Hansard Transcript 1988-Oct-20 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the Ministry of the Environment has identified over 300 waste disposal sites in Ontario as possibly posing hazards to human health and the environment, and given that three years has passed since the Minister of the Environment first promised to establish an environmental superfund to clean up these waste disposal sites, the government should establish immediately a provincial environmental superfund to deal with the cleanup of leaking municipal and industrial landfill sites, to handle potential environmental problems related to the operation of waste disposal facilities, and thereby prevent further deterioration of our natural environment and reduce the threat to human health.

Mr. Brandt: With some reluctance I place this particular motion before the House, in that I feel there is a responsibility on the part of the government to fulfil promises that it made in the various election campaigns we have experienced over the course of the past few years. This was one of the most important pillars of the 1985 election, I believe.

In that particular election there was a promise made that a $30-million cleanup fund or superfund, if you like, an environmental response to a serious problem that had developed in this province, was going to be committed by this province, in order to address the whole question of cleanup of some of the unacceptable, harmful and, in fact, extremely sensitive landfill sites that existed in many parts of the province.

The estimates are quite startling when one looks at them. There are approximately 3,850 landfill sites in the various parts of Ontario. Of those, according to the Ministry of the Environment itself, some 10 per cent have been identified as being of a matter of real, serious concern to the Ministry of the Environment. We have fully about 385 sites, close to 400 sites, if you will, in the province, that would require attention in the form of the $30 million that I have identified and $30 million which was, frankly, promised by the members opposite, by their leader, during the course of an election campaign when I think a large number of people in this province voted in favour of such a fund.

It is interesting to note as well that our party introduced a similar fund for a somewhat larger number of dollars in the aborted throne speech just before the change of power in 1985. Aside from the politics of the situation, let me simply say that I believe there is some concurrence and some agreement within all three parties that we are going to have to address this question.

Earlier this week I asked for an emergency debate on the environment, specifically directed towards the need to establish some methodology by which we could face the problem directly, on how we are going to bring about an improvement in the way in which we are addressing the municipal landfill site problem. We had a healthy debate at that particular time with respect to some of the issues that are very real and, I think, of concern to members on all sides of the House. But it really begs the question that if we have some 400 sites out there that are of concern -- and this is what my resolution this morning is directed towards and what it addresses -- sites that are creating a leachate problem, sites that are contaminating ground water and sites that in some instances are contaminating ground water and ultimately drinking water, then obviously we have a responsibility to find some form of remedial action that will address that particular question.

It is not going to be easy, and I recognize that. In fact, the fund I am proposing to be initiated, and which this government has promised to introduce, is probably inadequate once we get at the job, but we have to get started somewhere and we have to get started rather quickly.

Some of these sites will require relatively minor adjustments, perhaps a leachate collection system. Others will require some kind of total degree of attention on the part of the municipalities and on the part of the province and may require the complete removal of some of the toxic contaminants that we know are to be found in some of those landfill sites.

It is a very serious question. It is a very, very critical problem, not only as it relates to the existing 3,800 landfill sites that are scattered throughout this province and the contaminated and dangerous ones that have already been identified but also as there is the need for the development of some sort of safe landfill site policy for the future.

I want to say to the member of Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), who is interrupting me at this time, that one just simply cannot cop out and indicate or take the position that incineration is unsafe, that energy from waste is unsafe, that municipal landfill sites are unsafe and that therefore one is paralysed into total inaction, because the problem is that in this province we are still generating approximately two pounds of garbage per person per day. It runs into millions of tons of garbage that has to be dealt with in some fashion.

1010

The minister stood up proudly this week in response to a question I addressed to him and said: “Here is what we have done. To the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), let me suggest to you that we have increased the amount of money which is directed towards recycling in this province from $750,000 when you were the minister, and it is now $7 million. That is a 10-fold increase.”

I have no response to the minister other than to say I think that is a very positive step in the right direction. Had I been sitting in his seat over the past three years, I probably would have done likewise with a program which I introduced and which he has found to be of value to his ministry. All he has done is he has increased the amount of money directed towards that program.

Let me say, and I do not say this with the intention of simply being dramatic, if the minister were to take that $7 million and increase it 10-fold to $70 million, it would not address the problem. Recycling would still not be a sufficiently large percentage of the total volume of garbage that has to be dealt with in this province. I am not speaking about political verbiage either when I speak of garbage, but of the total amount of garbage that has to be dealt with --

Mr. Dietsch: It would take some landfill to take all that.

Mr. Brandt: I knew that would wake him up.

Of the total amount of garbage that has to be dealt with in this province, a 10-fold increase in the current budget would still be insufficient. I will let that sit with the members opposite, who are so proud of the $7 million they are dedicating towards this most worthy cause but is addressing the problem in a most insufficient way.

The minister, who is not in attendance this morning, may be interested to learn that we have landfill sites such as the Glenridge landfill site in the great community of St. Catharines in the Niagara region. That particular landfill site would be very high on the priority list of any government that wanted to address a remedial program for cleanup, because in this particular landfill site we have basement flooding that has occurred, and we have leachate or, in layman’s terms, the spread of contaminants from the landfill site itself beyond the bounds of the property of the landfill site. We have had sewage overflows in the Glenridge site. It is unacceptable when that kind of situation, perhaps to a lesser degree, is repeated time and again in various locations across the province.

I say that the minister and the government have a responsibility in the first instance to address what they have not done and what they have promised to do, which is to commit to a cleanup superfund in the amount of at least $30 million to address problems of the past. They have to take the next logical step as well; that is to get themselves out of this state of inertia they find themselves in and to move towards addressing one of the most serious, most critical and most difficult problems that our province is going to have to face not only today but in the years ahead, which is to find an adequate method of disposing of waste in our province.

I ask the members opposite, in a totally nonpartisan way, if they find it acceptable that the community of Hatton has spent $18 million over 14 years in an attempt to address its municipal waste problem without a solution. Irrespective of who may be found in the wrong or who may be found guilty or who may be found insufficient in responding to that problem, I ask the members opposite whether that seems reasonable and logical.

I ask if one can accept that a municipality would be put to the wall financially in the amount of $18 million and that after some 14 years the solution they have come up with is that they are going to send, and have been sending, at a cost of $1 million a month, their waste generated at a rate of two pounds per person per day, to the state of New York.

Mr. Wildman: That’s free trade.

Mr. Brandt: That is another form of free trade. It certainly is.

What are they going to do with this garbage in the state of New York? Very simply, they are going to incinerate it. Now, if you were to speak with the current Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) about incineration, he would say: “Wait a minute. There is a problem with incineration in this province. We have already closed an incinerator in Metro Toronto because it was proven to be unhealthy. In fact, it was proven to be an incinerator that caused octachlorodioxins and dibenzofurans to be emitted from the stack, and both dioxins and furans are known carcinogens.”

Incineration is unacceptable, but is it acceptable to have incineration in another jurisdiction, the state of New York, where the very same fumes go up the stack and disperse over the province of Ontario?

Mr. Wildman: What about your federal confrères in the PC party?

Mr. Brandt: If my friend is suggesting that municipal garbage is also a federal responsibility, I say to him that in the first instance -- and I recognize this, as a former mayor and someone who sat on a municipal council for some 10 years -- it is in fact a municipal responsibility. I also say the problem has grown in magnitude and severity to the degree that it is now very much a provincial responsibility as well.

I say further to my friend that it is a national responsibility in the sense that I will concur with, support and wholeheartedly get behind a national superfund or cleanup that will address these kinds of problems in all parts of this great country of ours, because that is exactly what is going to be required in the ultimate end.

The problems of the past have been created not because of negligence, not because of oversights and not because of a lack of recognition of the environmental impact of landfill sites, but simply because this issue, the science of hydrology, the science of what happens to a landfill site over a long number of years, was simply not as widely known and as well understood 10, 20 or 50 years ago as it is today. We have to address ourselves immediately to what the problem is today and how we are going to address that problem.

The measures suggested by the current government in 1985 with respect to the $30 million are a very positive start. But after three years, why do we not have a start? Why do we not have some beginning? Why do we not have some landfill sites being addressed so that over a period of time we can remove these 400 hazardous sites from the roster. Then we can at least go to communities like St. Catharines and Peterborough, which also has a problem landfill site, as well as many other communities and say to them, “We are going to pay some attention to a problem that has been established in your community for some time through its landfill site, and we are going to clean it up.”

It can be done. We have the scientific knowledge today, we have the technology today, but do we have the environmental will to get on with this job? I say that time is quickly running out on us, because this type of contamination in these types of landfill sites is simply unacceptable, given the known factors associated with these landfill sites today -- something we did not know 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: The members laugh. I happened to spend two years in the Ministry of the Environment as technology was developing with respect to the detection of very minute particles of certain types of toxic chemicals. We did not have the technology I 0 or 20 years ago to be able to understand some of these problems as well as we do today.

Now that we understand them, however, does that give the government an excuse to move absolutely nowhere with this problem? Does that give them an excuse not to fulfil a commitment that they made? I suggest it does not. I suggest they do have an unfulfilled election promise out there which I feel very strongly about and which my colleagues are very concerned about.

I want to say to the government that if it decides to embark on a course of action where it will initiate, at least as a start, the $30 million towards the cleanup of the sites that have been identified as being dangerous, our party will support that kind of initiative. Although I have not talked to them, I feel confident that the official opposition would support that kind of initiative as well, because in fact it has called for that in the past, as have many members of the current government.

I ask the members to support this resolution. I ask them to support it in a spirit of nonpartisanship, in a spirit of addressing an overwhelming, serious and critical problem environmentally which has to be addressed as soon as is humanly possible.

1020

Mr. McClelland: I know all my colleagues in this House today agree very much with the previous speaker, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), that the problems we face today from leaking landfill sites all across this province need to be dealt with. They are a concern to all our communities in terms of health and in terms of the environmental integrity of our communities Those problems have to be addressed, and this government is committed to doing exactly that.

If one were to examine a list of the landfill sites, one would find that the vast majority of those sites that are causing concerns today were established in the past, when environmental standards and policies unfortunately were not even close to being as strict as this government’s. The policies at that time were not even close to the policies that this government has in place today. In the last three years we have put standards in place that do not make application for landfill sites simply more paperwork. They are tough, they are comprehensive and they are designed to protect the environment.

Since coming to power three years ago, this government has introduced new policies to control properly the development and operation of landfill sites. This government has introduced these policies to ensure that the legacy of the leaking landfill sites and the problems that we were handed will not be handed to the next generation, totally unlike the situation that this government was handed.

Now, the member for Sarnia talks about things that need to be done, but I think it will be of interest to you, Mr. Speaker, to the members in this House and to the people of this province to look at exactly what has been done. The province has introduced a policy that we call, for the information of my friends opposite, land use on or near landfills and dumps. That policy provides direct direction on land use on or near operating or nonoperating landfills, regardless of who owns them. This policy recognizes that landfill sites have effects far beyond the land on which they are situated. That is hardly an earth-shattering conclusion, one might say, but for years there was no policy, until our government decided to deal with that.

This province has another policy. Our policy is entitled the role of the Ministry of the Environment in emergencies and spills. For the first time, we have set out a description of the role that this ministry has in protecting life, property and the environment during emergencies and spills. One can only wonder why the former government failed to recognize the need for such a policy. Notwithstanding a lot of rhetoric and sitting there on the shelf for many years, it took our government to get that off the shelf and enacted very shortly after taking office three years ago.

As well, the province has now incorporated the reasonable use concept into the Ministry of the Environment ground water management activities. The underground aquifer is no longer a resource that can be contaminated. This government recognizes that everyone has a right to clean ground water, regardless of what the neighbouring lands are being used for.

This government is continuously improving the standards that must be met in order to establish a landfill site in Ontario. Alternatives to the establishment of a landfill site such as recycling, on which the honourable member unfortunately does not have the foresight or the faith in the people of this province --

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: In spite of the comments that I heard a few moments ago, I want to say to my friends opposite, to members of this House and to the people of Ontario that other jurisdictions in our world have attained a 50 per cent recycling achievement, a diversion of 50 per cent in other communities in Europe. There is no reason we cannot do that. I think that instead of looking at the glass as being half empty, we have got to recognize that we have the potential to work co-operatively and together and to be successful in this province.

This is nothing new. Recycling is a realistic alternative. Thanks to the support and commitment of this government to the four Rs of waste management in Ontario, we are well on our way and we will achieve it, in spite of the pessimism of our friends opposite.

It was this government, it was the government of the day that had the political will to begin applying the Environmental Assessment Act to private waste management undertakings, including landfill proposals, in order to ensure that environmental effects are carefully considered. We are the government that took that step and had the courage to do that. Today it is the magnitude of the proposed undertaking that determines the application of environmental assessment. That is the determination that is the critical factor.

I could go on for well over the amount of time that I have left to talk about the things that this government has done and the steps that we have taken, but we cannot just be talking about dumps any more. The legacy of establishing poorly designed landfills will not be repeated by this government. This government is committed to never leaving a situation like the situation we inherited for the next generation.

But at this time I would like to examine the resolution’s suggestion. What does this resolution suggest about the historical problem of leaking landfill sites?

Well, the resolution calls for a provincial version of a superfund and for more money and access to the government. It accuses the government of doing nothing for three years to address a problem of leaking landfill sites. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s tell the people of this province what this government has done as far as addressing this problem is concerned.

We have a provincial superfund already. We have already got what this resolution asks for. We have a superfund, and it is called, for the information of the members opposite, my colleagues who are not aware of it, the environmental security fund. I am glad that the official opposition is well aware of that, notwithstanding that the members of the third party are a little bit behind them.

It was established on July 23, 1985, over three years ago, shortly after this government came into power. The environmental security fund was established with a budget of $10 million and was designed to enable the Ministry of the Environment to have available funds to respond quickly to environmental threats, spills and contaminated water supplies and to ensure that the proper long-term resolution of environmental problems was dealt with. In creating this provincial superfund, this government has gone even beyond the model established by the United States Superfund. The Superfund applies only to waste disposal site cleanups. We are talking about the entire environment.

The Ontario security fund applies to any environmental emergency, however caused: spills, natural disasters, illegal discharges -- it applies to it all. The security fund provides for immediate restorative action to address the problems in a local area. Mine tailings are dealt with. Unauthorized discharges and waste disposal practices of a polluting company are all dealt with under that fund. The security fund is applied if those liable for the mishap cannot be identified or if orders, such as control orders, are not complied with immediately. The security fund is designed to provide funds quickly for large, unexpected expenditures.

The types of works funded today are numerous. They include hydrological studies of areas where serious contamination is known or expected; the provision of alternative water supplies where existing supplies are affected or threatened by a source of contamination; the cleanup of areas where environmental damages or health risks are identified; actions to remove or reduce potential long-term environmental hazards, and many more. It is useful, though, to consider for a moment how the former government managed before the security fund was established. In the past, the ministry responded through either a $200,000 regional operations division contingency budget, the use of the waste management improvement program to undertake low-cost remedial measures or relocating funds in one year from another program to deal with this problem.

When the security fund was announced by this government, it was emphasized that the fund would enable the ministry to respond to contingencies more speedily and in a comprehensive manner. The fund permits cleanups to take place without jeopardizing other environmental programs. We do not borrow from one program to pay for this. We have it established and it is dedicated to do exactly what the member opposite is asking for.

The security fund was established with a budget of $10 million. The current budget is $20 million, and the total expenditures to date under the security fund have been almost $39 million. That amount of money will certainly rise in the future. We have numerous projects that need to be addressed. Those projects that we have inherited, the difficulties of the past, we will address with this fund.

We will make every effort to recover from the parties that are responsible. The money that we do recover will be disbursed under the security fund for the resolution of environmental problems that arise from the activities of those particular parties.

In conclusion, this government and the current Minister of the Environment have acted responsibly and with vision and have made a solid commitment to a fund to deal with the problems in the environment that we inherited. The environmental security fund was established to do exactly what this resolution is requesting. As a result, this resolution, if I can be kind, is redundant, if not foolish. Because this government has established the environmental security fund and has acted decisively already, we will not be supporting this resolution.

Interjections.

1030

The Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, as this is private members’ business, it would be most appreciated if we could have one member at a time.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your assistance.

I rise in support of this resolution. I am surprised that the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland) would say that he is opposed to this, considering the rhetoric that his own minister has used in the past in this regard.

I must say that I find it somewhat amusing that we should have this resolution presented to this House today by a former Minister of the Environment from the previous Conservative government. I understand certainly that there are 300 to 400 waste disposal sites which are possible hazards to the environment or human health in this province which must be acted upon, but one has to consider very carefully how those landfills became so hazardous.

The member for Sarnia in his presentation pointed out that, in the short-lived regime between the 1985 election date and the change of government as a result of the accord, the then Conservative government of Mr. Miller introduced a superfund; it made a proposal for a superfund. One can realize why that happened. Let’s think of the political situation at the time.

Everybody in this House is aware that, at the time, there were negotiations going on among the various political parties. Frankly, the Conservatives had missed the boat and they were trying to get back into the boat by saying they would respond to a number of the concerns that were being put forward by members of this political party in order to gain support so that their government would not be defeated. That was the only reason.

As a matter of fact, not too many weeks before the proposal for a superfund by the then government, a gentleman named Morley Kells, who was the Minister of the Environment, during the election campaign had to respond to a very serious polychlorinated biphenyl spill in the northwest. His only comment was that there was nothing to worry about, because only the rats on Highway 17 would be exposed to the PCBS. I do not know why he thinks only rats live in the northwest, but there were more than just rats exposed. As a matter of fact, a young family drove behind that truck for many hundreds of miles and were exposed to very serious problems.

That statement by Mr. Kells epitomized the Conservative attitude towards environmental protection. It was not until they lost their majority and faced the possibility of losing the reins of government that they suddenly were converted to the idea of an environmental cleanup and an environmental fund, which this party was proposing and which that party accepted only because it wanted our support.

The member for Sarnia did say that he thought this fund should be higher than $30 million. In fact, in our view, in order to be able to begin to respond to the serious concerns about landfill sites in this province, there would have to be a fund for Ontario of about $50 million.

The thing I am a little concerned about in this resolution, while I support it, is that it does not say where the money should come from. The member does not make it clear that this money would not come from the taxpayers, as does the current environmental security fund of the Liberal government. A superfund being talked about by this party, and which is now being talked about at the federal level in the election campaign, is patterned after the United States Superfund, which is a fund that is built on taxation on the companies that produce and use hazardous chemicals and hazardous substances.

That is the kind of superfund that we need, not only in Ontario but also across this country. It is the kind of superfund that is being proposed in this election campaign by Ed Broadbent, the federal leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada, and I understand it is being supported by the Liberal Party, I think, federally. It is hard to tell.

The Ontario environmental security fund has been raised to $20 million, as the member for Brampton North indicated, but that is coming from the consolidated revenue fund, the taxpayers. Basically, what that means is that the victims of pollution will have to pay for the cleanup. The people who are having to experience the contamination of ground water are going to have to pay for it rather than the people who are responsible.

