are going to have to be taken in the very near future. The minister has virtually handcuffed the select committee on energy in terms of dealing with this question.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Minister of Labour. The minister, in introducing his bill on workers’ compensation, described the bill, after saying how progressive it was, as “revenue-neutral,” which means that in effect he is robbing the poor to pay the poor. Can the minister tell us why he is playing Sheriff of Nottingham when it comes to workers’ compensation? Why is he robbing the poor to pay the poor, and how can he describe that kind of reform as a progressive reform?

Mr. Speaker: Just before the minister makes his response, I would remind all visitors in the gallery that we are glad to have them with us today. However, I ask them not to participate in any way.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not know about the Sheriff of Nottingham, but on this matter the Leader of the Opposition goes around the province pretending he is Robin Hood and on this issue he certainly is not Robin Hood.

The fact is that we have a workers’ compensation system in this province that has not served well the very injured workers who are sitting in this gallery today. They have had a system that has been arbitrary and determined their accessibility to the pensions based on an arbitrary rating system.

What this bill does is to provide a far more equitable way of determining pensions. Even more important than that, what this bill does for the first time is redirect the resources of the worker compensation system towards helping workers get back to work so that once again they can become full-time participants in the workforce.

1410

Mr. B. Rae: The minister, in his answer, has admitted to what I have said: He is redirecting resources from one group of injured workers to another group of injured workers. That is not my definition, or our definition, of what is fair. That is not my definition of reform.

My supplementary question to the minister is, how can he describe his proposals as progressive when the legislation specifically denies workers, for the very first time since 1915, the right to appeal the level of medical assessment of the pension? It is the first time since 1915 that has happened.

The minister is denying that right to appeal and he is denying a right to appeal on reinstatement. How can he call a measure progressive when, for the first time since 1915, he is restricting the rights of appeal of ordinary injured workers?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I recall reading just the other day a speech made by the New Democratic Minister of Labour in Saskatchewan in 1979 when he introduced the dual award system to that province, describing it as one of the most progressive pieces of labour legislation keeping the government of Saskatchewan and the system in Saskatchewan as a leader in worker compensation systems. The difference, of course, between that system and ours is that ours is far more generous.

The Leader of the Opposition suggests that there is no appeal on medical assessment. Let’s get the facts straight. The noneconomic loss award in my bill is the first time in this province that a worker compensation system will provide an award for noneconomic loss. That award will be based on a medical determination. That award will be appealable by the injured worker if he is not satisfied with the determination that is made by the board. It is clear. It is in the legislation.

In addition, for the first time in this province the noneconomic loss award just happens to be the most generous, highest noneconomic loss award in any jurisdiction that we have been able to find anywhere in the world.

Miss Martel: The noneconomic loss outlined in this bill is lower than the monthly pension that injured workers receive now. Take a look at the calculations.

Let me go back to the minister for round three on the question of public hearings. I am going to put it very simply to him once again. He can tell his House leader that he wants public hearings. He can direct the six Liberals on the standing committee on resources development and advise them that he would like public hearings. Will he not today commit himself to doing that so injured workers will know there will be full public hearings around the province on this bill?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I just want to make one point on that issue. This bill, when it is passed, will provide, and will direct in fact, the worker compensation system to allow the very injured workers who are sitting in our gallery today to apply to the board for a supplement that for years many of them have been denied.

If my friend the member for Sudbury East wants public hearings for the purposes of delaying this bill, she had better tell those workers that it is the New Democratic Party that is denying them the opportunity to go back to the board to get a fair evaluation in a system that thus far has not treated them all that fairly.

Mr. B. Rae: If ever a minister could be described as worse than the Tories, we have just heard from that minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a second question, and to which minister?

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health.

My colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) has just received a letter from a doctor in Cambridge by the name of Norman Assad, who is an obstetrician and gynaecologist.

In this letter, Dr. Assad describes the plight of a patient, a woman who had premature rupture or membranes and went into labour. He felt that it was necessary for this woman to be transferred to another hospital, which would specialize in neonatal intensive care.

The doctor spent some two hours and 15 minutes trying to find this woman a bed in a hospital that would take her. Does the minister regard that as a good enough standard of care in Ontario today?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am very interested in the case the Leader of the Opposition has raised so that I can investigate it, but I can tell him that is the very reason we established a central bed registry for neonatal care; so physicians in the province would have one phone number to call to access the nearest available bed. I would like to have the information so that I can determine what in fact happened in this case.

Mr. B. Rae: When the doctor called the central hotline number provided by the Ministry of Health, it was his second call. First, he called McMaster and was told there was no space. Then he called the number. They said the closest bed he could possibly get was in Ottawa and he would have to take an air ambulance.

Subsequent to that, he phoned St. Joseph’s Hospital in London and was told that St. Joe’s was overcrowded because it was taking all the patients from Toronto. He was unable to find any space there. When he phoned the number in Ottawa that he was given by the central registry, he got the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and was told: “We don’t have a maternity unit. Why are you phoning us?”

The doctor spent over two hours on the phone trying to find a bed for this patient. He ultimately got her into St. Joe’s in London; it is taking 50 patients when it is supposed to take only 32. Is the minister satisfied with this?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am very concerned that patients in need of urgent care get that care and get it when they need it. That is the reason we established the registry.

From what the member has described and the litany, it seems to me that the physician should understand how this works so he can get that care. If he calls the central registry, it will arrange for the air ambulance immediately to pick that patient up and take her to the nearest available bed.

The perinatal system has been designed so that we have 10 centres of highly specialized care around the province. What we do is make sure that, by phoning that number, patients can access the bed that is as close to their home as possible, recognizing the very high level of technical expertise necessary to respond.

I am very concerned when I hear that either the physicians are not aware of how the system works or the system is not working. I would be pleased to have the specific details in this case to look at it to make sure we can educate everyone about how to make the system work better. That is what this is all about.

Mr. B. Rae: Before the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) goes into a paroxysm of applause --

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, but it was a sensible answer.

Mr. B. Rae: At 11 o’clock I got a call from Dr. Sheldon Girvitz, who is the chief resident in obstetrics and gynaecology at the Mount Sinai Hospital. Dr. Girvitz told me that he had to cancel five cases today. He had to cancel five cases yesterday.