It can be said that the reason for the superfund is to deal with problems in landfill sites where you cannot identify the person or the company that is responsible for the hazardous substance being deposited in the landfill site, but that is the reason for taxing the producers and the users of these materials before it happens, so that when you cannot identify the exact culprit, the money from those taxes can then be used to clean up.

That is what is needed in this province and in this country. We need a federal-provincial effort instead of the stalling by the federal Tory party and the Conservative and Liberal governments in the provinces. We need a superfund, as advocated at the federal level by Ed Broadbent, patterned after the United States Superfund. An environmental cleanup fund must be created out of taxes on the producers and users of hazardous and toxic chemicals and substances, as I indicated.

It must also be used to investigate and clean up abandoned toxic waste sites where the liable party cannot be determined or found.

In our view, Canadians right across this country want industrial waste sites cleaned up. They want a government that will take the initiative, where appropriate, to clean up abandoned hazardous wasteful sites; and in our view, we must establish a fund that will apply specific taxes on companies producing toxic substances, roughly $4 to $11 per tonne of chemical produced and between 8 and 11 cents per barrel of oil and gas, as well as a modest environmental surtax on the profits of all businesses, about 0.12 per cent, to raise $200 million across the country. I think that all provinces and the federal government must participate.

The fund would be spent on environmental cleanups and repair of environmental damage and would allow Canadian citizens, both in this province and across the country, to petition for its use towards specific purposes.

We must establish a complete inventory of toxic and hazardous wastes throughout Canada, and particularly in Ontario, and provide enforceable timetables for their safe disposal and destruction.

We must oversee compensation to victims of environmental damage, ensuring that, whenever possible, this is paid by those responsible for injury and damage. It should not be the victims who have to contribute to the cost. I do not agree with the Conservative approach that we should use general taxation to pay for this kind of fund.

I believe that Ontarians, and Canadians in general, have had enough of vacuous resolutions. They have had enough of political promises to clean up the environment. They have had enough of these kinds of debates. They have had enough of disagreements between provincial environment ministers and federal environment ministers. They have had enough of the inaction at the federal level to set national standards.

The people of this province and the people of Canada want action, and they want action based on a rational approach. In my view, even the producers and users of chemicals and hazardous substances are prepared to pay into the kind of fund we are talking about. They have indicated they would. It is in operation in the United States now. Many of these companies operate in both jurisdictions.

It is not time for more resolutions. It is not time for the Liberal government to say we already have a fund that is adequate, because it is not. It is time for us to get together, both provincially and federally, and work together to clean up the environment. It is not time for us to be patting ourselves on the back and saying we are more concerned about the environment than the other guy. The fact is we are all in this together and we all have to sink or swim. While it is fine to say that someone has had a conversion on the road to Damascus, like our friend the member for Sarnia -- thank God he has -- we have to have the rest of the people in this province and in this assembly agree to a cleanup. Enough talk. Let’s have some action.

1040

Mrs. Marland: May I just say at the outset that I feel privileged this morning in our caucus to follow our leader, the member for Sarnia, in his comments.

I am also encouraged to know that we have a new parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, my colleague the member for Brampton North. I welcome him to the position of parliamentary assistant. I know there will be times when he and I will obviously be into very heavy debate. I almost hesitate to start this morning by correcting him right away, but in fairness to him, on a personal basis I am happy he is there because I know he is an individual member of personal integrity in this Legislature. I mean that sincerely.

I hope he learns and fits into the role, recognizing that he now has one year’s experience in this Legislature, which is just a little less than mine; I am not very experienced either. The point is that every single member of this Legislature shares the responsibility in terms of the environment. It is the single most important legacy we talk about in the future not only of this province, but of this world.

I hope we will, as we continue through the next three years with the Liberal government, have more than just policy statements being issued. I do not have to worry after the next four years of this Liberal government, because after that, fortunately, we will be the government and will be able to take action.

There is no doubt that in the past everything has not been perfect. I am not about to stand here this morning and defend everything the former government did, just as in reality no one else would, of any party at any time. It is not a perfect world, we are not perfect people, so we cannot have perfect governments. But what we have to have are governments that have political wills to take actions and steps when needed. When I look at what the Liberal provincial government has done in the past three years, I must say we have had an awful lot of talk, an awful lot of issuance of statements and new policies, but not a lot of action.

I must say that I listened to my colleague the critic for the Environment this morning. I hope he will heed very closely my comments and then speak to his staff who helped him, I am sure, through necessity, to prepare for some of his comments.

First of all, I am glad he mentioned the environmental security fund, because the environmental security fund was in fact announced by Premier Frank Miller in his throne speech in 1985. He said, “After completing a comprehensive review of waste management practices initiated in 1982, my government has decided to establish a $100-million environmental protection fund to clean up waste sites and provide stronger enforcement of our environmental regulations.”

Subsequently, on May 22, 1985, the Ministry of the Environment made a submission to the policies and priorities board proposing that a cleanup fund be established. I say with respect that the Liberal government cannot take credit for the total subject of this fund. In fact, all they have done is follow the initiative of the former government, for which I commend them. I would be grateful, but the results we have seen have not exactly been active, stimulating or exciting.

The other area that I am glad the member for Brampton North mentioned is the fact that we do have to have, as part of the total waste management picture, recycling. Obviously the reason I am very pleased to hear him say that is because I am sure, as he is aware, one week from today in this Legislature we will be debating my private bill which would make it mandatory around the province for every municipality to offer recycling to its residents. I look forward to the support of the Liberal government for my private bill on recycling.

I would also add that when my colleague the member for York East (Ms. Hart), parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, talks about worldwide figures as high as 50 per cent success with recycling, in fact, in Austria it is 65 per cent. So we are looking forward to that kind of tandem solution to waste management and the crisis that is part of this debate this morning.

I hope too that eventually we will end up having a government -- even for the next three years, this interim government for the province of Ontario -- that stops announcing funds charging around the province on a white horse. We have had so much of these kinds of campaigning and throne speeches, frankly, I find it a little dishonest. I find it a little unnerving that we do have this kind of dishonesty in some of the promises and some of the throne speeches.

We had a high-tech fund, for example, that was announced. It was $100 million. About $3 million of that high-tech fund was allocated. It is great to announce millions and millions of dollars to resolve housing problems in the province and then to find that the money is not spent. It is returned to general revenue and it is “recycled” the next year into another throne speech promise or, as in last year, another campaign promise.

I think too that as far as the promise of this minister is concerned, about where he would go if he could establish a superfund similar to the United States, we have got to look at the fact that now the minister is no longer talking about a fund for Ontario. He is in fact talking about a national fund. I think if the minister was really committed to the needs of this province on this particular subject, he would not have backtracked and would not now be looking for a national fund, again deflecting to another level of government. I think when he says that we are pressing for a national superfund to clean up old problem spots as they are discovered, that is very misleading on the part of this minister.

In other words, just as on the Sunday shopping issue, the government continues to deflect, where it has a problem, its responsibility to another jurisdiction. Is it not wonderful to have a government that says, “We’d better look at this nationally.” Sure, it is a problem nationally, but it is also a responsibility and a problem locally in Ontario. I hope what we will see is some very real action behind the words and behind the promises and that, in fact, a fund will exist, as the motion says, that will be a remedial measure to a problem that is linked totally to the subject of waste management in the province.

I wish to leave some time for my colleague.

Mrs. Fawcett: I am pleased to participate in this debate on the need for a provincial superfund and would like to take this opportunity to expand upon the points mentioned by my colleague on the environmental security fund. In particular, I wish to expand upon how much money this fund has spent to correct the historical mistakes that have been left to the government to rectify because of the former government’s inattention to environmental issues.

Currently, there are just under 100 projects being funded by this environmental security fund and some of those projects are extremely expensive. Let us just review how much has been spent to date for some of them. The government of Ontario has spent over $66,000 for the Black Creek cleanup. Close to $2 million has been spent on work related to the Upper Ottawa landfill site in Hamilton. We have spent over $90,000 to date on the Niagara soil replacement program. The government has spent over $700,000 from the security fund to provide an adequate response to the Kenora polychlorinated biphenyls spill. I am sure this spill is an event that all members of this House are familiar with.

1050

The security account has provided close to $8.5 million in funding for the Pottersburg cleanup in the city of London. We have spent over $27,000 to look at ways to improve the Paisley waste disposal site in Tiny township. The security fund has provided over $300,000 toward the alachlor monitoring program to ensure that wells and water supplies are not contaminated.

In response to the leaking landfill site in the township of Sidney, the security fund has spent over $1 million in an effort to remedy that situation by providing immediately alternative drinking water supplies and to build a pipeline for a future water supply.

Members are familiar with the Chippewa Creek coal tar cleanup. That project has required $1.3 million to date and still the cost keeps rising upwards. Talking about large ticket items, the PCB cleanup in Smithville has cost just under $5 million to date and that pricetag also keeps rising. So far, $61,000 has been spent on the cleanup of the Uniroyal site at Elmira. As well, over $17,000 has been spent to clean up the mine tailings in the Kam-Kotia mines.

The coal cleanup in the Ottawa River has cost the security fund over $6 million to date. As well, the Scott Road township ditch study, a study that I am sure the leader of the third party is familiar with, has required over $46,000 to date.

We have spent from the security fund over $1 million under the Deloro program. As well, in an effort to correct the gasoline contamination of the drinking water in the village of Killaloe in Renfrew county, we have spent close to $150,000 to date. Similarly, in order to protect the drinking water supply for the town of Bracebridge, we have spent close to $500,000 under the security fund. Large sums of money under the Environment minister’s direct grant program have also been expended on this project.

Of course, we must not forget how much money was required to provide a pipeline to safe, clean drinking water to the village of Smithville. That cost us just over $3 million. In order to clean up the south Riverdale soil, we have spent to date $4.5 million, and to address the Algoma slag heap in Sault Ste. Marie, we have spent over $70,000. The Windermere basin has cost us over $800,000 to date, and will undoubtedly cost more as the actual cleanup proceeds.

With regard to the recent coal tar investigations under way within this province, the resulting coal tar gasification and cleanup on the 11 high-priority sites is estimated to cost us between $6 million and $11 million per site. Currently, on these investigations, the security account has expended over $300,000 for studies alone.

I could go on and on but I think the members here see my point. Most of the money spent so far under the security account has been to correct the mistakes and legacy of the past. This outlines only the expenditures incurred to date. It does not reflect the total, final cost for many of these needed environmental projects. Clearly, the cost of correcting mistakes after the fact is much more expensive than preventing them in the first place.

I would like to take this moment to address what I believe is a real need for a superfund at the national level. I hope the leader of the third party will encourage his federal cousins to establish such a fund. This government supports the development of a national environmental contingency fund. Preliminary data indicate that the need is clear and the cost to be incurred for the cleanup of the sites will be significant.

To be effective, the superfund must be national in scope. There is need for a consistent national approach and funding mechanism. That mechanism must be based on the polluter-pays principle to ensure a fair assessment ranking and cleanup of contaminated sites in Canada.

Because of the large number of contaminated sites and the estimated high cleanup costs, a consistent and coordinated approach will result in a more cost-effective management of cleanup activities. Certainly, such an approach would be welcomed by the general public.

The response to contaminated sites and the resulting cleanup has not been provided on a systematic basis in many parts of Canada. This is mainly due to the absence of national criteria. The acceptance of common evaluation and classification criteria and procedures for establishing cleanup criteria by all jurisdictions would promote consistency across Canada.

I am sure members recognize that the Ontario Minister of the Environment has been a leader in working towards the establishment of a national superfund.

During the October 1986 meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, referred to as CCREM, it was the Ontario minister who recommended that a task force be established to address the development of an environmental contingency fund. This fund was envisaged to provide a rapid response mechanism where contamination posed a hazard to human health and environment. The fund would also provide long-term liability protection for hazardous waste sites and would be used for required cleanup at decommissioned industrial properties and cleanup of spills.

During the September 1987 CCREM meeting, the federal Environment minister tabled a feasibility study on the superfund. It was not good enough, and due to the urging of our Environment minister it was agreed to have a task force finalize the proposal for the fall 1988 CCREM meeting.

As a result, let me quote from the information release arising from that CCREM meeting: “The ministers reviewed the progress made since their last annual meeting and recognized that progress has been made in classifying contaminated sites across the country.” After much behind-the-scenes work by this Minister of the Environment, it appears that a national superfund proposal is getting closer to reality.” Of course, any assistance that the third party can provide in encouraging the federal government to expedite this proposal is appreciated.

I cannot support the member’s resolution, as Ontario already has its provincial superfund. To use the member’s own words, to be truly effective, a superfund must be national in scope.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sarnia has four minutes for his windup.

Mr. Brandt: Having heard the member for Brampton North in his maiden speech with respect to his new responsibilities as parliamentary assistant, I want to welcome him to his new portfolio and wish him well with his responsibilities, because he is going to have a lot to answer for in the next short while. I say that in light of the fact that time is very quickly running out for this government in terms of using the fabricated sins of the past and sins of omission and commission by previous governments as the only kind of response that it can put forward in dealing with the environment.

The reality is that this resolution before us today is the government’s own resolution. They are voting against it. They are voting against the very thing that the government of this province promised to do on behalf of the people. I want to say to the parliamentary assistant that the reality is that the government has a minister in place who has not approved of one single landfill site in three years in this province, who is allowing the waste from Lester B. Pearson International Airport and from the Halton area to be shipped into the United States.

I simply ask the members opposite to answer this question in their heart of hearts: If New York state were shipping its industrial and/or municipal waste into Ontario, what would their response be?

Mr. Dietsch: That’s not the resolution.

Mr. Brandt: Obviously, it is not. If it was, in fact, shipping its waste here, then members opposite would stand up in righteous indignation and talk about those terrible Americans dumping their waste on this pure province. The fact of the matter is members opposite are shirking their responsibility and they are passing their waste over --

Mr. Dietsch: Point of order.

Mr. Brandt: I have only two minutes. Why does the member not sit down?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. What is your point of order?

Mr. Dietsch: Could you please see that Governor Cuomo gets a copy of the transcript?

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member for Sarnia, please proceed.

1100

Mr. Brandt: That is the kind of unimportant, frivolous, unnecessary interjection that I can expect from the government members when they try to shirk their responsibilities with respect to their own election platform.

The reality is that we have a serious situation in this province dealing with existing landfill sites. Yes, there were problems in the past that had to be addressed; there were difficulties. When you have the most industrialized province in the entire country, then the complexity of the industrial waste you are going to deal with is going to be of a higher, more difficult and more complex order than industrial waste in some of the more agriculturally oriented provinces or some provinces that do not have the industrial development that we enjoy here in Ontario.

We have advanced more quickly than any other province. We were the first province in the entire country to have a Ministry of the Environment. We were the first province in the entire country, quite frankly, to address environmental problems in a serious way; inadequate at the time, I agree, but we had made some very concrete moves towards cleaning up the environment and addressing those problems.

It is now time for this government to take the next logical step and simply do what it promised to do, that is, to start taking remedial action for some 400 sites, seven of which, I might add, the current Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has identified as being of critical importance. The parliamentary assistant knows this. I will be monitoring those seven sites to see what he does about them, because he has a responsibility to act now and not to blame previous governments or previous regimes. It is now his responsibility.

The Liberals are the government of the day, they are the ones who made the promises to take some action on environmental measures. We are waiting to see them do it. I am disappointed that they are voting against their own resolution and their own campaign commitments.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to say that I think in private members’ hour, it is incumbent upon all members of the House not to interrupt other members and use their time.

The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that very much.

INTEGRATED RAIL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Mr. Tatham moved resolution 40:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario and the government of Canada should initiate the studies necessary to develop an integrated rail transportation plan for Ontario. Suc h a plan should embrace a concentrated program to improve the railway system and services with a primary focus of policy and developmental concern being with passenger services, also, the province should give specific attention to regional and local rail services within Ontario with particular attention being given to passenger services in Southwestern Ontario and high speed rail in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor.

Mr. Tatham: The time has come to renew and improve rail passenger service in our province.

Canada is the story of a bold concept that built a railroad. From the very beginning, railways, politics and the development of Canada were inextricably entwined. Canada was like one big gift, full of promise and wrapped in ribbons of steel. When Confederation finally came in 187 1, a railway clause was written into legislation. To many, railways meant profit and progress, and no other single enterprise played a more vital role in Canada’s development than the railways.

I believe railway transportation continues to have a vital role to play in Canada, and in particular, in Ontario. Independence, mobility and freedom are no longer terms to describe today’s commuters. When you spend one and three quarter hours going across Toronto or two and a half hours travelling from Stoney Creek to Queen’s Park -- and we all have personal traffic jam stories -- you are open to ideas and options that would let you leave your car at home. Improved and integrated passenger rail service could well be the best solution to commuting blues.

It is a big step. We all love our cars. The annual average kilometres per automobile in Canada is 20,000 kilometres. By 1985, there was a registered motor vehicle for every driver in Canada; that is some 16 million. Not even Wayne Gretzky could deke his way through the average Canadian rush-hour traffic. He would be just one of 16 million trying to get home, pick up the kids, make it to work on time and all doing the hesitation waltz.

Let’s not hesitate about rail transportation, but let’s be fair to it. Before we say rail passenger service is outdated, too expensive, unreliable, let us take the train. It is called Via Rail. Let us start with a comment by Walter Stewart. Here is an excerpt from Uneasy Lies the Head: The Truth About Canada’s Crown Corporations.

In 1981, the federal government simply lopped off 20 per cent of Via’s passenger traffic by a cabinet order, which was not announced until Parliament had started its summer break and members of Parliament were unable to raise objections. Via, of course, heaved a sigh of relief. The lines lopped were all money losers. Then, when the predictable screams of outrage built to a frenzy, Via was told to restore most of the dropped lines again, but not told how to make them pay. From the first, Via has been trapped, trapped with not enough money either to buy new equipment or keep the old stuff rolling. It did not. It does not even own its own tracks. Instead, it pays the other railroads trackage fees for the right to run its trains on their rails.

There is probably someone in the world who understands exactly how these fees are arrived at. Cynics believe they are drawn out of a hat and no low numbers are put into the hat. Canadian National, a crown, consistently refused to disclose to Via, another crown, what cost data is used as a basis for its charges. “Trust us,” they said. With that, Via had to be content. All we know for sure is that Via pays CN for using its trackage and maintenance much more than Via is able to collect from its customers for train tickets.

In 1985, Via paid a sister crown $350 million and that year collected its all-time high for total passenger revenue, $201 million. CN, a consistent money loser, before Via came along, now makes a profit, thanks to its Canadian rail subsidiary, $105,532,000 in 1985, but Via does not, Via cannot and Via will not. It is an unfair shell game. The loss has gone out from under the CN shell and now nestles under the Via shell, The railway lives on subsidies, which hit a high of $632 million in 1985 and it goes on. The taxpayer is left holding the pea.

How many of this House are driving a 1968 model car? Whoever was to blame, as Walter Stewart pointed out, by the 1970s passenger rail had become a cursing and byword in the mouths of transportation executives. CN and Canadian Pacific Railway were both coining money out of communications, hotels, real estate and even a little something out of freight. Accordingly, the passenger services were allowed to run down. It became clear that the government could either let this process proceed to its natural conclusion; extinction, or step in.