At 11 o’clock this morning, he had a patient who was in a doctor’s office, a 67-year-old woman, who was bleeding. He is unable to admit her into emergency because he cannot get any operating time. He is unable to admit her into the hospital because there are no beds. This woman is having to stay in a doctor’s office right now in order to stabilize her bleeding. At that point, she will have to be either sent home or, if it cannot be stabilized, admitted into emergency. This doctor knows very well how the system does not work. It is not working on behalf of his patients.

When is the minister going to understand that blaming the doctors and blaming the hospitals is not the answer? The problem lies within her capacity to deal with it.

1420

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: What the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out is exactly why we need to make the kind of changes in the system that I have been talking about. What we have works relatively well most of the time, but we know there are enormous problems.

What I can tell him is what I am hearing from physicians across this province, and let me give the member the physicians’ own words. Recently, within the last couple of days, a physician publicly said, “I would not want to see the Health minister turn around and throw money into the system blindly.”

This is not the response here. We have something, let’s work with it, let’s try to make it better. There are other alternatives. We must be able to look at what we have now and why it is not working and make sure we have appropriate referral.

Give me the name of that woman and I will make sure she is referred to an appropriate physician or an appropriate hospital. Hospitals must work together so we can respond to those most in need of urgent care.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Premier. On the first day of the standing committee on administration of justice public hearings on Sunday shopping, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) maintained, “The present Retail Business Holidays Act is unenforceable and unfair.”

During the mayor of London’s appearance before the justice committee, he requested that the government provide a written legal opinion that supports the statement that the current Retail Business Holidays Act is unenforceable.

In a response last week, the Solicitor General openly admitted that the government cannot provide this information “regarding the unenforceable and indefensible nature of the current law,” because “no such document exists.”

In spite of the government’s claims, the present Retail Business Holidays Act has been upheld in the courts and it is enforceable. How can the Premier expect the public to have any confidence in him or his government’s new legislation or his ability to govern?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to the general question, I think people demonstrated a year ago that they have every confidence in our ability to govern.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Cunningham: I should remind the Premier of his promise a year ago, that he would not be changing the Retail Business Holidays Act. I should also remind him that on March 31 there was just a little twitch towards the other party and we are here today to remind him of that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: A little twitch, just a little twitch; the little twitch from London North. You have your name; you are going to be famous now. Margaret Scrivener used to be the Rosedale ghost; you are the little twitch.

Mr. Speaker: Is the member finished?

Mrs. Cunningham: In the Liberal marching orders that the Premier gave his caucus outlining his party’s line on this issue, he quotes a study by Clayton Research Associates of Toronto entitled The Impact of Sunday Shopping in Alberta, 1982-86. Recently, the mayor of London requested a copy of this report. The response by the Solicitor General was, “My ministry is not in possession of a report by Clayton Research Associates.”

Given that this report has never existed and that there really is no legitimate local research to support any benefits to Sunday shopping, will the Premier not admit that he, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Solicitor General have dreamed up this legislation and that it is neither wanted nor necessary?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I beg to differ with my honourable friend on two counts. First, I do not consider her an old twitch. In spite of the views of her colleagues on her side of the House, I have the highest regard for her, having known her for years and her very fine public service.

Second, let me say that I think this bill was crafted sensitively to deal with the realities of a large and diverse province. I would ask my honourable friend if she would come off her high horse and look at the realities of this great, huge province that we run, with different needs in different parts of the province. This is a sensitive way to handle it, and if the member does not believe me, look at the other provinces where this works well.

Mrs. Cunningham: I want to tell the Premier that we have done a lot of homework, and the people in New Brunswick simply would not agree with him. But I thank him for his personal compliments; I always enjoy them.

I would like the Premier at this point in time, though, to be honest. I think he has to be honest with the people of Ontario right now. The present Retail Business Holidays Act is enforceable and, in the vast majority of municipalities across this province, there is no problem.

We have just completed 26 days of public hearings. Some 270 groups came before our committee this summer and we received 522 submissions. The overwhelming majority of people in this province do not want this legislation, and this whole situation does not make any sense.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Cunningham: The question: It is time for the Premier to stop and it is time to reconsider, and I guess we would like to say it is really time to find a compromise.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The standing orders allow for questions to be put. I will ask for the last time, do you have a final supplementary? Please get to it.

Mrs. Cunningham: Is the Premier willing to stop, is he willing to reconsider and is he willing to find a genuine compromise for the citizens of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say at the outset, by way of preamble to the member’s preamble, that I am very happy to extend compliments to my honourable friend on any occasion, and I know how gracefully they are received from one who gets so few.

Let me say to my friend that this issue has been wrestled with on many, many occasions in this House, and I realize she feels that she has the, shall we say, compromise solution. I can tell her that every solution has been canvassed in this House. She has had her ideas and they have been brought forward, and I understand from the committee members that they have been found wanting in so many areas.

I would say to my friend -- and I understand her point of view on this -- that, on one hand, she does not like what is there; on the other hand, she wants to open some stores, even larger stores, I understand.

We believe that this is a sensitive and reasonable solution to a problem that has plagued this Legislature for a long period of time. We have canvassed all of the alternatives. I say to my friend that if she did not have such a hangup about looking at the past and looked at the future, looked at the diversity of this province, recognized that Sarnia is different from London, or that Grand Bend is different from Pembroke or Sault Ste. Marie, surely, if she would think about it and if she would look at this objectively, she would have to say that it just makes sense.

Does it not make sense for Kenora to make its own decision, or London to make its own decision, or Pembroke to make its own decision? Tell me, what is unreasonable about that? The reality is that there is nothing unreasonable.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: I would love to ask a question about Sunday shopping, but I am going to ask a question --

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: He was answering with such enthusiasm that I thought perhaps I should direct another question to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) but, in fact, I do have a question for the Minister of Health.

I would like to bring to the minister’s attention that yesterday, in a speech to the Ontario Hospital Association, Dr. Barkin indicated that here were too many unnecessary operations being performed in Ontario, and I am sure that the minister in fact had some advance notice of that particular speech. He indicated as well that these operations include major surgeries, such as major bowel surgery and hysterectomies.

1430

Can the minister tell us what Canadian and Ontario studies she has to back up the assertion of Dr. Barkin with respect to the volume of major surgeries and operations? What Ministry of Health reports have been done to back up this assertion? Will the minister table this information in the House by the end of the week?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Modem technology is giving us the opportunity to gather the kind of data and evidence that the leader of the third party refers to.

A recent study in Saskatchewan, for example, said that while the population of women over the age of 15 increased by seven per cent, the rate of hysterectomies had increased by some 70 per cent. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan became so alarmed that it took this information to the medical association, to the hospital boards and hospital administrators and, by doing a utilization and quality assurance review, in one year it was able to reduce the rate of unnecessary hysterectomies from some 60 per cent to 20 per cent.

As of today, a guide for utilization is now available, done jointly by the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association. As of regulations passed in August, utilization review committees are mandatory in all Ontario hospitals.

Mr. Brandt: I am sure the minister appreciates that this particular question goes beyond economics and beyond the question of hospital funding. In fact, it affects every Ontario citizen who has had or faces surgery of whatever kind.

As an editorial on this very same issue in the St. Catharines Standard recently stated, “A hysterectomy is not like ear piercing, it is a drastic, usually traumatic, intervention in a woman’s body, and to imply that in this day and age, a surgeon would remove a woman’s uterus without good cause or thought is slanderous.”

The minister’s deputy minister has identified Ontario counties where there are a large number of hysterectomies done. I wonder if the minister would indicate which counties these are and which hospitals are involved. Has her ministry investigated any individual surgeries to see if they were unwarranted, and if she has, what action was taken against the doctors involved in those investigations?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Over the past year, one of the things I have been saying as I travel the province is that everything we do, every change we make in the system, should result in quality of care, quality of life, dignity for the individual and empowerment of the individual to make the right choices and decisions about his own health.

Many of the studies we are hearing about -- and we know the United States is five years ahead of us in utilization and outcome review -- suggest to us that there are many, many things we should be concerned about. Physicians themselves are telling me that they know there is much which is being done that is unnecessary and some that is ineffective.

I would be pleased to share with the member the information we have on the study in Saskatchewan and tell him that we believe it is the role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which at present has the responsibility for competence, investigation and discipline of physicians, to ensure quality in the physicians’ offices and competence of the physicians in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Farnan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In view of the situation that exists, would it be appropriate if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) were to go out and meet with the injured workers of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Brandt: With all due respect, I would like to remind the minister that in my initial two questions I directed my inquiries towards Ontario situations, and not Saskatchewan. The counties I am interested in are here in Ontario. The doctors and the overuse, if you will, of certain operational procedures are relative to our own jurisdiction.

I would like to go back to Dr. Barkin’s speech, if I might, for a moment. He gave an example of one patient who received 1,400 prescriptions under the Ontario drug benefit plan. I think we all agree this is a situation that sounds quite terrible and unwarranted in terms of the volume of prescriptions.

Will the minister tell us whether the case that Dr. Barkin referred to, relative to the 1,400 prescriptions, has been investigated? What are the circumstances in this particular case, and has she brought the name of the doctor in question who was involved to the attention of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for disciplinary action so that this type of overuse and abuse of drugs will not occur again? Has she taken any of the basic steps we would think the minister should take in this particular context relative to these kinds of situations developing in the health and medical field?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to thank the leader of the third party for raising what I think is at the heart of and fundamental to our health care system, and that is protection of the public and quality assurance.

One of the difficulties we have in the province is that at this time the college of physicians and surgeons can act only on complaint. We now have in the hospitals, as I mentioned, mandatory utilization review. We rely on the profession to govern itself. I am hoping this fall to have a report from Alan Schwartz of the health professions legislation review, which has been going on for some five years. Some of these very issues will be addressed and discussed in this House.

We have already taken some action in this province. In fact, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced at the premiers’ conference in Saskatoon that Ontario will be hosting an international symposium on quality assurance and outcome review because of our concern that everything we do in this province should result in effective quality care. I am pleased to hear that the leader of the third party shares my concern.

DEATH OF REFINERY WORKER

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell this House how his ministry managed to lay charges against the wrong company in the tragic death, on April 2, 1987, of Martin Baikie, some 39 years of age, at the Petro-Canada Inc. refinery operation in Oakville, a mistake that has resulted in the charges being thrown out of court on a technicality, perpetrating a real perversion of justice in this case?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Yes, I can do that. In the case that the member for Hamilton East mentions, charges were laid against a company named Petro-Canada Products Inc. An incident happened at a facility owned by Petro-Canada and, at the time, the corporate name of that entity was Petro-Canada Products Inc. Charges were laid in that name.

I am given to understand that in the interim period that corporation did a corporate reorganization resulting in the fact that Petro-Canada Products Inc. ceased to exist as a corporate entity, and a new corporate entity, whose name is Petro-Canada Products something or other, came into existence. The charges were laid under the name of the previous corporate entity. At the time the matter came before the court, that matter was raised by defence counsel and, as the member for Hamilton East says, the charges were thrown out on a technicality.

I should tell my friend from Hamilton East, as I told him by phone and, I think, in a subsequent letter, that the decision of the judge in that case is being appealed.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister might go a little further and check the dates. Either I am wrong and the newspaper is wrong, or he is wrong. The minister is aware that Petro-Canada Products Inc. amalgamated with Petro-Canada in, I think, January 1987. My information is that that was three months before Mr. Baikie was killed in that fiery accident. Then I pushed his ministry, among others. It took until almost the deadline before the charges were laid. Of course, once they were laid, the company lawyer was simply able to point out that it is now Petro-Canada Inc., that they had laid the charges against the wrong company and the charges were thrown out.

1440

Why did it take so long to lay charges so that there was no longer any time in that one-year time frame to re-lay charges against that company? What is he going to do about this specific case? I am glad to hear that he is appealing it. I am not sure what grounds he is going to have, given what little I know of the law in this particular case. Is he now prepared also to extend the period of time so that we are not restricted to a single year, which, quite frankly, leaves open the question as to why we waited to the last minute against a company like Petro-Canada.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There are a lot of questions there. First, let me tell my friend the member for Hamilton East that the reason we are appealing the decision of the judge is that we think the substantive issue of criminal liability ought not to be adjudicated on the basis of a technicality. The very same people run the company; the very same people work in the company and they work at the very same location. We all know that a corporation is a legal fiction, something created by paper. We want to answer the question of whether or not criminal liability should be determined on the basis of whether a company was operating under one set of corporate documents or under another set of corporate documents. That is why we are appealing.