In 1977, it stepped in to create a new crown, Via Rail Canada Inc. Its job was “to manage railway passenger services in Canada.” CN was reconstructed and recapitalized. The railway had started with a long-term debt of $2 billion, which by unceasing effort it had managed to run into $2.2 billion over the 54 years between 1923 and 1977. Interest payment on this debt came to $130 million a year. Then the accountants got to work. They converted $808 million of this into equity and gave the crown a new lease on life. In return, CN agreed to pay the government a minimum of 20 per cent on net earnings annually. As dividends on this equity, in 1985 CN paid Ottawa $23.5 million.

Overnight, CN was kissed into a prince. CN began to follow its written instructions to the Minister of Transport, which read this way: “It is the view of the government that CN should make every attempt to conduct its affairs with a commercial attitude and in a commercial manner.” That being the case, there was no longer any reason whatever why CN should continue as a crown. It ought to have been privatized at once, but nobody mentioned that when Via was in the throes of creation. The new crown took on the old one’s passenger traffic, along with most of CPR’S, although CPR retains some commuter traffic and the trains to run it with. What Via inherited was declining business, a lousy reputation and several rail-yards full of decrepit stock, for which it paid $67 million.

1110

Since then, the corporation has received capital grants in dribs and drabs to buy new equipment, stations and repair yards but never enough to do its job properly. In all, it has received about $1 billion. That is less for the entire system than was sunk into Mirabel and some of the money was not wisely spent.

Between 1981 and 1985, Via Rail paid out $225 million for a fleet of light, rapid, comfortable LRC trains, that turned out to be even more prone to break down and conk out than the 1957 clunkers it had inherited. Via officials kept explaining that the US-made LRCs were just going through the kinds of breaking-in problems to be expected with any new technology. That may have been true, but it was cold comfort for abandoned passengers.

In 1984, the transportation commission noted, “Via possesses two fleets: the largest being old, conventional equipment which is expensive to maintain and is unreliable, and a much smaller new fleet (LRCS) which is also unreliable and expensive to maintain.”

Mr. Wildman: Either way they lose.

Mr. Tatham: You are right.

The passenger cars, the report went on to say, biting its lip, “are functionally obsolete both before and after they receive maintenance.” Via does not have enough equipment, which means that when something breaks down, it takes time to replace it, so schedules become mere guesswork. Even when it has the trains, Via cannot be sure it can run them.

It is at the mercy of track maintenance programs carried out by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways in the summer, the high season, and if a passenger train and freight train are on the same track, it is the passenger train that must pull off and wait for the freight to pass. CN and CPR have their own priorities and quite properly put them first while the passengers wait. There is a good chance they will be parboiled because just as Via’s old steam heat tends to fracture in the winter, its air conditioning tends to pack it in during the summer.

To buy a new set of trains for the Toronto-Montreal corridor, where 52 per cent of Via’s passengers are carried and where it has its only chance to make a real profit, would cost $2 billion. Via is not going to get $2 billion, in part because it is a crown corporation, without friends in the pits where bureaucratic infighting takes place and the money is doled out. Via is the opposite of, say, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. or Ontario Hydro. It is a crown stuck with the disadvantages of distance from government and yet compelled to follow political direction.

All these grim facts may not sound like much of a sales pitch for an integrated rail transportation system, but it is an insight into the current woes facing the system.

In a May 2, 1988, story in the Toronto Globe and Mail, Via President Denis de Belleval said, “Via’s transcontinental cars are 30 to 35 years old and its equipment is, on average, more than 20 years old. We have locomotives running between Montreal and Quebec City that should have been retired 15 years ago.”

Bleak prospects? Not necessarily. There are different options, but one activity that is talking place in some countries in the world is improved rail service.

Let us consider briefly the development of high-speed passenger rail technologies that have taken place in France, Great Britain and Japan. For our purposes, high-speed rail is defined as “systems with maximum design speeds of 125 miles per hour and above.”

In the mid-1960s, the Japanese chose to construct entirely new tracks and equipment, because they had no alternative. The bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka made a profit and repaid capital investment costs.

Great Britain decided in the early 1970s to introduce high-speed service. It chose to employ conventional technology and design trains with maximum speeds of 125 miles per hour, that could share existing track with freight and commuter trains.

As for France, to ease severe congestion on the Paris-Lyons line, the French built a new high-speed track through sparsely populated country between Paris and Lyons, where the line connects with existing track on the outskirts of the two cities.

The basic technology options for high-speed rail service include a combination of equipment, track and propulsion systems. The cheapest capital cost for high-speed service results from diesel-powered conventional equipment on existing track at a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour.

The most expensive option is to use electrically powered high-speed trains on completely new tracks at speeds well in excess of 125 miles per hour.

The construction cost of the French TGV line was reported to be $4 million per mile. The two latest sections of the Japanese Shin Kasen are estimated to have cost about $35 million to $40 million per mile, principally because of the extensive tunnelling and viaducts required in Japan. The upgrading of the northeast corridor in Great Britain has cost between $4.5 million and $5 million, with an additional $2.5 million per mile for electrification.

High-speed passenger rail systems require high ridership to generate enough revenue to cover most or all of operating costs, let alone capital costs. Thus all existing foreign high-speed rail services have been introduced on corridors serving major population centres. High population and high-population densities are probably the most important characteristics of a potential high-speed rail corridor, because they make possible the ridership level and the support for the local transit infrastructure required for successful high-speed service.

The public benefits often cited for high-speed rail service include: first, increased transport system capacity mobility; second, reduced congestion in highway and airport ground traffic and other environmental gains; third, energy efficiency, economic development and employment; fourth, safety.

Other countries have done it. I am sure some of the members in this House have travelled on one of these trains. We can do a better job for our travelling public. One morning this past summer I took the 7:30 Via Rail train from Toronto to Belleville. It was a new rail car. It was on time. I had a smooth ride, courteous service, fruit cup, muffin; all in all, a good trip. Would it not be a real plus for the travelling public if we could have quality, on-time, frequent and fast rail service in Ontario?

I think the press reports, letters to the editor and editorials all suggest that our passenger rail service in Ontario should be improved. Any person who is in business, if he wants to stay in business, has to make a profit or close the door. What should we do? When the traffic is moving we are happy, but when we are sitting in a stop-start, slow situation, we all begin to think there must be a better way. The Toronto Transit Commission and the GO Transit system are under duress now to service the Toronto-area commuters, yet commuting distances are increasing as Toronto housing prices increase. People are commuting twice daily from Hamilton to downtown Toronto jobs and from other places in the province.

The GO Transit system works. According to a recent article in the Passenger Train Journal, April 1988, “Obviously, no matter what happens in other parts of Canada, Toronto’s commuter rail operations will remain the envy of many other North American cities.” GO Transit gives sensible, reliable service and its ridership is up.

I have been told that 60 per cent of the people in downtown Toronto arrive by subway and bus, and another 10 per cent by GO train. What kind of development would you have in Metro Toronto without the subway and without GO Transit?

But look beyond today. What are the options for tomorrow? What about going from Windsor to Toronto? What about going from Ottawa to Toronto? You can drive, you can fly, you can take the bus and you should be able to take the train. In a speech given to Transport 2000, Denis de Belleval, president and chief executive officer of Via Rail Canada, said, “We are currently studying all our services and we are analysing each and every option to enable us to present the Canadian government with a vision of rail passengers in Canada for the year 2000.”

I have a confirming letter from Via Rail corporate planning, dated August 16, 1988, stating that “right now, market research is being carried out to survey the needs and preferences of the travelling public and to provide the basics for developing demand forecast for all of the possible roles, etc.” While I applaud its activity, if there is going to be another spike driven into passenger rail service, I want all of us to think long and hard about it.

We have a fundamental and crucial choice facing us, either drive a positive, forward-looking spike for the proper development of the rail passenger system, or by our neglect, disinterest and single-minded focus on the automobile, allow fiscal and policy constraints to drive a stake in the heart of our rail passenger system.

It represented a significant portion of our past. It could play a significant role in our future. Rail passenger service is still a bold concept that can help build a country and a province. The present Via Rail system seems to be a Sisyphean system. Our citizens deserve better. We must do better. I welcome you all aboard for this resolution.

1120

Ms. Bryden: This resolution calls for nothing but studies by the provincial and federal government to develop an integrated rail transportation plan for Ontario with a primary focus on passenger rail service. I think everyone in this House will support such a motherhood resolution. More emphasis on passenger rail services has been part of New Democratic Party policy at both the federal and provincial levels for many years, but I think the mover and the others in the Liberal Party who may vote for this resolution today have a mammoth job on their hands to change the present commitment of the Liberal government, which is to passenger automobile services.

We do not need studies; we need a change of focus by the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the government. If you examine the government telephone book, for the Ministry of Transportation you will find that rail transport has no listing in the selective table of contents for the ministry, and the “rail office,” which appears on page 485, has seven people listed in it. Only one of these people is a transportation analyst. There are three research engineers listed on page 484 under “rail technology,” but it is not specific whether they work for the rail office or for whom they work. The KWIC Index to Services, on page 506, says, “The rail office develops provincial policy on rail matters, and maintains close contact with railway companies, shippers and regulatory authorities.”

This government has not built a railway since the turn of the century and its main role seems to have been to rubber-stamp federal rail closedowns, such as the Cataract to Elora line last March. It is true that building railways is a federal responsibility, but certainly promoting a focus on passenger rail transport is a responsibility of this government. The amount of attention it gets in the phone book and the KWIC Index indicates the government has no commitment to developing greater use of passenger rail services.

I also ask the mover and his colleagues to look at the makeup of the Ministry of Transportation. All the major branches beaded by an assistant deputy minister are concerned with road building, road safety, road traffic control, interurban and urban bus service and financial aid to municipal road and public transit services.

I will say that the previous government of Progressive Conservatives built more public transit than the present government has built since it came in three years ago. The phone book indicates that the overall commitment of the ministry is to the automobile and to automobile transport. For example, the ministry appears to be supporting the Leslie Street extension and Bayview Avenue widening, which simply funnel more auto traffic into the downtown of Toronto. The minister is apparently subsidizing these extensions under his cost-sharing formula for assisting arterial transportation initiatives by municipalities.

His latest commitment to improving transportation is to spend millions on electronic controls along Highway 401 and the Queen Elizabeth Way to speed up the entrance and exit from these expressways. His policy paper issued early in the year is mainly on how to close the gaps in Metro Toronto’s road transportation networks, but it drops the Sheppard Avenue subway. I think the member has a major job on his hands to change the focus of government. I think this resolution will not have very much effect on that unless he does it within his own caucus and within his own making of party policy.

One of my constituents, Ross Snetsinger, has been writing articles and letters to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Transportation on the importance of maintaining and extending rail transport in this province. He points out that it is the least polluting and most energy-efficient form of transportation and can even be made pollution-free if the proper equipment is used. He warns that our present focus on auto traffic has had a serious impact on the ozone layer. I commend his proposals to the mover and the government and urge them to study Mr. Snetsinger’s articles.

I also suggest that they look at his proposal for a provincial railway branch line futures agency. He points out that there are 26 rail lines in this province that will be closed down or become tourist attractions only if such an agency is not set up. He puts it in the context of province-wide initiatives needed both here and at the federal level to save our environment from the growing greenhouse effect of the present automobile-oriented society.

I also urge the mover and the members here to look at the real causes of our ecological crisis resulting from transportation. They relate back to the overdevelopment of our agricultural and other land in the Golden Horseshoe area and the condoning of municipal zoning which allows huge lots, urban sprawl, and does not encourage the intensification of housing close to our city centres. This is where the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have to get into the act if we are to save our ecology and get pollution-free transportation.

The motion before us will not do that. It is simply another call for another study that will take up a lot of time, instead of changing the focus of the ministry to one that will emphasize that we have to get more people out of their cars and more into both passenger rail and public transit of all kinds than is being done by the present government. They may say that GO Transit is getting people out of their cars. It is, to the extent that there are enough lots where people can park their cars before they use GO transit. But we have to remember that GO Transit is subsidizing a lot of commuters who have bought these huge-lot houses or who are being forced by the cost of houses in the city to move great distances.

It would be much better to go in for more housing intensification within the cities and the Metro area and not have to subsidize GO Transit to that extent. It is using federal railway lines but they are not being preserved. They may be closed down. That is why we cannot rely very much on the extension of GO Transit through rail service. We have to see that GO Transit is not used by developers as a means for selling houses far beyond the area of Toronto, when there could be much more intensification of housing within the Metropolitan Toronto area.

1130

Mr. Cureatz: It gives me nothing but great pleasure to stand in my place representing all those fine people of Durham East, as I have had the honour to do for a number of years now, and speak to the honourable member’s resolution. I want to say unequivocally that I am nothing but totally in favour of his proposal.

I can only say that nothing more would be expected of me than supporting one of my former seatmates, albeit he was way over here on the Liberal rump. But let it be a precedent to all members in some future time to support a former seatmate when he has an interest in a proposal, whether members particularly like it or not or, for that matter, whether it is of their same persuasion or not.

The resolution is an all-encompassing idea that has been discussed for a number of years. I can remember back to my old days as a backbench government member. I will not go into that speech this morning, though. I was way back, actually right about where Baloney is, when Margaret Scrivener had been given this big responsibility of doing an in-depth study on rail transportation in southern Ontario. She ran around for about six months and suddenly after six months stood up with this big announcement, a lovely, big stack of books about how the rail system should be improved.

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: Oh, has the member got it? Is that the one? I thought it was in green. It was in black and red, was it?

That was the end of it. I have to admit we were the government. The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) was giving us the devil in the previous resolution. I was not so happy about the manner in which some of the things were going, but I remind the member for Algoma that those guys are the enemy now. We are in third place. How much more does he want? Does he want us to be wiped off the map? He just cannot stop sticking in the knife, can he?

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: All the Liberals are having fun? Does the member want to talk about the federal Liberals? Does he want to put that on the plate this morning?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Cureatz: Well, let’s talk about trains. I have had the opportunity of having some experience with rapid transportation, namely, the GO rail system. I can only suggest to the honourable member that maybe we should be concentrating on some practical aspects before we get into the overall concept of southern Ontario, which is indeed noble. On a specific basis, I can tell members that we have some problems right now with rapid transit systems.

Of course, when we were the government, Jim Snow was the perennial Minister of Transportation and Communications. I have to congratulate Bill Davis and those cabinet members who tried to expand the GO rail system, and in fact did. Its success, I think, has proved that indeed people are waiting and willing to use a mass transportation system to get into downtown Toronto.

More particularly, of course, I have a working familiarity with east of Toronto, towards the Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa, Bowmanville and Newcastle communities, because there has been great talk for a long time of extending the GO rail system to the east of Oshawa, to the riding of my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), near the Holiday Inn, Highway 401 and Harmony Road.

The interesting thing was that when Bill Davis was around he was pushing this advanced light rail transit system -- I think that was what it was called -- these little trains that go around in circles. They have one out in Scarborough. When I was down in Windsor with the Sunday shopping committee -- I will save that speech for another time -- I could see the little train going around across the river in Detroit.

He came up with this idea that he would have this little train starting from Oshawa. You would ride to Pickering, get off the train, jump on the GO train, ride from Pickering to Toronto, get off that and walk to work or take the subway. He and his cabinet colleagues were not familiar with commuting. They were too used to having chauffeur-driven limousines. If they had had any idea about commuting, they would have appreciated that it would be a very hard system for people who wanted to use a mass transportation system. You get on the train and suddenly you have to get off the train and get on another train. You get on that train and you have to get off.

In any event, after he left and that ALRT system was set aside, George McCague was Minister of Transportation and Communications. He did the sensible thing and announced that it would be a full GO rail system from Pickering out to the Oshawa area, but the first stage would be to Whitby at the Brock-401 interchange.

That, strangely enough, has had some slow molasses put to it. I suspect it is only because of the Liberal administration. For the two years of minority government, they dragged their feet. They were trying to make as much hay as possible.

Mr. Callahan: That’s a mixed metaphor.

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: That is right. And do you know what happened? They were hoping they would get a member or two elected out that way so that they could say, “Elect a Liberal member and you will get the GO train system.” If I recall, during the election there was a great fanfare. The member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) was there, laughing behind the Premier. The member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong) was there. There was a big announcement, “The Premier is finally bringing the GO train,” notwithstanding the fact it was on the books for four or five years. He was just making another announcement.

I have to say I suppose it proved to have some success, because we got two Liberal members from out that way taking the credit for the GO rail system, but I tell them it is hurting them now, because it should have been running a long time ago and they have just been playing around with it. Let me tell them -- I will be letting the press know out our way -- that it is not going to work too successfully yet.

It is good that it is finally coming out to Whitby, I say to the member for Durham West -- she can pass it on to the member for Durham Centre -- but do you know what? I stopped the other day, because I plan on using it, and I asked one of the workers there who was fixing up one of the handrails on the steps. I said, “How many parking spots in here?” He said, “A thousand.” Do you know what? A thousand is not going to be enough.

At Pickering, it is already glutted. I went there once to try to park. If from Pickering they move to an industrial site, the industrial site is about a half-hour walk to the GO train station at Pickering and it is glutted, so they are hoping, and I am waiting to see, if the opening of the other two or three stations east of Pickering is going to alleviate the parking.

I suggest that it is not going to and that they have underestimated the value of this resolution, and that is for the use of a commuter rail system, and people are attuned to it. For those members who are driving in those kinds of hours, the traffic from east of Toronto along Highway 401 from Oshawa and Bowmanville into Toronto is horrendous now, and people will be using a rail system, something that the resolution purports.

Of course, I am mildly amused -- if you want to see some fancy footwork here, Madam Speaker, in the two and a half minutes left -- it says, “a concentrated program to improve the rail system and services,” We can expand a little more on that, because we do not have to talk about commuter services; we can talk about the transportation of other items.

Someone said to me yesterday, “Sam, are you up for another garbage speech?” I said, “You’re darn right I’m up for another garbage speech.” Let them just keep talking about Sam and the garbage speeches, because I want to say to the member that we could be thinking about how this Liberal administration is not handling the garbage crisis. They could be working garbage trucks into this resolution on saving the commuter system and looking at an overall policy of putting garbage on a rail system and commuting the garbage to the appropriate place, which has yet to be found as we have heard time and time again.

As recently as yesterday -- here it is in the Toronto Sun I think it is -- more talk about the crisis in the garbage situation, in that Durham region has said no to Metro Toronto, “Metro, you’re supposed to be looking after your own garbage.”

I am a little suspicious. Elie Martel used to say, “I’m not from Missouri.” I knew he was not; he was from Sudbury. So I am going to say I am not from Missouri.

The point is I think there are some politics going on at the region. Maybe the chairman of the region, hoping to get re-elected, will look strong and emphasize the fact he is fighting for Durham; therefore, put him back in as the chairman. The great Liberal that he is, he ran the campaign for the Liberal candidate against me, I might add.

Notwithstanding that, we still have the garbage crisis out our way and the Liberal administration is not doing anything about it. I was talking the other day about a plan, an overall concept, and do you know what? We could be working in a rail system in terms of getting at all of these tragedies in the various regions around southwestern Ontario organized to handle the garbage situation that is taking place, following the resolution about getting action and coordination.

But do you know what? We do not hear a thing about it, not one iota. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), time and time again, has said here --

Mr. D. R. Cooke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I draw your attention to rule 19(d)2 of the standing orders and would suggest that the member stay in line with the terms of the resolution.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member tried at all times to bring all his comments back to the resolution, in the best possible manner he could. His time has now expired and I believe he has had the opportunity to express himself fully.

Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate with respect to the resolution? The member for Kingston and The Islands.

1140

Mr. Keyes: It is a great pleasure me for me to stand in this House and support the resolution of the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham). I do so for a number of reasons. The first is to acknowledge the great thoroughness and the depth in which he does his research in preparation for resolutions, and also, particularly, his usual relationship with some form of humour in it.

I had the privilege of getting a copy of his original notes for this, and I was disappointed to see that the one line he did not put into it, in order to bring back the relativity of his humour and the rest of it, was his closing line, “Had it been available way back then, I’ll bet that Sam McGee from Tennessee would have chosen a Via Rail high-speed rail train instead of a dog team to get to the marge of Lake Lebarge.”

I certainly also want to give my wholehearted support for the role that Via Rail does play in moving substantial numbers of customers, approximately six million passengers per year, back and forth across this great country.

The third reason is my appreciation for the problems that have confronted Via since its formation as a crown corporation in 1977 and the steps that have been taken over the years to alleviate the majority of those problems. This appreciation on my part was heightened during the four years that I served on Via Rail’s advisory council, which acted as a liaison committee between Via and the consumers of the province and was a forerunner of the numerous community liaison committees now in existence.

I also had an appreciation for what an efficient, on-time, high-speed rail service can provide in other countries -- Japan, France and Britain -- because during my term at the National Defence College in 1980 and 1981, I had an opportunity to ride the Silver Bullet from Kyoto to Tokyo, the French Paris-to-Lyons line and also the lines that operated out of the British system from London. More important is my own utilization on a very frequent basis, since becoming a member of this House in 1985, of the system that is currently in existence, using it to come up here every Sunday evening and then on Thursday, like tonight, being able to climb aboard at 4:40 p.m. or 5:55 p.m. and arrive in Kingston two hours and 10 minutes later, refreshed, nourished and ready for constituency activities.

I support a resolution that has the thrust of providing better service to areas of the province where ridership can be increased and where improved service would enhance the opportunities of commuting between major population centres while at the same time reducing the demand on our highways and, consequently, reducing the pollution created by the internal combustion engine.

I believe it would be beneficial, however, to spend a few moments this morning on certain of the positive aspects of Via’s operation; namely, the ridership statistics, the improved service to the riders, the equipment upgrading and other issues of interest to this House.

A glance at Via’s annual report of 1987, which I hope everyone has perused -- members have this in their offices -- will show that for the last five-year period ridership has remained fairly constant at approximately six million riders per year, reaching a high in 1985 of seven million people. Despite an unexpected event in 1987 -- namely, a strike between Canadian National and Canadian Pacific -- that had no financial impact on the net revenue for Via Rail. While a loss in revenue of about $6.3 million was occasioned, this was offset by equal savings in operating expenditures.

The year 1988 has been a very strong one for Via, with the overall passenger volume up approximately 10 per cent from last year, as reported in the annual report. In our eastern corridor, from Toronto to Quebec, the passenger volume has risen by almost 18 per cent. In southwestern Ontario, it has increased by five per cent. I know this is a figure that the honourable members in support of the resolution would like to see increased in the future. Overall, Via expects the growth to continue, but perhaps at a somewhat lower rate, in 1989.

Just out of interest, Kingston now happens to be the third-busiest rail station on the entire Via Rail line.

Via has undertaken a number of steps in the past year to improve customer service. A customer service department was created in the fall of 1987. This now groups together the vast majority of the employees dealing directly with the public. A better Via first-class service in our Quebec-Windsor corridor was started in 1997, which features special check-in and boarding privileges, complimentary beverages, full-course meals and complimentary newspapers and magazines and, if you have used it recently, a brand-new Via Rail lounge in Union Station here in Toronto. As well, all the coach passengers on trains in the Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto triangle now receive a complimentary snack and nonalcoholic beverage; very much like you see on the planes criss-crossing this continent. Eventually, all of Via’s network will receive the same type of benefit.

One of the other great improvements is that Via has signed a contract with Cantel Inc. to install cellular phones in all of the light, rapid, comfortable train systems. This, again, is in the Montreal-Windsor corridor. The three-year contract was signed after a trial period of several months and installations began in November. Now you may use them with a credit card anywhere in the corridor at the regular cost you enjoy with your cellular phone within your own automobile.

We have also expanded Via Rail services this year by new weekend frequencies on the routes between Toronto and Ottawa and also between Montreal and Ottawa, providing the opportunity for persons working in those cities to move back at night-time.

One of the greatest areas of need, of course, was in the field of equipment. As members know, in 1987 $361 million was approved for capital improvements. This has enabled Via to purchase new equipment, refurbish the existing stock and expand its maintenance network. Thirty new high-powered locomotives were delivered in 1987; another 29 will be delivered by the end of this year.

Also, they are modernizing 190 cars used in the transcontinental services. A $90-million contract was awarded last September to modernize 155 stainless steel cars. Likewise, a further $30 million should be awarded shortly for some 35 additional cars.

My one great concern was the fact that when this Ontario government sold the Urban Transportation Development Corp. to Lavalin Inc., it had been anticipated that the majority of that renovation-refurbishing would have been done in the Kingston works of UTDC. Unfortunately, it was not the low bidder when final decisions were made and that was done elsewhere by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific yards.

We did know that the maintenance factors have been improved upon because there is now a new maintenance facility in Toronto that was opened in 1985. Also, the $100-million first phase of a Montreal maintenance centre opened in 1987, which will be completed this year for an additional $30 million-plus. Three other smaller centres are being constructed in Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver.

These are just some of the initiatives which have been undertaken by Via in order to provide an improved service. The whole aspect of running Via trains on CN and CP lines has always been a difficult one. The transfer of stations to Via likewise has almost been completed, but they have coped well in dealing with the problems that have been placed before them.

In supporting the honourable member’s call for renewed and improved service in this province, I want to draw to the attention of the House the decision and commitment of the federal cabinet in 1987 that Via Rail would have a thorough review of its operations in 1988 and 1989. In addition to their capital funding of some $36 million, this review should provide us an opportunity to see how, once again, Via Rail services can be improved.

I trust that this government, through its appropriate ministry and any of the other available channels open to it, such as Transport 2000, such as the honourable member himself perhaps in making representation, will make known to this federal review the sincere interest of the citizens in this province in utilizing an efficient, rapid, on-time rail service.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sault Ste. Marie, for up to eight minutes.

1150

Mr. Morin-Strom: I will probably not go for that long, so we can get on at least another speaker.

I would like to endorse this resolution. The resolution does address an area of transportation which we do not talk a lot about in this House, and that is rail transportation. We have a very strong focus in terms of highway transportation, we sometimes get into some of the issues having to do with air transportation but we do not spend much time looking at what rail transportation services should be provided by Ontario.

Perhaps historically that has happened because the federal government has, over the years, taken primary responsibility for the overall transportation network in the country. Certainly, we have seen the very serious deterioration of that network. In most recent years, the deregulation of transportation services has resulted in serious cutbacks in services and numbers of lines. Today, we see numbers of rail lines, potentially some 26 existing rail lines in Ontario threatened by deregulation and the right that is providing to the major rail companies to close down lines with a much easier process than they could previously.

The Ontario government has a very important role to play in terms of our overall transportation network. Certainly, they should be looking at the example of what other countries have done in terms of providing adequate networks, particularly in major urban areas such as the Metro Toronto area and the other heavily travelled routes around southern Ontario.

If one looks at what has happened in Europe and Japan, they use rail transport, including very rapid transport, high-speed rail lines, extremely effectively to provide a major portion of the transport of citizens not only from community to community but on a daily basis in terms of commuting to work.

The development of the Golden Horseshoe area has put serious constraints on our highways. They are congested, we have serious pollution problems and we face major expenditures if we are going to get the highways up to the capability of the demand that is on them today. One of the ways we could relieve that demand quite considerably is to put a new focus on the possibilities of the rail transport system down in this area of the province.

I believe this is an issue the Ministry of Transportation has not looked at seriously in the past. I would hope that as a result of this resolution we would see a serious focusing and some staffing put into that area. As a result of the studies proposed here, hopefully, we can come forward with some concrete new investment in terms of rail transport lines that will serve citizens right across our province.

In northern Ontario, we have seen phasing out of rail lines over the past several decades. In fact, in my community, Sault Ste. Marie, we no longer even have a passenger rail service connecting with the other major communities. We have only the small Algoma Central Railway line, which is primarily a tourist operation; we no longer have the rail passenger service along the CPR line from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury.

Many other communities are going to face that same problem if Ontario does not step in and see that the service is provided in areas where the federal government has obviously abandoned its rights and responsibilities to provide citizens with that alternative mode of transportation, a mode of transportation that still is very successfully and very efficiently used in countries around the world.

I know that a country like Switzerland today has an extremely efficient system covering all the communities in the country, a system which is clean because it is 100 per cent electrified. There are none of the pollution problems associated with our highway systems and perhaps some of the problems which may have been associated with rail in the distant past.

I would suggest that this resolution could have been a stronger one in terms of demanding specific action from the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario, but it is a start in the right direction. I would hope that, with the passage of this resolution, the Ministry of Transportation will get on with the job of providing adequate, efficient services for the people of our province so that they do have the kind of world-class transportation system in the rail area that they deserve.

I think I will terminate at that point and let one of my colleagues have another chance.

Mrs. Marland: I would like to congratulate the member for Oxford and suggest to him that the intent of his motion is forthright, it is sincere and, if it should be supported by his own government in real terms, it will have far-reaching benefits to the people of this province.

I also have to make just one comment in response to the member for Kingston and The Islands when he referred to the sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. Obviously, I am sure he realizes that was the first big mistake his government made since coming to office, but that is history and, unfortunately, it was a big loss to our province.

I hope that as part of the studies to implement this motion the province and the federal government will look very closely at what goes on in Europe. They have a tremendously sophisticated electrified rail system and the alternatives for transportation in Europe simply are not needed, because they have a working, reliable system. I only wish this Liberal government in Ontario would plan very soon to electrify our GO Transit lines that exist, particularly the Lakeshore line, which comes out through my riding. That is not a parochial comment, since the Lakeshore line goes through about six ridings to the west of Toronto and, of course, those ridings out to the east to Whitby.

The fact is that the Queen Elizabeth Way, with its thousands of cars and increasing monthly, is not an alternative for people who have to commute. Because there is no available land to widen the Queen Elizabeth Way, we are going to have to look at increasing the number of rail stations on the Lakeshore line, and the only way that can be done, I am told by the chairman of GO Transit, is to electrify the line.

We hope this is the beginning of very good things.

Mr. Tatham: I believe it is the second verse of Auld Lang Syne where Robbie Burns says, “And here’s a hand my trusty fiere, and gie’s a hand o’ thine; and we’ll tak a right guid willie-waught, for auld lang syne,” which means, here’s a hand; thank you very much for your support from Beaches-Woodbine, Durham East, Kingston and The Islands, Sault Ste. Marie and Mississauga South.

An hon. member: Robbie Burns knew them.

Mr. Tatham: Robbie Burns knew them.

Looking to the 21st century, we who live in the Great Lakes basin can expect continuing growth. We must ensure that we take the necessary actions now to help prepare the proper infrastructure.

I thank members for their kind support.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the business for this morning, except to put the question.

1205

WASTE DISPOSAL

The House divided on Mr. Brandt’s resolution 43, which was negatived on the following vote.

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Cureatz, Eves, Farnan, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Marland, Martel, McLean, Morin-Strom, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Daigeler, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Keyes, Kozyra, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, Miller, Offer, Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Stoner, Tatham, Velshi.

Ayes 22; nays 32.

INTEGRATED RAIL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tatham has moved resolution 40. If there are any members opposed to a vote on resolution 40, will they please rise. Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:09 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: This is an arrogant Liberal government. Yesterday, I introduced a private member’s bill that would have required members to sit on Sundays for six to eight weeks. We witnessed the government killing the bill on first reading. This is even more radical than the closure of debate. It attacks the fundamental cornerstone of democracy. It stifles and kills debate. Not only do the Liberals not listen to the people of Ontario when they express overwhelming support for a common pause day; they crush debate on a proposal that was expressed by several delegations in the course of our hearings.

We witnessed yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) refusing to answer substantive questions from the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) on the issue of Sunday shopping by hiding behind flippancy and cheap male chauvinistic remarks. We witnessed yesterday from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), who has consistently refused public hearings on Bill 162, that the government apparently accedes only after a disturbance of injured workers provoked by frustration.

This is truly an insensitive and arrogant government. The people of Ontario were certainly fooled in the campaign of 1987 when Mr. Peterson campaigned on an open and accessible government -- the image of David Peterson with sleeves rolled up, tie undone, very approachable. By their actions, you will know them. This action and this government are insensitive and arrogant.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to make very clear that the government members voted against the introduction of first reading of the honourable member’s bill precisely because his own colleagues voted against the introduction on a voice vote here yesterday afternoon. In doing so, we simply agreed with his own colleagues. Let it be very clear what we did and why we did it.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have a different point of order that I would like you to listen to, as you did the government House leader’s today and yesterday. The point of order simply is that we wanted members opposite on record on the Sunday shopping issue. That is why we forced a vote yesterday. We saw where they stand, and they stand the way they have stood for quite a while now: To hell with the public; they do what they want to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind members that they have used up most of the time for members’ statements.

I would like to remind the first member who made a statement that when you refer to members in this House, you refer to them by their riding or ministry.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You made the comment about members’ statements time, and I ask for unanimous consent to restore the members’ statements time. What caused the problem with the statement time was a clear, knowingly out-of-order, very provocative interjection to use up time that is for the backbenchers.

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: Do you notice all the cabinet ministers speaking? That time is not just for noncabinet members. It is for all the backbenchers of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I certainly heard the request, and any member has the right to make a request. I will ask the House how it wishes to handle it.

Agreed to.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mrs. Cunningham: My statement is directed to the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward). I was pleased to hear that the minister has finally made the long-overdue announcement that a site has been approved for a new separate high school in London. However, a site without a school is as good as a classroom of students without a teacher.

In the minister’s press release, he stated that the capital needed to build the new school will be considered when the board submits its 1989 capital expenditure forecast. That is too late.

The minister has known for almost two years now that London has desperately needed a new separate secondary school. He has not yet made a firm commitment to provide the necessary capital funding.

As a result, construction of the school cannot start until the fall of 1990 at the earliest. Students will not be able to use the new facility until 1991, meaning a whole generation of students will experience high school from the inside of portables. In fact, the situation is so critical in London that the separate school board has again been forced to ask to use Oakridge Secondary School for at least two years.

Today’s headline in the London Free Press reads: “Catholic Board Wants Loan of Oakridge Space.” Given the uncertainty facing both the public and separate school boards, there is still great potential for the kind of divisiveness that occurred in Hamilton. This piecemeal approach to planning is indicative of this government’s insensitivity to the needs of students in London and across this province.

FIRE PREVENTION

Mrs. Fawcett: On Tuesday, October 11, I had the pleasure of attending an awards ceremony in the town of Cobourg with my colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). This was the first fire prevention award given under the new provincial fire prevention program. This award was initiated with the intention of significantly reducing Ontario’s fire injuries, deaths and property losses. One aspect of the program is the presentation of a number of fire prevention awards.

In 1987, our area received nine of a possible 16 awards in the James L. Arnott Fire Prevention Foundation contest held right across Canada. Winners from our area were Steve Higgins and Mark Bignell of Brookside school, Sarah Macklin of Dale Road public school, Doug Glen of St. Joseph’s, Bonnie Carman of Grant Sine school, David Giddings of Grafton public school, Jason Benne of Baltimore public school, Christina Nemec of St. Mary’s school, Grafton, and Tammy Caine of Camborne public school.

The Cobourg, Hamilton and Haldimand fire prevention committee has been instrumental in educating not only the youth of our area but the entire community on the merits of fire prevention. It has indeed been a splendid example of community involvement and we consider it a model organization that has served our community well. Members of the committee who deserve special recognition are: fire department chiefs Harry Greer of Cobourg, Howard Ferguson of Baltimore, Jack Lingard of Bewdley and Wayne Young of Harwood; chairman of the committee Ross Quigley; and municipal officials --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: Year after year, members of the Legislature examine the annual report of the Workers’ Compensation Board. Year after year, there are public hearings on the compensation system. There are demonstrations. Our constituency offices are plugged solid with problems. Employers are unhappy with our compensation system, the trade union movement is unhappy with our compensation system, injured workers are unhappy and occasionally feel the need to express that unhappiness, and the board itself has an unfunded liability of $6 billion and it is still growing.

All in all, we have a system of compensation in this province that is not serving the people it is supposed to serve. Some people shrug their shoulders and say: “Well, there’s nothing you can do about that. You can’t have a system that works.”

We on this side say that is absolute and total nonsense. There is a solution that would work, and that is a comprehensive accident compensation system based on the model presently in place in New Zealand. Under that system, wage earners are compensated by employer contributions whether they are injured at work or at home. Injuries caused by car accidents are compensated by the car drivers, and a supplementary fund from general revenues covers all other types of accident. It is time we had that kind of system in Ontario.

1340

MISS OTTAWA ROUGH RIDER

Mr. Sterling: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of an upcoming event which is causing quite a stir in Ottawa these days, namely, the Miss Ottawa Rough Rider contest. The excitement over this contest is not for reasons you might expect but is due, rather, to a certain 72-year-old sensation known as Pearl Fleming, one of the five finalists vying for the title tonight.

The Ottawa Grey Cup committee recently decided it was time for a change in the regulations. While the minimum age is 18 years, there is no longer any upper age limit for contestants. The contest criteria now call for a good knowledge of the Canadian Football League, an ability to speak publicly and a demonstrated support of the team. As a 40-season ticketholder, Mrs. Fleming is certainly eligible.

This regulatory change has been supported by the Grey Cup committee and the option now exists for any CFL city to adopt the same measures. Such an initiative will prove beneficial not only to the team but to the league, fans and, in particular, women.

I would like to extend my best wishes and the wishes of this assembly to all finalists in the Miss Ottawa Rough Rider contest this evening.

ERINOAK

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to share with this House some information about a wonderful facility in my riding, known as Erinoak. Erinoak was formerly called the Credit Valley Treatment Centre for Children. They changed the name to avoid conflict with the Credit Valley Hospital fund-raising program and to better reflect the two communities they serve.

This facility recently celebrated its 10th anniversary in our community in providing rehabilitation-based services to infants, children and young adults living in Peel and Halton who have physical disabilities. They address the real-world needs of these people by providing diagnosis, therapy, specialized equipment, medical clinics, recreation and counselling services within their own community. They also offer programs on an outpatient basis in the clients’ homes, schools and through our satellite centre in Brampton.