Now, as to the reason it took so long to lay charges, the answer is that it was a rather complex case. My friend the member for Hamilton East knows that there was another defendant in the case, and that case has proceeded. I just want to tell him that we have taken steps in the ministry now to ensure that in each stage of the process, a check is done with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to ensure that, as we proceed to trial, we will update ourselves as to whether there have been any corporate changes in the corporate entity where the defendant is a corporation.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. This past January, when we were discussing the issue of shortage of perinatal care beds in Ontario, the opposition pointed out that, by her own ministry’s admission, there were over 1,100 nursing vacancies in Ontario. Just yesterday in the House we saw that the number of heart surgery beds is also being reduced because of the nursing shortage.

On April 25 of this year in the Legislature, the minister described the nursing shortage in the province as a “cyclical” situation. Does the minister still have that point of view?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: For the information of the member opposite, the difficulty when we talk about nursing manpower issues is that it is not consistent across the province. In fact, there is a vacancy ratio, on average, of about two per cent to three per cent. The difficulty is that in certain places, like University Avenue and the teaching hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto and a couple of other places, that is much higher, and in other places it is much lower or nonexistent. It is not consistent. In fact, we know that over the years there have been cycles where there have been shortages and that there also have been too many.

One of the things we have to do when we look at this manpower issue and human resourcing issue, particularly when it comes to nursing or any of the other health professionals, is to do the kind of manpower planning that will allow us to anticipate what our needs are going to be, but nursing is unique in that it relates directly to the changing role of women. We know that our nursing schools are full. We are graduating 2,800 nurses every year. The problem is that they are leaving nursing after about five to seven years, so it is a different issue. It does not require the kind of response, which was the response of the member’s own party when it was making policy, which was just to put more people into the schools.

Mr. Eves: The minister’s response so far has been to do nothing. The Minister of Health knows that health care in Ontario is suffering because of a serious shortage of nurses. Yet she refuses to listen to the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the largest nursing organization in the province, with over 47,000 members. She does not listen to staff nurses, the so-called nurses who work in the trenches day in and day out. Yesterday, as a matter of fact, in a response to a question I asked in the Legislature, she said that she deals with “the leadership of the profession.” Isn’t that a nice statement?

May I suggest it is precisely this attitude that the minister has, her refusal to deal with staff nurses and the people who work in the health care system day in and day out and who experience these problems on a daily basis, that is contributing to this problem in the health care system.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Eves: The minister has had the ONA’s Goldfarb survey on the nursing shortage in Ontario since April.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: What specific steps has the minister precisely taken to address the four major recommendations in the Goldfarb survey?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Actually, probably for me, one of the most important findings of the survey that the honourable member referred to is the fact that nurses are optimistic that changes will be made. I have already announced that I am drafting a regulation to make sure that nurses have a voice in the management of hospitals and announced an intention to open the Public Hospitals Act to bring it up to date with the reality of the world today.

I have been meeting with the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, the College of Nurses of Ontario and the Association of Nurse Executives of Metropolitan Toronto. I have been talking to the elected leadership of nursing in this province, to work with them, to seek solutions which will deal with that which is a societal issue -- systemic, requiring the kinds of changes that come from thoughtful attitudinal change, to make sure that nurses are appreciated and have a role that is recognized in the management of those hospitals and that they are taken as important members of the health care team. I am moving to implement that.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It is common knowledge that the grape industry in British Columbia received $28 million. There are a lot of rumours going around that the details have been worked out and finalized. Could the minister please tell this House whether these details have been worked out and what the distribution of these funds is?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is my understanding that the government of British Columbia and the federal government have reached a tentative agreement on, I believe, a $29-million program. That program will allocate most of its funds to the removal of 2,400 acres of grapes, which, by the way, is over two thirds of the grape acreage in British Columbia.

I believe the remainder of the funds will be spent on a 1988 crop support program. A special fund, I believe, is being established to guarantee producer contracts on the remaining acreage in that province. I believe there will be a small amount allocated for marketing assistance.

Mr. Dietsch: After this government’s insisting that the federal government’s $70 million was not enough and there finally being a settlement of $100 million, I think it is important to note that the grape growers in the area that I sent should have a settlement equal to or better than that of the people in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Dietsch: Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was asking the minister whether the details of this settlement are close to being finalized. Will our grape growers get a settlement equal to or, as I would like to see, better than that of the BC growers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: There is quite a difference in the two programs. First, the British Columbia program is adjusting to the Canada-US free trade agreement. Our program is adjusting to long-term domestic challenges and also adjusting to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Therefore, the BC program has to make most of its adjustments over a period of six years.

Since we are responding to long-term domestic challenges and the GATT panel ruling, our program will run over 12 years. It is a $100-million program. My ministry staff have been working diligently with the grape producers. I believe they are coming very close to working out the various components of the program. I think an agreement will be struck before too long.

1450

TACTICAL RESCUE UNITS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Solicitor General. It concerns the tragic shooting of Bernard Bastien by the Ontario Provincial Police tactical rescue unit down in the Windsor area in August.

I have many questions. Obviously, some of them cannot be asked at this point because of the coroner’s inquest, but I would simply ask the minister, why will she and the government not call a public inquiry into this matter when we have now had the Woodstock incident of a couple of years ago and this tragic killing where someone was shot 13 times when the TRU was called in to deal with one emotionally disturbed person?

Is that not a good enough reason for her government to call a public inquiry to determine why we have these units in the province, what their mandate is and why we would continue to use them in these types of incidents in Ontario in 1988?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Windsor-Riverside raises a very valid concern that the citizens of Ontario have with regard to the appropriate use of the TRU teams, which is a matter that is, of course, being thoroughly evaluated at this time.

I would say, however, as he himself has pointed out, that it would be most foolhardy for me to make any judgemental statement on their use at this time or at any other time while an inquest is on. I would not want to interfere in the process of that inquest and in any way endanger or prejudice the statements coming forth from it.