This is truly a co-operative effort operating under the provisions of the Ministry of Health with assistance from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The community financial support enables Erinoak to continue to provide programs and equipment not covered by government grants. The list of community donors is too long to read in a 90-second statement, but includes service clubs from all over Peel and Halton, corporate donors that contribute annually, community donors and memorial donations as well as individual donors. There are also nonmonetary donors who provide volunteer work at the site on a regular basis.

Under the leadership of Diana Thompson and the dedicated staff, they continue to operate a very needed service to our community.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr. Hampton: Too often in Ontario’s recent past, our environment has been ravaged as a result of decisions made in the United States or activities carried on in the United States. Names like Love Canal or the major source of our acid rain constantly remind us of this problem.

Recently, in northern Minnesota a proposal has surfaced which the Ontario Ministry of the Environment must take careful note of. The state of Minnesota proposes to establish a hazardous waste site near International Falls, which is a border community. Never mind that 11 of 13 counties in northern Minnesota have said no to the waste site and never mind that 75 per cent of the people who live near International Falls have said no.

The waste facility will initially store the hazardous waste heavy metals lead, cadmium and chromium. Perhaps the storage site will be 100 per cent safe, but perhaps it will leak. The danger is that all the water drains into Ontario. The second danger is that so far neither Environment Canada nor the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has had significant input or asked significant questions about the situation. This would be an easy situation for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to duck. We could always say it is a federal problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Hampton: But what happens when the pollution starts to come home? We need some action from Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

USE OF TIME IN ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you could make a ruling, perhaps not as you sit here now but for the future. I wonder if you could tell us whether or not it is appropriate, when members make their statements at the beginning of the proceedings, for other members to rise in disagreement with what a member has to say in the opening statements.

An hon. member: And take his time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe it is the duty of the chair to uphold the standing order set out by this House. This House has decided that there shall be 10 minutes for members’ statements, and that is certainly what I was trying to uphold.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have been looking for an opportunity to raise this other point of order for some time now. As you reflect upon the orders, would you take under consideration the concern that many of us on this side of the aisle have about the growing penchant of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) particularly to not put his questions without an endless series of editorial comments after.

The concern I have is that when the Leader of the Opposition puts his first question, he can do whatever he wishes; but what I am very concerned about is that when you call him to order and ask him to put his second question, Mr. Speaker, he takes upwards of 30 seconds with what is often an uncontrolled editorial postscript. That, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, when you are looking at this matter that the government House leader has decided to raise, you might want to take a look at some of the particular cabinet ministers, such as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who abuse the question period regularly. It is obvious to me today that the government House Leader and the government are very grumpy because they screwed up so badly yesterday on Bill 162.

Mr. Speaker: It has been a most interesting discussion.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If the members wish to waste the time of the House, that is up to them.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTHY LIFESTYLES PROMOTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In contemporary society, many of the diseases we are treating, such as cancer, heart and lung disease and cirrhosis, we know have a strong environmental and lifestyle connection. That means we must be able to provide people with the options, the alternatives and the information that make good personal health choices both practical and possible.

Today we understand more clearly the direct relationship between our own health and the choices and decisions we make. We understand that health is not just the absence of disease but a positive resource for living, and, as individuals, we must take greater responsibility to protect that resource.

I believe we must now take this concept, this new understanding of health, and give it a vital, growing role in Ontario health care. I am therefore announcing today the launch of a comprehensive three-year healthy lifestyles promotion program focused on quitting smoking, moderate alcohol consumption and healthy nutrition.

1350

My ministry will provide $1.5 million in annual funding for this program, which includes public education, community support and a community action strategy. This will be a positive program aimed at creating greater public awareness of healthy lifestyles and encouraging individuals to make health-affirming choices.

An important aspect of this program will be community participation. A review of other health promotion programs now in operation indicates that community support and participation are essential to program effectiveness and the achievement of positive outcomes and results. A major emphasis will be placed on assisting communities to mobilize services that will support individuals in making healthy choices.

In developing the program, my ministry had the benefit of the Spasoff and Podborski reports, which make a number of specific recommendations centred on health promotion and disease prevention activities.

As well, the ministry received excellent advice from a committee composed of experts in the fields of alcohol abuse, nutrition, heart disease, multicultural issues, women’s health and epidemiology. I would like to acknowledge the work of this advisory committee and express my appreciation for its dedication to this program.

In particular, I would like to mention the contribution of Dr. Larry Chambers of McMaster University; Dr. Geoff Dunkley from the Ottawa-Carleton regional health unit; John Garcia from the Toronto public health department; Maria Herrara of the Multicultural Health Coalition; Dr. Peter Loranger from the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation; Beverly Musten from the Scarborough health department, and Peggy Shultz from the Ontario division of the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Next Monday, October 24, the healthy lifestyles program will begin with a province-wide media campaign with the upbeat theme: “Health. It’s a great feeling.” Television will be the primary medium, with additional radio support in certain areas. Advertising will be produced in English and French and will be closed-captioned for the hearing-impaired. Messages will also be directed to multicultural and language groups.

The second program component, community support, will involve the development of resource materials which can then be adapted for use by communities and community organizations. To advise on and co-ordinate the effective development of these resource materials, experts on health risk behaviour will work closely with the program designers.

For the third part of the healthy lifestyles campaign, community action strategies, program staff will work with public health units and district health councils. In partnership, they will develop strategies that will stimulate initiatives at the community and district level to complement existing health promotion programs and activities.

The healthy lifestyles campaign will be evaluated during the three years of its development and implementation. We expect the information obtained to be a valuable tool for the planning of other local health promotion programs and services.

Earlier this year, I announced the first health promotion grants in a $1-million program for community-based health promotion projects. I also announced a new $1-million program aimed at reducing heart and vascular disease. The healthy lifestyles promotion program will now complement and support these efforts.

The healthy lifestyles promotion program, together with the other initiatives I have announced, has the potential to have a profound and positive impact on the health and wellbeing of the people of this province. I encourage all Ontarians to become involved and take the message to heart: ”Health. It’s a great feeling.”

Some of the members of the advisory committee are in the gallery today. I would like to acknowledge their presence and thank them for their contribution.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to announce to the House that I have instructed officials in my department to appeal the decision of the Ontario High Court of Justice regarding the Education Statute Law Amendment Act of 1988.

As members of the House will be aware, the court determined on Monday of this week that certain provisions of the act should not take effect in the municipal elections to be held next month. The decision to appeal was taken after a detailed consideration of the order of the court, which was received in form on Tuesday, as well as after consultation with the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward). The notice of appeal will be served today and will be heard as soon as is determined by the Court of Appeal itself.

The government will also ask the Court of Appeal for a stay of the High Court’s order pending the hearing of the appeal so as to enable the school board elections across the province to proceed next month.

CONSUMER WEEK / LA SEMAINE DU CONSOMMATEUR

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to take this opportunity to inform the members of the House that October 23 to 29 is Consumer Week in Canada. In honour of this week, I am pleased to join with the Ontario branch of the Consumers’ Association of Canada in proclaiming Consumer Week in Ontario.

Le ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce attache la plus haute importance à la protection des droits des consommateurs ontariens, comme l’indique le grand nombre de lois provinciales qui existent dans ce domaine. Nous allons d’ailleurs prendre un certain nombre de mesures qui renforceront encore la protection du consommateur, dès que nous aurons fini d’examiner le projet de révision de nos lois.

Members will recall that the legislative review project’s directions report and supplementary working papers were tabled in the House this June. I am pleased to report that a consultative process will begin shortly, as I will be visiting a number of Ontario communities during the remainder of October and throughout the months of November and December. I look forward to discussing the project’s report with interested parties and hearing their views before I proceed to cabinet with finalized recommendations.

Consumer Week activities provide an opportunity for all of us to become aware of the important role played by well-informed consumers in Ontario’s marketplace. To celebrate our third annual Consumer Week, my ministry is undertaking several activities, including the introduction and presentation of a new award to two outstanding Ontario consumer educators, plus the distribution of information and educational material throughout the province. We are also working in conjunction with the consumers’ association to further promote consumer awareness through poster campaigns.

Consumer Week is also an opportunity to recognize the work of the consumers’ association and indeed of all agencies which promote and support consumer education and awareness. I want to now refer my honourable colleagues to the members’ gallery where two very active members of the consumers’ association have joined us today, and I would ask them to rise: Ontario president Peggy Smyth and Ontario executive assistant Sue Beck.

As well, I want to recognize the first two recipients of the Consumer Educator of the Year award: Ruth Jackson of Kitchener, for her many years of voluntary service and leadership in the consumer education field, and Gary Rabbior of Toronto, for his professional contributions as director of the Canadian Foundation for Economic Education and author of the newsletter Money and Youth. I would ask them to stand.

In proclaiming Consumer Week 1988, we urge Ontarians to reflect on the benefits enjoyed by both business and consumers in a fair and equitable environment. This year’s poster theme, “Shop Smart -- It Pays,” encourages consumers to realize the value of knowing the marketplace and to appreciate the untold benefits of shopping smart. To extend the reach of this message, the poster has been translated into several languages.

I am pleased to provide all members of the House with a copy of our newly designed bilingual poster, and I invite all members of the House to join me in recognizing this specially designated week for consumers.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY / SANTÉ ET SÉCURITÉ DU TRAVAIL

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Later today, I will be introducing for first reading a bill to ensure the timely implementation of Ontario’s new law giving workers the explicit right to know about hazardous materials in the workplace.

As honourable members know, the government is working with labour and management to ensure the further development of an occupational health and safety system in Ontario in which injury and illness on the job are prevented. In order for this system to work effectively, workers must know what hazards are in the workplace and how to deal with them.

Afin que ce système puisse fonctionner efficacement, les travailleurs doivent connaître la nature des dangers présents dans le lieu de travail et les mesures de contrôle à prendre à cet égard.

1400

This requires clear, understandable information and the training and education to make effective use of that information. This kind of information, training and education is to be provided in Ontario, and indeed across Canada, through the workplace hazardous materials information system.

When WHMIS starts coming into effect on October 31, it will revolutionize the way in which hazardous materials are handled in workplaces all across Canada. For the first time, all such materials will have to be labelled in a prescribed manner, there will have to be material safety data sheets in the workplace setting out how they are to be handled, and workers will have to be trained to use all this information effectively.

With the passing of these amendments, Ontario will become a full partner in the WHMIS system. Ontario workers will take their place beside fellow workers across the nation in benefiting from this history-making right-to-know legislation.

WHMIS is a remarkable, uniform system that represents a highly significant advance in the field of occupational health and safety.

Le Syst@me d’information sur les mat16res dangercuses utilis6es au travail est on syst6me un,forne remarquable qui repr6sente un pas de g6ant en avant dans le domaine de la sant6 et de la s6curit6 au lieu de travail.

It is the product of eight long years of work and of consultation and of negotiation involving the federal government, the provincial and territorial governments and representatives of labour and management all across Canada. In all of this, I might add, Ontario played a vigorous and important role.

Ontario took a leading role in the WHMIS system by paving the way for the legislation with Bill 79 in June 1987. Ontario’s keen participation continued through the development of the proposed WHMIS regulations -- known nationally as the model OSH, for occupational safety and health -- which are now being adopted by each of the provincial and territorial governments in Canada.

Since those regulations were developed by consultation and in the continuing spirit of partnership and co-operation by all three partners -- that is, government, labour and industry -- the Ontario government wanted the practice in our province to be consistent with the consensus it worked so hard to help achieve. As a result, further amendments to the enabling legislation for WHMIS are needed for the legal authority to enforce all of the provisions set out in the draft regulations.

These amendments will meet that requirement. They are fully supported by representatives of labour and management who have worked with government through the entire process.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the WHMIS system in establishing effective participation by the workplace parties in matters of occupational health and safety and in making Ontario workplaces safer.

Monsieur le Président, je ne puis que réitérer l’importance du SIMDUT et de la participation des parties en cause dans les lieux de travail, en ce qui a trait à la santé et à la sécurité du travail, afin de rendre les milieux de travail plus sécuritaires partout en Ontario.

I urge speedy passage of the amendments so that WHMIS implementation can proceed across Ontario.

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am pleased to announce that a draft policy statement for wetlands planning in Ontario will soon be released for public comment. This policy statement recognizes the importance of our remaining wetlands and reflects our commitment to their protection. Moreover, it ensures that the responsibility for that protection is shared among all municipalities and planning authorities across this great province. With this statement, planning officials will have a clear mandate to incorporate wetland values in their land use planning decisions.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) and I are eager to obtain the public’s views on this statement. We will be issuing copies of the draft statement together with detailed implementation guidelines. After a six-month public review, we will make any necessary adjustments, based on public response.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and I will then bring forward the final version of the policy statement for approval. It will be released under section 3 of the Planning Act.

Our marshes, swamps, fens and bogs are essential natural resources. They purify our water, help in flood control and provide a crucial habitat for fish and wildlife species. They help keep Ontario clean and healthy.

Unfortunately, many of our wetlands, especially in southern Ontario, have been lost over the years to urban encroachment, land clearing, draining and filling.

I am confident that this planning policy, working in concert with the many wetlands programs and initiatives already in place, will ensure the future of our wetlands resources; and I might make this comment two or three more times before we do it.

RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I am responding to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) on the workplace hazardous materials information system bill that we can expect this afternoon and the regulations, which I have seen. The minister knows that labour and this party want to see that passed. His high praise of the total co-operation of labour is partially accurate.

He also knows that they have a serious reservation on one particular matter in that bill, which they had hoped would be resolved and has not been resolved. That revolves around the word “consultation,” as the minister knows. It is not clear what input the workers will have in some of these decisions, and I think the minister should take a look at a friendly amendment in that area when the bill is before the House.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Mr. Allen: I am responding to the announcement by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) with regard to the decision to appeal the Ontario High Court of Justice’s decision with regard to Bill 125. This is indeed a sorry next step in a long, sorry tale about the registration of French voters and the securing of adequate representation for the French community in the governance of their own school settings in this province.

We remember that the last government, time and time again, tried to undertake a registration of French electors in this province, and failed dismally each time around, for the French-language advisory committees. We had hoped that with the new written forms and the new bill a process would be put in place that would give them the kind of representation they desired on their institutions of governance for education.

Sadly, that has not been the case. The forms have misfired, the legislation has not been drafted according to the best advice the minister received and the result is that we are now once more failing dismally our Franco-Ontarian compatriots in this whole matter. It is a sorry tale. Shame on the government.

HEALTHY LIFESTYLES PROMOTION PROGRAM

Mr. Reville: New Democrats have long argued for a much better effort on the part of government in the area of health promotion, so it is with some pleasure that we received the announcement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) today. I would particularly commend the cover to the grumpy government House leader. It shows a happy dancing person and a slightly hyper-looking dancing dog. If he were to look at this, he would probably cheer right up.

We want all people in Ontario to be able to make good personal health choices. There is no question about that. It is regrettable that in Ontario a very large number of people are unable to make real choices about health or about anything else for that matter. That requires a much better effort from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), so that we will not have 500,000 children living in poverty in the province and so that real health choices can be possible. That would be a good feeling.

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Mr. Wildman: For the second time this week, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has made a nonannouncement. We have been waiting since 1984 for a wetlands policy, while more and more valuable wetlands have been lost, ruining the habitat for waterfowl, fish, animals and plants. Only 13 per cent of the total wetlands in southern Ontario are left. We are still waiting for the announcement, and all the minister has to say today is that we will be getting it soon.

We have had announcement after announcement from the previous government and this government, promise after promise, stall after stall on wetlands. This government has failed to co-ordinate with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to ensure that wetlands are preserved in southern Ontario. Frankly, I doubt that this announcement relates to any real progress in the ministry towards the development of a wetlands policy; rather it is more related to a public relations process designed to try to deflect the inevitable criticism that the ministry is going to face at the Federation of Ontario Naturalists conference on wetlands at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute this weekend.

CONSUMER WEEK

Mr. Farnan: I am proud to inform the House that for the official opposition every week is Consumer Week. Nevertheless, the official opposition approves the concept of Consumer Week and we commend the recipients of the Consumer Educator of the Year awards. It is wise to encourage the consumer to be aware and alert with the Shop Smart campaign, but this encouragement to shop smart in no way reduces the government’s responsibilities to ensure a commercial environment that is honest and fair to the consumer and that requires appropriate penalties to those who would attempt to deceive or to abuse Ontario consumers.

1410

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Mr. Jackson: Finally, after four days, someone from this government has come forward to make an announcement on behalf of the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) regarding francophone rights and Bill 125. It is apparent that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has made a statement that he is prepared to fight the ruling and he is not prepared to defend francophone rights in this province.

Today’s announcement is a substantive announcement that strikes at the heart of francophone rights in this province. Members of the back bench in the Liberal Party might like to read what Mr. Justice Sirois had to say. Yesterday cabinet heard about the judge’s order. I would like to quote what Mr. Justice Sirois said:

“There is the urgent matter of the November 14, 1988, election, which would result in an injustice if the substantial errors in the enumeration of the voters were not corrected. The unreliability of the list will result in irreparable harm to be suffered by several thousand of section 23 right-holders, firstly in their right to vote, which is denied unless it is corrected, and also, their right to vote for the proper number of members or trustees to represent them, as required by section 23, as well as the sections of the act in both Bill 75 and Bill 125 that I have referred to.”

He went on to say, “My conclusion is that this amounts to a clear denial of constitutional rights and it is inconsistent with the provisions of section 23 of the charter.”

That is the substance of what the cabinet faced yesterday, and yet we get this simple statement that all the government is going to do is file an appeal.

The fact is that the Premier must realize that if he refuses to listen to the citizens of this province, he will lead a government that will continually mismanage issues, issues as fundamentally important as the rights of francophone electors in this province. The whole municipal election this fall has now been called into question. It will proceed under a cloud, and it is negligent to believe that at some point there may be millions of dollars of additional expense incurred by municipalities across this province as a result of his government’s refusal to listen to all the advice about what was going to happen to this bill.

HEALTHY LIFFSTYLES PROMOTION PROGRAM

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond today to the statement made by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). I would congratulate the minister on her initiative. I would assume that the $1.5 million a year is in addition to the $1.2 million that her ministry is now spending on health promotion in Ontario.

We were a little bit concerned on the opposition side of the House that the Podborski report took some three years to complete; but, having said that, we are now almost a year later in response to when it was released. My colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), I am sure, would appreciate an even more meaningful approach to the first point in the minister's three-point synopsis. If the minister would please proceed with either Bill 3 or Bill 175, which is in Orders and Notices, that would indeed be a very meaningful commitment for the member for Carleton as well as for the people of Ontario.

CONSUMER WEEK

Mr. Harris: I want to join with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) in congratulating Ontario president Peggy Smyth and the Ontario executive assistant, Sue Beck. I also want to join in congratulations to Ruth Jackson of Kitchener and Gary Rabbior of Toronto.

I want to convey my disappointment, though, that the minister says, “We,” the government, “are also working in conjunction with the consumers’ association to further promote consumer awareness through poster campaigns.” I would have hoped that the government and the minister would have stayed out of the poster campaign. If they wanted to provide some monetary assistance, that would be fine; but obviously they have influenced the selection of this year’s poster theme, Shop Smart -- It Pays.

There is nothing the matter with the theme, but it ignores the single most pressing issue facing consumers in this country today, the single most substantial benefit for this year, next year and into the future, that being the matter of free trade. I want to say to members that I think that, had the consumers’ association been left on its own without government interference, a better theme might have been “Free trade, hurray!”

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to address my question to the Premier. I tried to get some answers yesterday from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) about the actual legislation that this government is proposing, and he was not able to answer the question I put to him. I would like to put it to the Premier, since it reflects a fundamental question of policy of his government and cabinet, which have proposed this law.

The bill that the government is putting before this House, for the first time in the history of workers’ compensation in this province, denies workers the right to appeal a medical assessment. I wonder if the Premier can explain why he would be denying workers the right to appeal, to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, the opinion of doctors appointed by the Workers’ Compensation Board on the medical condition of a worker.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That bill was crafted after long consultation and, just yesterday, entered this House for discussion, although it was not easy to get the bill into the House for discussion. My honourable friend may have some suggestions during that debate, and I hope that they would be forthcoming.

Obviously, it is a complicated bill. It is a new departure. I know generally my friend is not comfortable with new departures, but I think we have to look at it in its broad context. If my honourable friend or his associates have ideas, I am sure they can be discussed in committee and in this House and put forward. If the bill can be improved, obviously the government is amenable to reasonable suggestions.

Mr. B. Rae: I would have thought the government would have had a commitment to some fundamental human rights with regard to how an administrative tribunal works. I want an explanation from this government and from this Premier. I would like him to answer my question directly.

Can he explain why, on page 7 of the bill he has presented to us, he says, “no appeal lies to the appeals tribunal from a decision of the board under this section or in respect of medical assessment conducted under this section”? That is a historic step backwards from everything that has been decided in this House since 1915 with respect to workers’ compensation. Can the Premier explain why workers would not be able to challenge the opinion of doctors appointed by the board itself in an independent appeal to an appeal tribunal? Why would he deny that very basic human right?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member may want to choose to discuss the bill through question period, and that is certainly his right, but that is what the whole purpose of the second reading debate is about, and obviously, the committee process is going to be forthcoming. We will have a lot of opportunity to discuss the specifics and the various clauses of the bill. I hope that my honourable friend will make his contribution at the appropriate time.

Mr. B. Rae: We have not had an answer from the Premier. Basic civil rights have been taken away from the workers of this province. Can the Premier explain, surely understanding the history of workers’ compensation in this province, as he must, a fundamental statute that is being changed and a right that is being taken away from workers to appeal a medical opinion?

In introducing this bill, surely the Premier must have considered the implications that this has for the civil liberties and civil rights of workers, who are being denied a right to appeal to an appeal tribunal. Why is he denying the right to appeal of workers who have been given an assessment by a doctor? Why not give them the right to make that appeal? Why take it away?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I think the government has a different interpretation than he does of this matter. I think we have to look at the complete bill. He will have the opportunity to make his views felt on this bill in this House as it goes through clause-by-clause, and there will be a lot of discussion around a number of clauses. Obviously, the member’s contribution will be taken very seriously at the appropriate time. I just hope that he will assist in getting this bill into the House and into committee so that we can have the discussion this bill deserves.

1420

COMMUNITY AND HOME SUPPORT SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: By way of a new question, I wonder if the Premier can confirm that the cabinet has decided to freeze funding for the integrated homemaker program and that some $2.5 million of money that was previously allocated to this program and expected by people has in fact been frozen as of September 30?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: His information is incorrect.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps the Premier can explain the conversation a member of my staff had with Tim Young, who is the manager of the community and home support services at the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which runs the integrated homemaker and Alzheimer’s program. Mr. Young told our researcher that $2.8 million is being saved this year from the integrated homemaker program because cabinet has imposed a freeze from September 30 on expansion of this program. Can the Premier explain the discrepancy between his answer and the opinion of the person who is administering the program?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, but I can tell the member the opinion of the person who makes the decisions, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and he tells me it is under review.

Mr. B. Rae: That is different from the original answer. It is very hard to know. I do not know whether we are talking to Charlie McCarthy or who we are talking to here. The question I am addressing is to the Premier.

I would like to ask the Premier, with respect, if he can also confirm that some $2.5 million, which was going to go into the Alzheimer’s program for the newly announced but yet to be developed residential community alternative programs has also been put on hold and will also not be spent because the Treasurer, who is known affectionately around the various ministries as Bob the Knife, is asking them to save $500 million out of the budget. That is why we have the problem. The knife is cutting somewhere. It is cutting on the homemaker program and it is cutting on the Alzheimer’s program.

I wonder if the Premier could simply confirm those facts.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can say that is a lot more attractive appellation than how some of the Bobs I know are referred to in this House.

The information the honourable member has is wrong. It is under review.

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

Mr. Brandt: I would like to bring to the attention of the House, before I address my first question, the fact that two members of the House will be celebrating the 17th anniversary of being elected to this chamber tomorrow: a member for the New Democratic Party, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), and a member for the Conservative Party, the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman). I would like to have all members join me in congratulating both of those members.

There are two members who have reached agreement on almost every issue over the past 17 years. We are proud of the kind of co-operation they have shown.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Brandt: My question was to be addressed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who I understood was going to be here, but in his absence I know the Premier would want to respond to a question relative to the environmental conditions that exist in this province.

As the Premier is no doubt aware, Durham region yesterday said it would not take any more municipal waste from Metro Toronto, as its landfill will be at capacity by May 1990. Metro Toronto’s landfill sites will be full as of the same date in 1990. As it takes five years to identify and establish a waste landfill site in this province, that means that for three years both the communities of Durham region and Metropolitan Toronto will not have any place for their municipal waste, based on the information we have now.

Can the Premier tell this House what his solution is and where that waste will go when those landfill sites expire in terms of their capacity?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no question that we have been dealing with a number of problems inherited from the Conservative government and the member specifically, who was the Minister of the Environment in this regard.

I understand the difficulty, as does the present Minister of the Environment. One can see that the minister has instituted some of the most aggressive recycling programs certainly in the history of this province. He is working closely with the municipalities. There are a number of approaches being looked at, and I think there are solutions to be found.

Mr. Brandt: That hardly answers the question, because the recycling programs are going to be totally insufficient even at the current level of funding or 10 times the level of funding in order to meet the needs of these various municipalities.

I would like to point out to the Premier that yesterday at a meeting in Mississauga, Hazel McCallion, the mayor, said that unless a site can be located for her community by 1990, it will have no choice but to ship its garbage to the US, as does the region of Halton, as I have pointed out in this House previously.

Their process of finding a new site has been delayed because of a ruling by the Ministry of the Environment that forces Mississauga to start the process all over again. In effect, they have to reinvent the wheel and get into the entire planning process to find a new site. There is no way possible that they will be able to identify a new site before the old one closes in 1990.

Is shipping our waste to the United States, as we are now doing with Lester B. Pearson International Airport, with Halton region and as we will shortly, within the next couple of years, have to do with Mississauga, the Premier’s answer to environmental waste in this province? Is it that it be shipped to New York state for incineration?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with the honourable member’s interpretation of this situation. Yes, there is some of that going on, and vice versa, as my honourable friend is well aware. There were certain inadequacies in the proposal of Mississauga in this particular regard. The minister has been working with them to make sure we have the proper environmental procedures.

My honourable friend, I note today, called for a superfund to clean up toxic waste. What he is asking for right now is $30 million to clean up his mistakes. That is an abject public apology for his lack of concern for environmental policies. It is a public admission of guilt. I say with some pride that this minister is trying to prevent that from ever happening again. He has provided leadership for which the member has now publicly taken responsibility.

Mr. Brandt: If it is the Premier’s position that no municipal landfill site should be approved in this province, then he should stand up and say so. If incineration is the alternative the Premier wants to introduce in this province, then he should say so. If, in fact, energy from waste is his alternative, then he should say so, because his Minister of the Environment, over the past three years, has not approved of one landfill site for municipal waste.

The municipalities simply do not know what their alternative is any more, and he can sit there piously and indicate that the mistakes of the past are now being cleared by his government. In fact, his government is not making any mistakes, because it is doing absolutely nothing about the problem. That is his problem.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Brandt: Since the government -- I am not through yet.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is a question of sincerity.

Mr. Brandt: There is no question about my sincerity.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a final supplementary?

Mr. Brandt: What does the government intend to do about waste problems in this province, other than simply sloughing off the problem and shipping municipal waste to the United States of America?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thought my honourable friend believed in free trade. I cannot understand his objection to that.

Let me say that this minister is, as I said, determined not to make the mistakes of the past. He is determined to provide leadership. I just absolutely reject the member’s doomsday scenario. Let me tell him that a great deal of co-ordination and planning is going on. This minister is planning for the future, and I just do not accept the doomsday scenario the member points out.

Mr. Brandt: Then talk to the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question. The member for Burlington South would like to place a question.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. Already, on Monday, one judge has ruled against Bill 125, and if the higher courts agree with that judge, we could have new municipal elections across this province within six months. This will involve greater costs to municipalities, property taxpayers, school boards and the candidates who are running.

Will not the minister please admit today that, in fact, it has been his stubborn refusal to listen that could force upon the people of Ontario untold, unnecessary costs for a second set of municipal elections?

1430

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would be happy to respond to the member for Burlington South by reiterating for him the government’s intent when it brought in Bill 125.

As the member is fully aware, Ontario was the only jurisdiction remaining in North America that elected its school board representatives on the basis of assessment, or wealth, as opposed to the principle of representation by population.

In formulating our legislation, we gave very, very careful consideration to other mechanisms, including ones that were based on student enrolment. We fundamentally believe that the principle of representation by population has in fact withstood the test of time and we are confident that we will be successful when this matter is put before a judge in appeal.

Mr. Jackson: We are painfully aware that when the minister tabled Bill 125, he had some notion that perhaps his legislation was more democratic. In fact, the judge feels it is one of the most undemocratic pieces of legislation for francophone citizens in this province.

This is the second time that this government has appealed against a court defence of constitutionally entrenched francophone educational rights. Is the minister not sending out a message to the francophone community that their francophone educational rights, as seen by his government, are a nuisance and they are to be fought in the courts by the government at every turn?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to reiterate to the member that indeed this government believes fundamentally in the constitutionally entrenched francophone rights. I will remind him it was this government that brought in Bill 75, the first legislation in this province that provided for francophones a mechanism by which they could control their own affairs as they relate to education. The purpose of Bill 125 was to establish a mechanism by which those francophones with section 23 rights could be identified in order to exercise that control over their own affairs in matters of education.

Mr. Jackson: This case could, in all likelihood, go all the way to the Supreme Court. The government may win and it may lose. What the minister is telling this House is that the legal advice he took from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) last year is the same advice he is about to take as he proceeds to the Supreme Court.

My question: As the Minister of Education, can he give the people of Ontario a guarantee that if his appeal fails, he will respect the court ruling and he will not invoke section 33 of the charter to circumvent our courts and trample constitutionally entrenched francophone education rights? Will he provide that guarantee?

Hon. Mr. Ward: There is no question that issues relating to French-language governance in education raise very difficult constitutional questions. The member will know that his government had some 42 years to provide some initiatives and to make some progress in this very difficult area. This government acted, and I think it acted with vigour and courage. We believe fundamentally that our legislation is appropriate and will withstand those challenges.

LEGAL AID

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. Earlier this year, I asked the Attorney General why his government was able to fund six new community legal clinics in 1986 and six new ones in 1987 and none so far in 1988. The Attorney General replied that everything was on track, increases were going to be provided; everything was on track for new clinics to be opened.

I want to ask the Attorney General now: Is it not a fact there will be no new clinics funded this year, in 1988, and is it not also a fact there will be no increases in budget, despite the fact that many clinics need an increase in budget in 1988?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The answer to the question involves pointing out to the honourable member that under this government over the last three years, there has been not only the greatest expansion of legal aid clinics in the history of Ontario, by triple, but also by far the largest expansion of legal aid services in the western world. Indeed, I think it can fairly be said that the legal aid plan of Ontario is the only plan in the western world that has exhibited any significant amount of growth in this period.

I recognize that expansion has imposed very significant costs on the clinic end of the plan, and it may be that we will have to reduce the rate of expansion in the future. But budgets have not been cut, and I am assured by those who run the legal aid plan in Ontario that they are capable of maintaining the clinic system we now have in this province -- and of which I am very proud, because it operates on a community basis in over 60 communities across the province -- in full health and vigour over the next couple of years.

Mr. Hampton: I gather the minister was not in front of the provincial legal aid office earlier this summer when disabled people, tenants and injured workers all protested the lack of funding for the clinics. We hear that every day. The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) says there is an increased lineup for landlord and tenant applications. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) says there are more injured workers and he cannot provide any assistance through the injured workers’ groups. These people need help from the legal clinics.

Can the minister explain why in 1986 and 1987 it was so easy for the government to afford to open a total of 12 new clinics, and now this year, after a mammoth increase in taxes, the government suddenly cannot afford any and cannot afford any increases in budget?

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is a really interesting question, but it has nothing to do with the reality. The fact is, as the honourable member finally concedes, the clinic expansion in Ontario in the last three years has been absolutely remarkable in terms of size. We have opened more clinics than any other jurisdiction in the world in that period.

It is also worth pointing out that clinic lawyers, who are the mainstay of the clinic system and who support the work of the paralegals, last year, for example, received a 20 per cent income increase, which I think was warranted but which was extraordinarily higher than increases given to other members who depend on the public service budgets for their support.

The honourable member will also want to know that on the clinic side, to which he is directing his attention, over the three-year period budgets have increased by 85 per cent. I am proud of that record.

The only factual thing the honourable member actually got right in his question is that the community people who run these clinics, with the assistance of the government and the legal aid plan, lawyer and paralegal alike, do a fantastic job. I am very proud of them.

EDUCATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question to the Minister of Education. Earlier this week, we were able to secure copies of the school board three-year statistics. For the second year under this minister, the summary page has been removed, so it has taken us until today to ensure that the figures confirm our worst fears.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised consistently for four years that he was going to increase his commitment to schools in this province for the general legislative grants. In fact, what these statistics tell us is that this government is on target for reducing that commitment by 1.7 per cent. Why is the minister shortchanging the students of this province?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am delighted that the member for Burlington South has taken the opportunity to review the three-year statistics. That particular document is provided to school boards throughout this province to compare financial statements and gauge the different programs available.

The member raises the question of this government’s commitment to education. I want to reiterate for him some of the initiatives we have undertaken in the past year, because I know full well that the member for Burlington South will be quite anxious to join in applauding the fact that last year we increased the flow of funds to school boards in this province by some 7.2 per cent, or $250 million, at a time when inflation was running at 4 per cent to 4.5 per cent. We have increased the amount of capital available for school construction in this province by some 400 per cent over the course of the past three years.

We have undertaken a number of initiatives we believe enhance the quality of education in this province, such as the reduction in class sizes in the elementary grades, increased funding for textbooks and learning materials. Clearly, there is no higher priority this government has than enhancing the quality of education in this province.

1440

Mr. Jackson: The minister knows very well that the general legislative grants are in decline from his government, 1.7 percent reduction. Yet he insists he has made these other Band-Aid commitments. For example, he cites capital. Under his government, under this Premier, we have seen an almost 70 per cent increase in the use of portables in this province. The Premier has become the prince of portables and the minister has become the court jester with all his fancy statements.

The truth is that the minister has to be accountable and he must state for the citizens of this province why the general legislative grants are in decline in this province and why he will not honour a promise, not to the trustees and to the taxpayers but to the children of this province who relied on that election promise for their education.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member once again has certainly raised some very interesting points. I will concede to the member for Burlington South that it is not easy making up for decades of neglect. Three short years ago, the total expenditure on capital was between $60 million and $70 million. Today, as we speak, $381 million of government funds is going into $500 million in school construction. There are 37 new schools under construction, 42 additions, spaces for 46,000 additional students. The member for Burlington South knows full well that all of these activities are under way.

Our initiatives do not stop there. They move into the area of quality, the development of new curriculum guidelines, establishing better linkages between our schools, our communities and our workplace. I am sure the member will want to join in applauding our initiatives of the past three years.

RED MEAT PLAN

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Three and a half years ago, the government introduced the red meat plan. I understand there is consideration being given now to ending that program at the end of March next year.

At the present time in our county of Simcoe, 200 farmers are enrolled in this program and they have shown me figures which show that the adjusted weaning weight has increased an average of 10 per cent or an average of 50 pounds of calf. That would mean that if a calf sold for $1 a pound, this would result in a $50-per-calf improvement for a farmer.

In light of the approval of this program and the success of the program, is the ministry still going to contemplate replacement of this program as of April 1, 1999?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member is quite right in his assessment of the red meat plan. It has been a highly successful program. As a matter of interest, an interim study released last year shows that we have met most of the goals that were established in 1984.

In response to the honourable member’s question regarding the replacement of this program, I would refer him to recent news releases, which indicated that the present program will terminate in 1989 as originally planned, but I also stated in those news releases that my ministry staff is meeting with industry groups and individuals to develop proposals for future programs.

Mr. Owen: The farmers in my area approve of me present program. They are apprehensive of any possible changes which may be introduced. The proverbial question always applies in this type of situation, and I put it to the minister today: If it works, why fix it? Why are we considering changing it?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Let me reiterate that the program has been highly successful, no question about it. I have received many useful suggestions from the industry, groups and individuals, as to how the program could be improved, so I would say that the present round of discussions is designed to develop programs and strategies that build on and reinforce the progress that we have made to date.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Attorney General. On September 28, the Attorney General announced an expenditure of $3 million to improve criminal court facilities in Hamilton. Those of us in Hamilton are happy that he and his ministry have finally decided to move. Unfortunately, we are a little concerned that he is moving in the wrong direction in terms of the needs of the courts and their operation in Hamilton.

Last spring, the Hamilton Law Association, in consultation with the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Hamilton-Wentworth regional police department, the provincial court judges , the local legal aid office, the Elizabeth Fry Society of Hamilton, the John Howard Society of Hamilton and the Ministry of Correctional Services, made a submission to the standing committee on public accounts on the needs of the courts in Hamilton. That study basically asked for a comprehensive study of the long-term needs for court facilities in Hamilton. The minister has proposed a renovation to a facility which is already inadequate.

Mr. Speaker: Will you put your question please?

Mr. Charlton: Will the minister take a pause and please consult with all of those bodies in Hamilton that rely on the court facilities before he proceeds with an expenditure that may lock us in for 20 years to something totally inadequate?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to thank the honourable member for his letter. Of course, I had to wait for it, because the press had it some time before I did. I have now replied to it at some length, and I hope he has the answer.

The reality is that in Hamilton-Wentworth, the Supreme Court and the district courts are operating in very adequate circumstances, probably one of the best locations in the province. The unified family court which operates in Hamilton will be moving into a new building which is opening very shortly as a result of an initiative taken by this government.