I would point out to the member that an inquest is indeed very much a public inquiry of a particular type which allows a vast amount of evidence to be brought forward, much more so than an ordinary criminal charge case. Therefore, we wish very much for the inquest to have the opportunity to present its findings and its recommendations to us.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister knows that a coroner’s inquest has a much narrower mandate than a public inquiry. What I am suggesting to the minister is that this tragedy has not only scared the living daylights out of people in our community and right across this country as to the role of the police forces in this province, but has also raised some very serious public policy questions that she cannot shove off and not deal with.

I am asking the minister to give a commitment to the Legislature and to the people of this province today that a public inquiry will be called on the issue of TRUs in this province, their use and whether or not they should even be in existence in this province.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member raises questions that will indeed be examined and we will be reporting to him.

I would certainly point out to the member that, as he says, members of the public tend to get very alarmed, quite correctly, when some one incident occurs that puts them very much on their guard. This does not mean to say that a public body does not have a responsibility to examine, not just that incident but other incidents of the past that may have given rise to the TRU teams, and to make sure that what facilities we have are both appropriate and appropriately used.

I remind the member that we have already issued much stricter guidelines as to the employment of these TRU teams and will continue to examine the situation, particularly to take advantage of any recommendations or findings of the inquest.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: I have a question to the Premier. The Premier will know that the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology commissioned what we understand is a major poll on free trade. My colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), our critic, put in a freedom-of-information request for the poll on July 18, 1988. Yesterday, he received a reply stating the ministry would release the poll within 90 days. Consequently, his request for access was denied.

Mr. Speaker, you will know that refusing this request runs contrary to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It also runs contrary to the desire of the people of Ontario, who want to have all the information they can have on this issue before they vote in the federal election. My question is this: Why is the Premier suppressing the release of this poll until after the federal election?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the matters the honourable member is talking about, but we have no desire to suppress anything, unlike former governments.

Mr. Harris: The poll was paid for by the people of Ontario. It concerns a major issue in the federal election campaign, and truly the people of Ontario --I think the Premier would agree with me -- have a right to see it.

The legislative committee studying free trade releases its findings today. Will the Premier not take the right and proper action by stopping the efforts -- if they are not his, then of his minister -- in suppressing this information, and make sure this poll is released so Ontarians can have the same information available to them that the Premier and his cabinet colleagues have?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Very frankly, I am not familiar with the matter the honourable member is talking about. If there is some problem with the information commissioner, then I hope he will take it up in the appropriate ways, but I am not sure my honourable friend is correct in his facts.

Mr. Harris: Why won’t you release the poll?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know what the member is talking about.

LIMITATIONS ACT

Mr. D. R. Cooke: My question is to the Attorney General. As the Attorney General will recall, on June 21, some 4,000 signatures on a petition calling for a change in the statute of limitations, as it pertains to victims of sexual assault, was brought to his attention. The concern of the petitioners was that often, in family situations or situations involving persons of authority, there is a delay even greater than four years past the 18th birthday before the victim realizes the significance of the offence and the degree of realization necessary to instruct counsel to commence civil proceedings.

In view of the concerns of the Community Justice Initiatives of Waterloo region, the Survivors and Supporters Against Sexual Abuse and their 4,000 fellow copetitioners, could the Attorney General provide this House with an update of the ministry’s consideration of amendments to the Limitations Act which will take into account the legitimate concerns for victims’ rights?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member knows, we have had under way for some months now a review of limitation periods as are found in a wide variety of provincial statutes over which we have control. The trick in this exercise is, of course, to fix a period of time which is fair to the proposed plaintiff who wants to commence an action and should not be required to do so before he or she has full knowledge of the possible liability, and on the other hand does fairness to a defendant who should not be called upon to resist an action at a time when he may have destroyed his records or may have lost the capacity to recollect precisely what happened.

There are probably dozens of limitation periods and the honourable member has referred to one in particular. Following his question and the receipt of the petition, I explicitly asked the staff of my department to take into account that kind of concern. I should tell him also that a variety of committees outside government that have been good enough to give me advice in this matter, including the Canadian Bar Association committee, have been asked by me as well to deal with that question, so that I can get outside advice of the type he would like, in order that the government can make the appropriate response. That is where we stand and I will undertake to keep the honourable member and the House up to date.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Could the Attorney General assure the House that when the review he has outlined takes place, the special difficulties that are encountered by incest victims and other victims of sexual abuse will be considered, and would he consider codifying the doctrine of delayed discovery for application in these cases?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The difficulties the honourable member refers to are, of course, difficulties that afflict a number of potential plaintiffs in a variety of situations. Young children who are subject to surgery at four and five may be unaware of the cause of the injury they sustained until they reach their mature years, so the courts have already developed a principle of delayed discovery that applies to some kinds of cases. Regrettably the courts, in the one or two cases that have come forward, have not applied it to incest cases, though there is much argument that they should.

We are precisely looking at that kind of question and at that kind of remedy, but I want to be very certain that I have the advice of the various groups out there, running all the way from potential plaintiffs to potential defendants, before we take to cabinet any proposal in this very difficult area. I will keep the honourable member and the House advised.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: In the interval, in the last few minutes, I have been spending some time with injured workers who, as I am sure the minister will have heard, were outside this chamber. After some discussion with them, I continued my discussions with them outside.

I do not know whether the minister is aware of the depth of feeling of injured workers; I am sure he is, and certainly should be by now. Really, today they are united behind one very direct request to the minister. I hope that the minister will be able to give us a clear answer today in order to assure them that in fact there will be public hearings on Bill 162, about which they feel very strongly. Can the minister give them and this House the assurance that there will be full public hearings on Bill 162?

1500

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think I understand, as well, the depth of the feelings of those injured workers. I understand that for a very long time, so many injured workers have been treated in an arbitrary way by a system whose rules have not matched the reality of their injuries.

The member asked me about public hearings and I was just now writing a note to him on the subject. He knows that I have no objection to there being public hearings, but I just want to tell him, quite frankly, that I do not want to subject a committee of this House to the kind of antics we have seen today. I do not want to put members of this House in a situation where we can have public hearings so that we can delay the bill or have demonstrations that can bring a great deal of press attention to a view of this bill that I simply do not share.