The reality is that the most populous court, the provincial court (criminal division), is located in rented quarters on Main Street and in two other locations. The lease in those premises has some six years to go and it is admitted by everybody that those circumstances are overcrowded and inadequate and provide no young offenders’ security that is adequate or appropriate.

As a result, on our province-wide priority list, which followed an elaborate period of consultation with Hamilton, among others, we listed that priority as number two.

The cost of the project is not, of course, $2 million. The cost to the government in security arrangements and furniture is in the neighbourhood of $700,000; the landlord is making the other improvements, which will bring all of the provincial court (criminal division) facilities in Hamilton into one location.

I admit that it will not create a monument in the centre of the city in the sense that a building like the post office would, but it will respond to ensure that the people who use the provincial criminal court, the accused people and the witnesses who are there and the judges who have to work there day by day -- you will not find them complaining about this -- are able to work in proper, orderly circumstances.

Mr. Charlton: I suggest that perhaps the Attorney General should take a second look at what it is he has approved. He is right that the landlord is going to make the improvements and that the people of Ontario will only pay for them as the lease continues, but he is going to lock himself into a 20-year lease.

The renovations which the landlord is going to make are going to create no new space in the facility, which he himself admitted just a few moments ago is severely overcrowded. There will be no new courtrooms and no new space in the overall complex.

1450

Will the minister, before he proceeds, please push the pause button -- do not stop the process; push the pause button -- take himself to Hamilton, see the facilities and talk to the parties involved? Please.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member has the Rainy River disease, because he has not got the facts right. It is a great question, but the facts are wrong.

Mr. Charlton: If you provide the wrong facts, then correct them.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, just read the letter.

The fact is that the new lease provides a whole additional brand-new floor, never before used, at 125 Main Street. It includes all-new young offenders’ cells, which have never been there, and it includes -- he said there were no new courtrooms -- two new courtrooms, which are designed to serve the provincial court (criminal division).

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to emphasize to the honourable member and the members of this House, if they care to listen to this, that we run courts in Ontario in 235 locations and we use taxpayers’ money to improve them. We went through an elaborate consultation process with all the communities in the province over a year-and-a-half period. This project came up number two and it is getting the priority and the attention we promised the provincial court we would give to it. I am pleased with that. I think we are doing the right thing.

Mr. Hampton: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General referred to someone having the Rainy River disease, and it is not only an insult to me, it is also an insult to all of my constituents. I want to suggest that if the Attorney General is referring to people who do not have the facts straight, he should look at his answer on June 29, 1988, when he told this House --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The remark was inappropriate and I would like to apologize to the people of the Rainy River district if, by any chance, they took anything untoward by what I said. I certainly intended not at all to insult or reflect on them in any way. However --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier has yet to respond to the federal government’s generous offer of $10 million towards the preservation of the Rouge Valley river lands as a provincial park. He has had ample time to consider this offer and we now expect an answer.

Now that he has appointed Gardner Church as his deputy minister for the greater Toronto area, I would like to ask the Premier: What advice has he received from Mr. Church on this matter and what is his government’s intention towards the Rouge Valley?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, let me say, because I do not want to look like an ingrate, I guess $10 million is better than nothing, but on the other hand, the member should not get the impression that is anything significant, dealing with a property of that size.

It is the government’s intention, and always has been, to preserve the Rouge. There is no question about that; there never has been. We are looking at that entire area, and obviously the property beyond it in Seaton, in other ways. We are looking at the entire area in terms of housing. We will not be housing on the Rouge, so do not worry about that. We are looking at all of the planning for that particular area. When that is all done, we will share our plans with the member with respect to the entire quadrant of the city.

Mrs. Marland: If I may continue to the Premier, I wish he could make a public statement about the intentions of his government because it certainly would put a great number of people at ease.

I really find it very difficult that we even discuss the Rouge Valley from the standpoint of anything but status quo, it remaining as it is, because after all is said and done, it is already publicly owned. It was designated as a park about 12 years ago. The people of Ontario have already paid for it, so there should not be any discussion about what it is used for, other than conservation, as it already is.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Then why are you raising it?

Mrs. Marland: I am glad the Premier asked.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognize the member for a supplementary.

Mrs. Marland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say to the Premier that if he does not know why we are asking the question, we are in a worse state than we thought we were. We are asking the question because there is a resolution of the city of Scarborough. There are thousands of people in the city of Scarborough and across this province who have been asking his government not to talk about housing on the Rouge Valley lands. They want to know --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have never underestimated what a bad state the member is in, particularly in this regard. We have said from the beginning and will continue to say that the Rouge will be preserved. It is that simple. If there is any misunderstanding about it, surely the member ill take that response, which is simple and clear, and tell her friends there who have any concerns that that is the position of the government.

Now, as I said, in terms of the planning of the greater Metropolitan area, we are looking at that entire quadrant of the greater Metropolitan area, with Seaton beyond and all other infrastructure that will be necessary to make sure that we have the proper conservation area and support of housing, which will be on the far side of it, to make sure that all of the plans are tied together.

I can tell my honourable friend that the final plans are not all tied together, because they require a high degree of consultation with the municipalities and the regions, and that is going on at the present time. Lest there be any misunderstanding about the Rouge, it will be preserved.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The report of the Social Assistance Review Committee establishes principles upon which the reform of our system of social assistance should be based. I believe the most significant message carried by the report is the clear definition of the actual recipients of social assistance. Forty-one per cent of the beneficiaries are children and most of those are younger children. Only 9.6 per cent are employable adults, and they have an average stay on the programs of only eight months.

Part of the process of making changes must be to break down such myths. Can the minister explain to the House the implications of these findings as his ministry commences the challenging task of assessing the complexities of the Thomson committee recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: When we asked Mr. Thomson to undertake this study over two years ago now, one of the things in particular that we asked him to do was to state very clearly who was and who was not covered under income assistance recipients, because it has been well known throughout the province that there are some misconceptions, or myths if you will, as to who is included.

There is a perception, for example, that most single mothers are unwed teenagers. That is not true. They represent only five per cent; over 80 per cent of single mothers are, in fact, women who were in a family situation, whose husbands have deserted them or they are divorced, separated or whatever the case may be.

It is vitally important that the general public of this province knows whom we are serving: that 41 per cent are children; that one third of those who get a cheque are, in fact, disabled people; that another third are single parents, as I have just described. Those are the people we are serving.

It is equally important, however, as the report itself states, that there are groups of people on there who ought not to be on that program at all who ought to be served in other ways. It recommends, for example, that the disabled should be served through a national disability insurance and benefit program, that the children should be served through a national children’s benefit program and that, therefore, those who would be still left on the system would be those with whom we could work to help them get off. That is the whole meaning of Transitions.

1500

Mr. Adams: In my riding, the recipients face an additional barrier, and that is trying to obtain this assistance in a county where the assistance is delivered by numerous tiny municipalities. Can the narrowed program envisioned by the committee simplify service delivery for such people?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The report clearly identifies two major changes with respect to municipalities. The first one is that the two pieces of legislation we have now -- the family benefits legislation, which is entirely delivered and funded by the province and is by far the bigger program, and the general welfare legislation, which is delivered by municipalities and cost-shared 80 per cent by the province and 20 per cent by the municipalities -- should be merged into one piece of legislation. The committee that wrote the report felt that the needs of all people were similar -- basic needs and transition needs.

The second major point it makes is that only one level of government should in fact deliver the service; it should not be partly the province and partly the municipality. They indicated they would prefer, in most cases, that it would be the municipalities, because they were closer to the people they were serving, but that there should be some very clear criteria to which the municipalities would have to agree if they were going to deliver it.

They also indicated, by the way, that the 20 per cent currently being cost-shared by the municipalities should be absorbed by the province, but that this amount of money should not become a windfall to the municipalities but should be spent on other programs which could be agreed upon between the province and the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: So there are some very fundamental changes with respect to the municipalities in the report.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SCHEDULING OF MEETINGS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. In view of the minister’s oft-stated comments about his government’s commitment to the expansion of tourism in the north and in view of the fact that the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association is going to hold its annual convention when it always does, in mid-November, in Thunder Bay this year, could the minister explain why he acquiesced to the decision of his colleague the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) to hold the first annual meeting of the northern development councils in Sudbury at the same time that NOTOA will be meeting in Thunder Bay, making it impossible for those members of NOTOA who are represented on the development councils to attend both conferences?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I thank the member for the question. First of all, I might say to the member we do consider that NOTOA is a very important tourism group in the north. We have been co-operating very fully with them. In fact, over the last couple of months I have made three different trips to the north and on those trips have consulted with NOTOA. I have raised this question with the minister, and it is my understanding that the meeting was arranged quite some time ago. I believe he mentioned, and I stand to be corrected, that there is only one person that particular meeting affects.

Mr. Wildman: NOTOA has been holding its meeting at the same time for the last 63 years. Obviously, they planned it some time in advance. If the minister is really as committed to tourism development as he says, surely it is important for the NOTOA representative on the development councils to be able to attend the development councils meeting and to consult with the other members on northern development.

If that is the case, could the minister explain what he is going to do about this and what he is going to do to ensure that the northern Ontario tourism strategy, which has been promised since December 1987, will in fact be available for discussion at both of these meetings rather than remaining buried in the bureaucratic morass of broken political promises, benign neglect, funding cutbacks and confused resource development planning?

Mr. Speaker: it sounds like a good question.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I think the member has it all wrong because, just to give him an example, the person he is talking about who will be tied up at that particular meeting, I flew into the lake where she has a resort and consulted with her earlier this summer.

Mr. Wildman: She is very upset.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: She may be upset, but when I talked to her she seemed quite happy with the job we were doing. It may be that she may have to divide her time between that meeting and attending the NOTOA convention. We are consulting with them very closely and with that particular individual the member has mentioned to try to do everything we possibly can to help the tourist operators in the north.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. McLean: I have another question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. During the hearings conducted this summer concerning Bill 113, the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) said: “Tourism is the second-largest industry in Ontario, worth more than $9 billion each year. It is a fact that tourism is extremely important to Ontario’s economy and it is the responsibility of the government to support and encourage it.”

Given that the Solicitor General feels so strongly about the importance of tourism and that Bill 113 is largely focused on the concept that tourism, including the activity of shopping on Sundays, is highly valued in this province, would the minister tell the House why he, personally, was not present and was not a key participant in any of the hearings this summer?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I can tell the member that my ministry, myself and my officials have been very heavily involved in any of the policy that has been developed concerning that bill and tourism. I can also tell him that no one has been more considerate, co-operative or consultant than the Solicitor General and of more assistance to the tourism business. What the member is saying is not true whatsoever.

Mr. McLean: I do not accept that because the information I have from Tourism Ontario is that the minister had no input into some of the suggestions it had.

Even though the government met with various interest groups this summer, the government’s standard response has been that it is impossible to define tourism. Therefore, the government says, “Let the municipalities do it themselves.” The government backbenchers voted against our Progressive Conservative amendments to ask 213 willing groups and individuals to assist the minister.

As the defender of tourism interests in this province, why did the minister not show leadership in accepting the help of the municipalities and groups like Tourism Ontario to develop appropriate criteria? Why does the minister not show some leadership in this?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Again, the member should be aware that we as a ministry and as a government and the Solicitor General have been listening to and meeting with the different tourist groups across the province. We feel that this bill looks after tourism and that the option is the option of the municipalities. That is what this bill states and this is how we plan to proceed.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The Innisfil landfill site has had a long and checkered career. More recently it has been established that there were leachates leaving that site and causing a problem for the Innisfil Centennial Park, which is a little further downstream, and also Kempenfelt Bay, which is at the shores of Barrie.

The present ownership has been endeavouring to correct these problems but we have been getting into the headlines in our area with regard to the proposals for the Innisfil site, which is about to become a superdump. I understand that lands are being bought up around the present site and proposals being made that it will be further expanded and will turn into a superdump for the whole of Ontario.

Can the minister give an assurance to the people in Barrie and area that the full provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act will be followed?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member describes this particular proposal -- I have not had any proposal come to me in that regard, although I am aware from the same newspaper articles as the member reads that there may be such a proposal -- it would come under the Environmental Assessment Act if it meets all the ramifications the member has described.

He has said it would service the entire province, which seems to be a very large area, and the kind of expansion the member is describing is certainly a very substantial expansion. Any such proposal, and I have not seen any such proposal, would certainly come under the Environmental Assessment Act, even though there are a lot of people in the province who do not like the Environmental Assessment Act.

1510

Mr. Owen: According to the media, the ownership is proposing that, in addition to expanding the project and site, it would introduce a system of compacting garbage into pellets or blocks. I wonder if the minister could give us some guidelines as to what criterion is followed with regard to this procedure. Is there a minimum or a maximum that is looked into or allowed by the ministry for this type of process?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is difficult, because of the lack of definitive information available to us at the present time, to make that determination. But I can say to the member that when a matter such as this comes under the Environmental Assessment Act, all aspects of it are looked into. In fact, there must be, by the board and by officials of the Ministry of the Environment previous to its going to the board, a full investigation of any proposal and all ramifications of that proposal which is forthcoming.

I repeat to the member that I have seen no such proposal forthcoming; I am aware only of newspaper reports, as he is, as to such a proposal. But for any of these kinds of proposals, the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ministry of the Environment officials in the waste management branch would have to assess it very carefully.

HOMES FOR THE AGED AND NURSING HOMES

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Health, but while her papers are still here, she seems to have disappeared. Is she in the House?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health?

Ms. Bryden: Last Monday I drew to the House’s attention newspaper reports that during the heat wave last July there had been at least 20 deaths of seniors in homes for the aged and nursing homes in the Metropolitan Toronto area where it was suggested that the heat could have been a contributing factor.

In order to clarify the cause of such deaths, the coroner’s office held an inquest into the death of Anne Ancliff, a 97-year-old resident of an Oshawa home for the aged, Hillsdale Manor. She was one of five residents of that home who died in July, when the temperature readings reached the high 30s.

Is the minister aware that the coroner’s jury completed its report last week and recommended that the provincial government should launch a province-wide publicity campaign to warn people of the health hazards of intense heat and humidity? Has she made any plans for such a publicity campaign to implement the jury’s recommendation before next summer so that we can prevent more tragic and untimely deaths of this sort?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I thank the member for raising this question. We are all very concerned about the care that people receive, no matter where they are, whether they are at home, in a nursing home or in one of our provincial hospitals. We recognize the importance of taking precautions during heat waves, making sure that people drink enough and that they do not allow themselves to become dehydrated. That kind of information is extremely important. In fact, the ministry had already taken action by alerting our nursing homes to the kinds of precautions they should take for their residents.

I want to thank the member for raising that question.

Ms. Bryden: Most homes for the aged and nursing homes have no air-conditioning and its installation is not required in the building code, even for new facilities. The coroner’s jury also recommended that existing homes for the aged and nursing homes institute remedial measures that will improve ventilation and cooling to prevent a repetition of the tragic deaths.

In consultation with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), will she require that the institutions under their joint jurisdictions undertake such remedial measures and ensure that adequate additional funds are made available to the institutions to enable them to carry out the remedial measures recommended by the coroner’s jury before next summer?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Regulations under the Nursing Homes Act now require adequate ventilation and proper care measures for residents. The ministry is reviewing the results of the coroner’s inquiry to see what other appropriate measures should be taken in informing nursing homes about the care of the elderly during heat waves, recognizing that there is a lot of debate about the question of whether or not we should actually take that kind of step, enter into that kind of retrofit, given the fact that we know that a lot of elderly people in fact do not like an air-conditioned environment and that there are often alternative measures that can be taken to ensure that kind of comfort in unusual heat waves such as we experienced this summer.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Solicitor General in respect of the public comments we have heard in reference to the royal commission investigating the Niagara Regional Police Force. The principals involved, other than the Solicitor General, seem to agree that the holdup in getting the royal commission under way is the minister and the ministry itself with respect to providing adequate funding to get on with it. She seems, in her public statements, to be interested in seeing this undertaken. Will she commit herself today to providing the necessary funding to see that it does get under way as scheduled?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member will be delighted to know that we are providing the funding, as recommended by the judge in charge of this inquiry.

PETITIONS

CANADA POST

Mr. Faubert: 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:

“Whereas Canada Post offices have served as a very essential communication link for smaller communities throughout the province; and

“Whereas private and business affairs are vitally served by Canada Post offices in rural Ontario; and

“Whereas the closing or downgrading of Canada Post offices represents a move towards the downgrading and centralization of services in rural parts of this province; and

“Whereas the present federal government is taking a policy trend towards the closing of Canada Post offices in these smaller communities; and

“Whereas the closure of Canada Post offices in this province could represent the equivalent of the removal of such social programs as medicare, the old age security system and other universal safety nets;

“Therefore we, the undersigned voters, hereby petition the government of the province of Ontario to advise the federal government not only to maintain but to improve existing Canada Post offices and services in this province.”

This petition is signed by a number of Ontario citizens. I have appended my signature thereto and I hereby submit the petition for the serious consideration of the government.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: “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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“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 the 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 first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

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

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to the municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; 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, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“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.”

This petition is signed by 34 residents of the Hamilton area, and I will affix my name thereto.

1520

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Daigeler: 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 it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference; and

“Whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“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.”

This petition is signed by some 40 residents of the Ottawa-Carleton area, and I have signed it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Pouliot: I have a petition signed by well over 100 parishioners of St. Peter’s Church in Erindale, under the spiritual leadership of Rev. Charles Edwards, addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned members of St. Peter’s Church, Erindale, hereby petition the Lieutenant Governor and Premier of Ontario in opposition to any legislation permitting wide-open Sunday shopping in the municipalities of the province of Ontario.”

Of course, I have affixed my signature to the petition.

Interjections.

Mr. Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Under article 134(b), I make it a point here never to interject, and I am asking reciprocity from the three bottles that should be capped at the other end.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad many members are studying the rules.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Wildman: I have another petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of Ontario:

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

“We care about injured workers. We protest the Minister of Labour’s proposal to change the law that would take away injured workers’ rights to permanent disability pensions when they are permanently disabled; that would do almost nothing about the miserable compensation of existing injured workers and their widows, and that would leave the injured workers of the future worse off. Workers who are killed or injured in their work deserve much better treatment than this.”

I support this petition wholeheartedly, which is signed by 29 residents of Ontario, and I have affixed my name thereto.

Mr. Laughren: 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:

There is a large number of signatures. I did not want to use up the time of the House to count them, but I have affixed my signature to that petition as well.

Mr. Speaker: It would be appropriate to count them prior to giving the petition.

Mr. Reville: 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:

This petition is signed by 20 residents of Metropolitan Toronto, and I have affixed my signature thereto.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Hampton: I have a petition. It is addressed 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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee's report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

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

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

This petition is signed by some 37 individuals and I have affixed my name to it.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of privilege. Mr. Speaker: I want to point out to you that I think it is most unfortunate that the privileges of our colleagues in the Conservative Party are most abridged by the fact that none of them is here to hear what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Ms. Bryden: I have another petition on the subject of Bill 162, regarding the Workers’ Compensation Act. It is from 31 members of the Toronto Caseworkers Working Group in the city of Toronto. It reads as follows:

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

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

I will sign this petition. along with the 31 others, and submit it to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

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

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

“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

1530

“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 have, of course, signed that, along with 19 lines of people; in some cases it is a husband and wife who have signed, so that I did not add up all the individuals on the petition. There are a little over 20 people --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. This might be the appropriate time to remind the members -- I have listened very carefully to a number of the petitions. The standing order states that the member may present the petition, give the number of people who have signed the petition and include the material allegations, in other words, not necessarily put all the reasons for the allegations contained in the petition. Just to be helpful and to ease the effort of reading the petition.

Mr. Reville: “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 are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

This petition has been signed by about 200 people. I will affix my signature thereto.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Hampton: I have a petition from the Union of Injured Workers.

“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 care about injured workers. We protest the Minister of Labour’s proposal to change the law; that would take away injured workers’ rights to permanent disability pensions when they are permanently disabled, that would do almost nothing about the miserable compensation of existing injured workers and their widows, and that would leave the injured workers of the future worse off. Workers who are killed or injured in their work deserve much better treatment than this.”

It is signed by some 34 individuals, and I have affixed my signature to it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Reville: “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 are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

This is signed by approximately 240 residents of Sudbury, Ontario, and I affixed my signature thereto, and warn the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Laughren: “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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have signed this petition, Mr. Speaker, along with nine other persons.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mr. Sola and Mrs. O’Neill exchange places in the order of precedence for private members’ public business.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Reville: I have a motion that unanimous consent of the House be given to withdraw a bill --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been suggested that should done at orders of the day.

Mr. Reville: I apologize. We will do it again.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved first reading of Bill 180, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Morin moved first reading of Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Epp moved first reading of Bill 181, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have an explanation?

Mr. Epp: The principal purpose of the bill is to prohibit the service of civil process in the Legislative Building, a room or place in which a committee of the assembly is meeting or in an office of a member of the assembly, other than a constituency office, that is designated by the Speaker. Breach of the prohibition would be dealt with as a contempt of the assembly.

The bill also deletes reference to the archaic concept of molestation in a civil cause.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 111

Mr. Reville moved that unanimous consent be given that the order for second reading of Bill 111, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

1540

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 112

Mr. Epp moved that the order for second reading of Bill 112, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the Minister of Labour adjourned the debate.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity yesterday to make a few introductory remarks on Bill 162, and what I would like to do now is to direct my attention to the bill itself.

The worker compensation system was created to help injured workers and their families cope with the consequences of workplace illness and workplace injury. Over the decades, inequities have appeared in the system. There have been piecemeal administrative efforts to address these inequities, efforts which, in turn, have generated new problems.

The system has needed reform of its very foundations. Bill 162 is the instrument of such reform. First, it ensures that injured workers have a fair and genuine opportunity to return to work once they are able. Second, it ensures the fair and appropriate financial compensation of workers who suffer permanent impairment because of workplace accident and disease.

The bill contains a number of measures concerning financial compensation. Key among them is the institution of a dual award system for permanent disability. That system will compensate workers for the economic losses that they experience as a result of workplace injury. It will also explicitly recognize for the first time in Ontario the noneconomic losses associated with permanent injuries.

Today, if a worker is hurt on the job and ultimately suffers a permanent impairment, the decrease in the worker’s capacity to function is rated and the worker is compensated accordingly. The rating is clinical, however. It bears no relationship to the kind of work the worker does. For example, a construction worker and an accountant will get the same pension for the same hand injury even though the construction worker obviously has a profoundly greater need for the use of his hand to do his work.

Now workers will be compensated for their loss of earning capacity through the regular payment, set at 90 per cent of their projected after-tax economic losses. Like all Workers’ Compensation Board payments, these payments will be tied to the consumer price index.

Under the provisions of Bill 162, the initial determination of an injured worker’s economic loss due to impairment will normally be made within 12 months of the injury, and the Workers’ Compensation Board will establish a compensation level. This level will be reviewed twice: first, 24 months after the first award, and second, 36 months after the first review.

Compensation for economic loss will be paid until age 65, when retirement income starts to flow to the injured worker. That retirement income will include a retirement pension from the Workers’ Compensation Board to compensate for the loss in capacity to save for retirement. To finance this retirement pension, the WCB will contribute an extra 10 per cent of the value of the permanent disability claimant’s compensation for lost earnings to a separate retirement pension fund.

As I said when I introduced Bill 162, the new approach to tying compensation more closely to economic loss means that we will finally be able to throw away the meat chart as the basis for determining compensation awards for economic loss. I want to add also that board decisions on wage loss payments will be subject to the same appeal process, including appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, as currently apply to board decisions and awards.

Bill 162 measures to compensate for noneconomic loss are meant to address such matters as psychological distress or the loss of capacity for leisure activities. The award for noneconomic loss will vary with the degree of impairment and the worker’s age. The maximum will be $65,000 for a worker who is 25 years old or younger and who suffers total impairment; a maximum, I emphasize, that is the largest of any in Canada.

The degree of impairment will be determined by medical practitioners and will be appealable to a medical referee acceptable to both worker and employer. It will not be appealable to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, and there has been much concern expressed about that.

In my view, the questions about the degree of impairment are medical questions, not legal or administrative. That is why the bill proposes a medical referee.

This medical refereeing process will be detached from the operations of the WCB, just as the appeals tribunal process is detached. Once an award for noneconomic loss has been set, it will be final unless there is a significantly greater than anticipated deterioration in the worker’s condition. In that case, the award will be subject to reconsideration.

If an award for noneconomic loss is greater than $10, 000, the worker will have the choice of taking payment in one lump sum or converting the award into a lifetime pension.

Bill 162 also provides for an increase in the ceiling for financial compensation for injured workers. If a system that compensates for lost earning capacity is to work properly, it must insure a large proportion of workers’ earnings. Under the current compensation act, the maximum gross earnings upon which benefits are calculated and assessments determined -- the covered earnings ceiling, as it is called -- is $35,100 per year. This is approximately 140 per cent of the average industrial wage. The annual earnings of about 470,000 workers in Ontario are greater than that.

This legislation will raise the ceiling to 175 per cent of the average industrial wage, which would currently come to approximately $44,000 per year. The increase will take place in two phases; first, to $40,000 in the January following proclamation of the amendments, and then to the 175 per cent level one year later. Approximately 98 percent of the workers covered by the act earn up to 175 per cent of the average industrial wage.

As I suggested at the outset, the workers’ compensation system exists to help workers and their families cope with the consequences of workplace injury and illness. In some respects, the most devastating consequence of all is the inability to get back to work. If the workers’ compensation system in Ontario is to be comprehensive, it must provide injured workers with a genuine opportunity to reconnect with the activities, stimulation and status of work itself.

Bill 162 seeks to do that in a number of ways -- ways that closely reflect the themes of the Ontario Task Force on Vocational Rehabilitation Services of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

The bill provides for earlier and more effective vocational rehabilitation efforts on behalf of injured workers. It addresses the obligation of employers to help injured workers return to work. It moves vocational rehabilitation to the centre of the WCB compensation agenda. So as to ensure early and effective intervention and assistance, Bill 162 obliges the WCB to make contact with injured workers who have not returned to work within 45 days of filing notice of their accident. This contact is meant to identify the worker’s need for vocational rehabilitation services. Where the WCB determines that such services are appropriate, it is obligated to provide them.

1550

Furthermore, the board is required to offer a vocational rehabilitation assessment and subsequent appropriate services to an injured worker within six months of filing notice if that worker has not returned to his pre-injury workplace, if he does not have comparable work or is not already receiving vocational rehabilitation services.

Beyond that, the board is obliged in the bill to design a vocational rehabilitation program in consultation with the worker and, where possible, in consultation with the employer and the treating physician.

In July the WCB announced a new vocational rehabilitation strategy consistent with the bill’s requirements. It is undertaking several pilot projects to test the implications of this new strategy.

As I mentioned a moment ago, Bill 162 obliges the WCB to include the employer, where possible, in the planning of vocational rehabilitation programs for the injured worker. This participation is intended primarily to help ensure an effective program for the worker that results in a return to work. However, it also helps to maintain the employer-employee relationship and therefore facilitates the injured worker’s reintegration into the workplace.

Another measure included in Bill 162 will act to strengthen the employment relationship and, at the same time, provide additional financial assistance to the worker. The bill requires employers to maintain an injured worker’s health care, life insurance and pension benefits during the injured worker’s absence from the workplace. This provision will protect injured workers from the sudden loss of these benefits.

The obligation to continue these benefits is contingent upon the worker’s maintaining his contributions where the benefits plan requires such contributions from the injured worker. The obligation stays with the employer for up to one year after the injury.

Once the worker is able to return to work, Bill 162 obliges the employer to reinstate the worker either to the position held before the injury or to comparable employment or, if the worker cannot perform the pre-injury work, to the first suitable and available opportunity.

This obligation covers injured workers who have had at least one year of continuous service in the jobs they performed prior to their injuries, and it runs for two years after the date of the injury, one year after the date that the worker is available for work or until the worker’s 61st birthday, whichever is the earliest.

An employer’s failure to meet that requirement will result in financial penalties equal to 90 per cent of the injured worker’s net earnings for a year. The only exception to this specific obligation to reinstate injured workers will be in the construction industry, where work patterns make it impractical, and in situations where employers regularly employ fewer than 20 employees. If a worker thinks that the employer has not met the reinstatement obligation, the WCB will investigate and effect a resolution of the dispute.

This process is being put into place in order to ensure that the workers’ problems with reinstatement can be dealt with in a manner that does not expose workers to long delays before they can return to work.

As I have said, the WCB will impose substantial penalties on employers who do not live up to the new statutory obligation to re-employ their injured workers.

Finally, honourable members will recall that there are now approximately 116,000 Workers’ Compensation Board permanent disability pensioners. The lifetime pensions currently being paid to these men and women will be continued and will remain indexed to the rate of inflation.

For roughly 20,000 of these pensioners, the amount of money they are receiving now falls short of their actual loss of earning power. Bill 162 provides a supplement to these clinical impairment pensions equal to the full monthly pension payable under section 3 of the Old Age Security Act. These payments will be adjusted for inflation and reviewed on the same basis as those provided under the new system.

There, then, are the main thrusts of Bill 162: fair financial compensation through a new dual award system, rehabilitation and reintegration into the workforce, all introduced in a cost-neutral system. They represent the conclusion of one round of historic reforms of the system and constitute the prologue to another.

As I have told this House, next year I expect to be issuing a green paper to inform and animate the public discussion of additional issues, such as the improvement of services in northern Ontario and the impact of the worker compensation system on small businesses. These too require discussion and consultation as a basis for further reform. But that is for the future; Bill 162 is for the present.

The culmination of close to a decade of exhaustive study and debate, it creates fairness, more effective protection of the rights of injured workers and broader opportunities for people to return to work that they are capable of doing. I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to bring it before you for consideration. I look forward to the constructive comments and considered proposals that will ensue, no doubt. I look forward to seeing Bill 162 out of this assembly to a committee and, ultimately, into the heart of the worker compensation system, which will be fairer and more effective as a result of it.

Miss Martel: It certainly is a pleasure to lead off on the debate of Bill 162 on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I must say as well that it is a pleasure to be the NDP critic for the Workers’ Compensation Board in this province.

I suppose it is appropriate that I have become the critic of the compensation board in the last month and a half, because I know a little bit about the system. I worked for the compensation board for eight months before I actually ran and was elected to this place. At this point in time, I am not sure which one is better.

I can honestly say to members of this House, and to the minister as well, that I bring a different perspective to it than he or anyone else in here possibly can. As I say, I worked there. I had to deal with this legislation. I had to deal with the way the compensation board in this province takes legislation, twists it around and uses it to maximize its own purposes and intent.

I should point out to members that the Workers’ Compensation Act -- I am sorry I do not have a copy of the actual act with me -- is about this thick. When you go to work for the board or if you take a walk down to the board and go in, you find out that, in fact, the administration has taken that act and has developed from it six manuals -- they are each about this thick -- of how it interprets that legislation and how that legislation will be used in the board and applied to injured men and women across this province.

Let me tell the House that on many occasions I have found that the intent of the legislation and the spirit of that legislation have been completely undermined by the board when developing policy. It has interpreted it in any way it chose, because it has tremendous discretionary power under the act.

On many occasions when going through the policy manuals and trying to apply the legislation, I have found that the whole spirit and intent of members of this House were completely undermined by the administration. And that worries me, because I go from that experience, after working there, after having to deal with policies the board has made, and I look at this bill. I am extremely disappointed and, I must say, I am probably afraid that this bill gives even more discretionary power to the board to twist legislation in any way it chooses, to its own benefit. I have read it thoroughly on more than one occasion, and that is my reading of it, as someone who worked there, as someone who understands the legislation and as someone who had to deal with the legislation when working with injured workers. I must say that what I will try to do here today is to bring some of that insight to members of this House and to the minister as well.

1600

In beginning, I suppose it is no surprise to anyone in the House, and certainly not to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), that the New Democratic Party will be opposing this bill. We will bitterly be opposing this bill for a number of reasons that I will get into.

I think it is safe to say, though, and I should point out right away as I begin, that this party is not historically obliged to oppose legislation regarding compensation. We do not look at Bill 162 and the debate on second reading as yet another attempt to slam the Workers’ Compensation Board and kick it in the head one more time. I am sure it will happen during the course of this debate, but it certainly is not our intent, in beginning, to say that this is where we come from, this is the history of our opposition to compensation.

Maybe I should go back and just remind members of this House that in 1985 this party did indeed support Bill 101 and those amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act. I can safely say that our opposition is not historical and is not motivated by some deep-rooted theory to oppose continuously on compensation matters.

But Bill 101 was quite a bit different. It contained some very good things on behalf of injured workers. Let me give members some examples for those who were not here. It established the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, which was a tribunal that had long been asked for by people like Paul Weiler, who stated that you had to have an independent tribunal to look at some of the ridiculous and outrageous decisions coming out of the board and actually try to deal equitably and fairly with workers. That was the intent behind WCAT. It has been very good. It has backed off a bit in the last couple of months as the pressure from the employers comes on, but certainly we supported it because it was a good idea. It made the system fair. It actually gave workers the right to appeal outside of the board and outside of the board’s most ridiculous decisions and structures.

As well, there was an increase in survivors’ benefits, which dramatically changed the situation for spouses whose husbands had died or whose wives had died on the job in Ontario. It provided for the first time worker reps to actually sit on the Workers’ Compensation Board’s board of directors, and that was a good thing. It has not gone far enough. We do not yet have an injured worker sitting on that board, but I hope that will come. It is too bad that that is not incorporated in this piece of legislation.

I must say, again, that the changes contemplated under Bill 101 were good, solid, meaningful changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act, and that is why we supported them. They made the system more fair and more just for injured workers, and there was little opportunity for the Workers’ Compensation Board to use its discretionary power in ways to abuse the spirit of this legislation.

Mr. Polsinelli: They did nothing.

Miss Martel: I can hear the member saying they did nothing. I would tell him that maybe he should take a look at what was actually passed, because there were some very good things. That is why we supported it.

Bill 162, the legislation before us, does not equal Bill 101. It certainly does not reflect in any way what we supported in 1985. If there is a comparison that can be made, it is probably this. Under Bill 101, we saw the introduction of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal and we rejected the dual award system; in fact, the Tories did not even put it into the bill after the standing committee on resources development looked at it. Under Bill 162, we now see that there is every attempt to undermine WCAT and the working of WCAT by not allowing certain appeals to go to it and, on the same hand, we see the reintroduction yet again of the dual award system.

I must say we are faced with a very different situation than we were in 1985, and I must say that the reason we are opposing it, as I will outline, comes from those very facts, that what we are faced with is much different from 1985.

It is funny that some of the same people I have been dealing with on this bill are the same people who fought the dual award system in 1983, in 1984 and again in 1985. It should be no surprise to anyone that those people from the clinics, from the trade union movement and from the injured workers’ groups are also back to fight this bill.

I want to point out very specifically to the minister and say to him that we in the NDP have joined that fight. We are not manipulating that fight or those injured workers or injured workers’ concerns, as the minister suggested in the newspaper this week when he said, “The campaign against this bill is created by the opposition parties, who have traditionally manipulated the concerns of workers.”

I want to say that if you look at the track record of this party, you will find out very quickly that we have consistently been on the side of injured workers in this province, and we will not change that stand. It is incredibly naïve of th e minister to say that we are manipulating or that we are leading that fight. We are certainly trying to lead that fight in this House, but let me remind him again that the opposition to this bill has been growing throughout this summer. It has been growing in particular in Metropolitan Toronto and it is starting to spread across the province. We have joined that and we are pleased to join that fight.

I want to give my colleagues and the other members of the House a bit of information about how that fight has been going. When I tapped into this network of opposition -- it was just after I became the critic near the end of August -- many critiques on the bill had already been prepared and presented.

In fact, one week after the bill had been introduced, the Ontario Federation of Labour had done a critique on it and had already sent that to the minister. The legal clinics as well had met as a group with representatives from the trade union movement and injured workers’ groups, and several of them had prepared critiques and put them into a package that they had prepared for people who wanted to oppose this bill, with reasons for which we would oppose this bill.

When I joined the network, they had already set up eight community meetings that ran in September and October to invite injured workers to come and hear why their representatives, those people who are representing them against the board, actually felt this bill would not be in their best interests. Those were carried out right across Metropolitan Toronto and in Mississauga as well.

Finally, the Ontario Federation of Labour, which had reacted quite quickly to this bill at the end of June, had also at that point organized a weekend conference on workers’ compensation and this bill in particular. That conference was held at the end of September, and over 250 representatives from the trade union movement -- those who deal with compensation -- actually ended up showing up to go through a weekend debate on why this bill was bad, why they should talk to their membership about it and why they should oppose it.

I want to reiterate again that the network of opposition out there includes the trade union movement, it includes the legal clinics and it includes injured workers’ groups. The opposition is growing and it is widespread. We have tapped into it, and I want to reiterate that we are pleased to do so.

I want to spend some time speaking on this bill, I think for three reasons.

The first is that it is indeed a very major piece of legislation. It is the greatest amount of reforms to the system -- and I use “reforms” very loosely -- that we have seen since Bill 101 in 1985. If passed, it will affect injured workers, those hurt in the future, those who in the future will require rehabilitation, those who will require recognition of permanent disabilities and those who will need job security. It has dramatic future implications that I do not think many people yet realize.

I must say, after reading it and after some of my colleagues have gone through it, that we can state today that this bill cannot and will not be rushed through this Legislature. We will not accommodate anyone who wants to push it through, and that is why we have pushed so hard this week for full and public hearings around the province on this bill, because it has tremendous implications and the public has got to be aware of what it entails. The minister will not get this bill by December, as he said to me he would like or as he said in the paper on Monday he would like. In fact, we will ensure that there will be full public hearings on this so that everyone can see exactly what it is about. I think we did get a commitment on that this morning.

I think the second reason I am going to spend some time is that the legislation is very complicated. It is difficult even for those people who deal with compensation daily, and I think the real problem in this House is that there is a large