Certainly, as the bill proceeds through second reading debate, it will obviously go to a committee. The committee will have a view as to how extensive it wants the hearing process to be; the various House leaders will have views. I certainly have no objection to that process unfolding. I think it has to be organized and matched up with the kind of legislative agenda that we have here in the House and the other work the committees are going to be asked to do once this session takes a recess over Christmas.

I expect second reading to proceed fully and exhaustively during the next month and a half, the next six weeks. As I have said to the member, I have absolutely no objection. I am not going to order public hearings, because I do not have the capacity to order public hearings. I think there should be a hearing process, but it has to be done in the way in which we deal with it in every other bill, and that is for the process to be discussed among House leaders and to be organized in conjunction with other business the committee which considers the bill will have. I think that is a reasonable position.

Mr. B. Rae: I am really quite amazed. We have given the minister an opportunity to do a wise thing and to make a wise statement today. and he has chosen not to do that. I am quite astonished that somebody of his experience would not recognize that opportunity. Let me try again. Let me give him another chance, because I think it is very important. In terms of the people who are out there, it is important that we get a clear message.

Is the minister prepared to recommend to his House leader that there be full public hearings across this province on this particular measure in the break period, January and February, so there can be a full discussion? Is he prepared to recognize that as the very minimum, as the least the workers of this province can expect of this government?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am prepared to recommend to the House leaders that when this bill goes to committee there be a process where there can be input. Whether there will be hearings in a variety of cities will be something I will look at in terms of the recommendations the three House leaders discuss. The one thing I will not support is the kind of hearing process that has taken place with Bill 113 and Bill 114, because I think that hearing process --

Mr. B. Rae: Just what are you saying about Bill 113? Just tell us.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition what I am saying. I think the fact that we are now in the midst of a filibuster so that we cannot even consider clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 114 is regrettable, but I am certainly prepared for us to discuss a hearing process where anyone who wants to have input into Bill 162 can have that opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There is a point that ought to be addressed here, and I want to be very clear because I sense a real concern. As government House leader, I want to make it very clear that the government has absolutely no objections to public hearings. I will give a commitment to working very co-operatively with my colleagues once this bill has passed the second-reading stage, to sit down with them and to work out a process and then to let the committee organize its own affairs.

Lest there be any confusion in the minds of my friends opposite, particularly in the official opposition, I want to make it very clear that the government has no objections. We will certainly be as co-operative as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was listening. I did not really hear any point of order. New question.

Mr. Brandt: Mr, Speaker, it is with respect to the same point of order that you have now disallowed after you have heard it, so I find myself in a bit of a quandary. Let me simply say, by way of undertaking on behalf of our part, that we very much favour the proposal that has been made by the leader of the official opposition and our party would support full and total public hearings on this bill. We will support that if it is discussed by the House leaders.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure there are other members who wish to ask questions during the question period.

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Solicitor General. While on a hunting trip near Geraldton this past week, a Welland resident, the son of Gary Haggerty, who is a relation of the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty), became lost in the bush. Although the Ontario Provincial Police officials and the Ministry of Natural Resources personnel were notified, they could not locate Mr. Haggerty’s son, so he spent the night in the subzero temperatures. Because of his military training, he was able to survive.

Checking with the Ministry of the Solicitor General, we were told that in spite of the numerous requests to beef up its resources, there are only two OPP helicopters available for search and rescue operations. For the most part, they are stationed in southern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Pollock: Will the minister tell us today what steps she intends to take to improve OPP capabilities to locate Ontarians lost in the bush, so we can avoid a tragedy from occurring?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I will be glad to look into this request for information on this particular incident. I can assure the member that we have an excellent record of response with our helicopters to people who are lost. We have been examining the need for another helicopter, particularly for a helicopter that can go more extensively out over the waters. I would welcome the member’s input on this. We will raise this issue to see whether spending on this in service of the people and their protection, whether this particular need would justify the expense. If so, we will make such an expense. With regard to the individual case, I would be glad to report to the member.

Mr. Pollock: During the first week of hunting season, eight people were missing. The OPP say this is not abnormal. Yet the nearest canine unit that could be used for tracking is in Thunder Bay. In the case of Mr. Haggerty’s son, the unit was tied up and could not be used. We were told that numerous requests for further resources have been forwarded to the minister’s office. When are we going to come through and give the OPP the resources to do the job, to avoid another possible tragedy like this happening?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member speaks of numerous requests and implies that these requests were not properly dealt with. I would be glad to have details of this, if he has such. I know that where we do have a shortage of resources, we can call upon the Ministry of Natural Resources, which also has facilities and often comes to our assistance. I believe we have extremely good coverage for these kinds of incidents, but if there are numerous incidents that can be brought to my attention, I would be glad to look into all of them.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition signed by 145 constituents from the village of Arthur and area. It reads as follows:

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

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

“This letter is in protest of removing the Lord’s Prayer from the classroom, also scripture readings.”

I have another petition of the same nature signed by 31 members of the Mount Forest Pentecostal Church.

1510

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. McGuigan: I have three petitions. I believe they are all employees of three different companies, but the address is:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas we strongly oppose the intention of Bill 113 for Sunday opening, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day.”

It is signed by approximately 50 petitioners, and I have also signed.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a petition which reads as follows:

“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:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), as reported in the media, wants the bill passed and implemented by the end of 1988, in other words, without an adequate process for public consultation, debate, and discussion; and

“Because Bill 162 represents an attack on injured workers and their families and all of those people who have fought over the years to achieve fairness and justice for injured workers and their families; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system, combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits, that has been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers, and lawyers working on their behalf and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 virtually ignores the devastating critique and recommendations of the Majesky-Minna task force report on vocational rehabilitation that was submitted to the Minister of Labour and suppressed by the Liberal government until April 1988; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in November 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

“Because throughout Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board functionaries and made subject to ever more intrusive, invasive, and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy, and their right to fair and just treatment.”

I will sign my name to this. I am in complete agreement.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas we strongly oppose the intention of Bill 113 for Sunday opening, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day.”

It is signed by 10 people from Paul Price Ford Sales in Bancroft.

ABANDONED RAIL LINES

Mr. Pollock: I have another petition.

“‘To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, urge the Ontario government to purchase any railroad line that the Canadian National Railway proposes to abandon. These rights-of-way would be used as recreation trails and fire access roads.”

It is signed by, I believe, well over 600 people.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a petition:

“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:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, chapter 539 as amended by Statutes of Ontario, 1981, chapter 30; Statutes of Ontario, 1982, chapter 61; Statutes of Ontario, 1983, chapter 45; Statutes of Ontario, 1984, chapter 38; Statutes of Ontario, 1984, chapter 58; Statutes of Ontario, 1985, chapter 3; Statutes of Ontario, 1985, chapter 17; and Statutes of Ontario, 1986, chapter 64, section 69,

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet the Minister of Labour, as reported in the media, wants the bill passed and implemented by the end of 1988 -- in other words, without an adequate process for public consultation, debate and discussion; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage-loss award benefits, that has been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 virtually ignores the devastating critique and recommendations of the Majesky-Minna task force report on vocational rehabilitation, that was submitted to the Minister of Labour and suppressed by the Liberal government until April 1988; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

“Because throughout Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of Workers’ Compensation Board functionaries, and made subject to ever more intrusive, invasive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

I add my signature to the aforementioned.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition 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:

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplementary awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

“Because throughout Bill 162 injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board functionaries and made subject to ever more intrusive, invasive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

I support this petition and I have affixed my name thereto.

1520

Mr. Speaker: This might be an appropriate time to remind all members of standing order 31(b), which says: “A member may present a petition from his place.... He shall endorse his name thereon and confine himself to a statement of the petitioners, the number of signatures and the material allegations,” not necessarily the reasons for the allegations.

I did not hear how many had signed that petition either.

Mr. Wildman: I am sorry, there were two signatures on the petition.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Polsinelli: I have two petitions addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. One of the petitions has 69 names, the other one has 118 names, and the petitions read:

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

I have subscribed my name to these petitions.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder how many signatures there were. You neglected to ask the last speaker.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: He said how many were on.

Mr. Laughren: No, he did not.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: He did so. Read Hansard. He said how many were on.

Mr. Laughren: All right.

Mr. Speaker: Could the member not hear? Does the member for Nickel Belt wish to put forth a petition?

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: “To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162, An Act to amendments --

Mr. Reycraft: You sound like George Bush.

Mr. Laughren: I did not know that Ronald Reagan was in the precincts. I will start over again, because I have lost my place.

“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:

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet the Minister of Labour, as reported in the media” -- as a matter of fact, we heard today -– “wants the bill passed and implemented by the end of 1988 -- in other words, without an adequate process for public consultation, debate and discussion; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits that has been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I feel that I must read the entire petition to make clear that Bill 162 replaces a great deal of existing legislation, and we must --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the petition. We do not need any other comments.

Ms. Bryden: “We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1980, chapter 539 as amended by Statutes of Ontario, 1981, chapter 30; Statutes of Ontario, 1982, chapter 61; Statutes of Ontario, 1983, chapter 45; Statutes of Ontario, 1984, chapter 38; Statutes of Ontario, 1984, chapter 58; Statutes of Ontario, 1985, chapter 3; Statutes of Ontario, 1985, chapter 17; and Statutes of Ontario, 1986, chapter 64, section 69,

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss awards benefits, that has been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

This petition is signed by four people. I have affixed my signature to it as well and I support it.

1530

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition a little different from the last couple.

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families: ‘The committee strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’; and

“Whereas it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that wide-open Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led, single-parent families’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need to ‘ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I strongly endorse this petition for action by this government in this session and have affixed my signature to it. I present it for the government’s consideration.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Farnan: I have here a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet the Minister of Labour, as reported in the media, wants the bill passed and implemented by the end of 1988 -- in other words, without an adequate process for public consultation, debate and discussion; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system, combining a lump sum and actual wage-loss award benefits, which has been rejected by the injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf, and by the trade union movement, since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Progressive Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

The petition is signed by two individuals. I am proud to attach my name to this petition and to submit it to you at this time.

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition 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:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, chapter 539, as amended by Statutes of Ontario, 1981, chapter 30; Statutes of Ontario, 1982, chapter 61; Statutes of Ontario, 1983, chapter 45; Statutes of Ontario, 1984, chapter 38; Statutes of Ontario, 1984, chapter 58; Statutes of Ontario, 1985, chapter 3; Statutes of Ontario, 1985, chapter 17; and Statutes of Ontario, 1986, chapter 64, section 69,

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage-loss award benefits, which has been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf, and by the trade union movement, since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

1540

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

I very strongly support this petition. I have added my name to it. It is signed by two residents of the city of Toronto and one resident of the city of Guelph.

Mr. Allen: I have a petition which reads as follows:

“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:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162” -- and I will spare members all the statutory references -- “because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet the Minister of Labour, as reported in the media, wants the bill passed and implemented by the end of 1988 -- in other words, without an adequate process for public consultation, debate and discussion; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits, that has been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

“Because throughout Bill 162 injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board functionaries, and made subject to ever more intrusive, invasive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

I have affixed my signature to this petition and forward it to the Clerk’s desk and to the government for consideration.

Mr. Hampton: I have a petition. It is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it states:

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.” I will not read the chapter references.

Mr. Black: Go ahead, read the whole thing. Don’t short-change us.

Mr. Hampton: If the Liberal members insist, I will read it. I will defer to their request. As I said, the petition urges “the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1980, chapter 539 as amended by Statutes of Ontario, 1981, chapter 30; Statutes of Ontario, 1982, chapter 61; Statutes of Ontario, 1983, chapter 45; Statutes of Ontario, 1984, chapter 38; Statutes of Ontario, 1984, chapter 58; Statutes of Ontario, 1985, chapter 31; Statutes of Ontario, 1985, chapter 17; and Statutes of Ontario, 1986, chapter 64, section 69,

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits that has been rejected by the injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement, and

“Because throughout Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of Workers’ Compensation Board functionaries and made subject to ever more intrusive, invasive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

I have affixed my signature to this petition and I heartily endorse it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee’s report on the Canada-US free trade agreement, entitled Ontario Trade Review, 1988, Volume 1, and moved that it be placed on the Orders and Notices paper for consideration pursuant to standing order 32(b).

Mr. D. R. Cooke: In December 1987 and since that time, this committee has held what I believe to be the most extensive series of hearings that any legislative committee, federal, state or provincial, has held on either side of the border.

What we have in volume 1 is a comprehensive compendium of arguments on both sides of practically every one of the complex issues that have been raised by this agreement. I understand that approximately 70 per cent of the people in Canada say today that they do not know enough about this agreement, and I believe this document should be very valuable for them for that reason.

The primary conclusion of the report, not surprisingly -- and, not surprisingly, it has two dissents -- is that the agreement is a bad agreement for Canada and that unless certain fundamental changes are realized, the agreement itself should in fact be rejected.

I have a second report.

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee’s report, entitled Ontario Trade Review, 1988, Volume 2, and moved that it be placed on the Orders and Notices paper for consideration pursuant to standing order 32(b).

1550

Mr. D. R. Cooke: This is a unanimous report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. It outlines our experiences in our dealings with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and in meetings with the European Community and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

It recognizes that the current round of GATT negotiations, in which we are in the middle of a four-year round, the Uruguay round, is extremely vital and of great significance in so far as the future of trade in the world is concerned.

The committee believes that Ontario, along with the other provinces, should be fully consulted and included in this process, and its trade policy initiatives should be reviewed on an ongoing basis in so far as the GATT negotiations are concerned. We are particularly concerned that attention be paid to the upcoming midterm meetings of the GATT, which will occur in Montreal in December.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KITCHENER AND WATERLOO FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. D. R. Cooke moved first reading of Bill Pr65, An Act Respecting the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Hampton moved first reading of Bill 177, An Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Hampton: In 1983, five workers died at the Port Arthur shipyards. One would expect that those workers were protected by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Alas, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that a ship was not an industrial establishment, and therefore those five deceased workers had no protection under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The purpose of this bill is to provide that a ship under construction or repair and a shipyard are subject to the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations.

HOMES FOR THE AGED AND REST HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Reville moved first reading of Bill 178, An Act to Amend the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Reville: The purpose of this bill is to prevent the discharge of a resident from a rest home or a home for the aged without ensuring that there are suitable alternative accommodations. This amendment is similar to the regulations under the Nursing Homes Act.

SENIORS’ INDEPENDENCE ACT

Ms. Bryden moved first reading of Bill 179, An Act for the Provision and Integration of Community-based Services for Seniors.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Bryden: The short title of this bill is the Seniors’ Independence Act, 1988. It will create a framework for the provision of community-based support services for seniors and the integration of these services with established programs to provide one-stop shopping for seniors’ services. It will give seniors greater independence and will prevent their unnecessary institutionalization. It will give them access to programs that will help them remain in their own homes as long as possible.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Farnan moved first reading of An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

1751

The House divided on Mr. Farnan’s motion for first reading of An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Cureatz, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McLean, Morin-Strom, Rae, B., Reville, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cordiano, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elston, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter;

Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Neumann, Oddie Munro, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Velshi, Wong, Wrye.

Ayes 23; nays 67.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am honoured to lead off this debate on second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act. As honourable members will recall, last June 20 I introduced into this assembly a bill to make the worker compensation system in our province respond more fairly and more effectively to the circumstances of injured workers. That bill, Bill 162, will provide a dual award system of financial compensation for workers who suffer permanent disabilities in the workplace.

This will provide compensation for both impairment and lost earnings; an increase in the ceiling on financial compensation for injured workers; an obligation on employers to continue contributing to the injured worker’s employment benefits for up to one year after the injury; an obligation on the Workers’ Compensation Board to intervene early and effectively after a workplace injury with vocational rehabilitation assessment and services; an obligation on employers to reinstate injured workers in their jobs, to provide comparable employment or to provide the first opportunity on suitable employment; a continuation of indexed lifetime benefits for current WCB permanent disability pensioners and supplements for those permanent disability pensioners whose pensions are insufficient.

All of these reforms will be implemented effectively without any substantial increase in cost to the system. The reforms of Bill 162 are fundamental. The government is moving them forward because today, 73 years after it came into existence, the worker compensation system is broken. There is no one among us, neither workers nor employers, who does not agree that this is true. There is a consensus in this province that the system needs repair. Bill 162 is a major step in getting that job done. Following the introduction of the bill, it was characterized in both the provincial and national press as “a better deal, a fairer plan for injured workers.”

In an editorial entitled “A Sensible Overhaul,” the Windsor Star stated, “The Ontario government has come up with a sweeping but sensible overhaul of the Workers’ Compensation Act that should more fairly distribute payments to injured workers and also do far more to get them back on the job.”

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If it’s so great, why don’t you take it to the public?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not have any problem with that. Since the introduction of the bill, I have spoken with both labour and management in all regions of Ontario. There has been much interest in it and particular support for the emphasis on vocational rehabilitation, reinstatement and the dual award system.

There have been some concerns expressed too that, no doubt, will be aired during the second reading debate and in the committee that will examine the bill. I look forward to those hearings, and I expect them to meet the standards of debate that the people of Ontario require and merit.

I do not believe that these purposes or the interests of injured workers will be served by misinformation as to the contents of this bill. The working people of Ontario have a right and a need to know and to understand what this bill provides.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Sorbara, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

October 19, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CHILD CARE

TOM ROBINSON

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MADAWASKA HIGHLANDS REGIONAL TRUST PARK

GUS HARRIS

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRUG ABUSE

1989 ONTARIO GAMES FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED

NUCLEAR COSTS

RESPONSES

DRUG ABUSE

NUCLEAR COSTS

1989 ONTARIO GAMES FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED

DRUG ABUSE

NUCLEAR COSTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

DEATH OF REFINERY WORKER

HOSPITAL SERVICES

WINE INDUSTRY

TACTICAL RESCUE UNITS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

LIMITATIONS ACT

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

PETITIONS

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ABANDONED RAIL LINES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

NATUROPATHY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KITCHENER AND WATERLOO FOUNDATION ACT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

HOMES FOR THE AGED AND REST HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

SENIORS’ INDEPENDENCE ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT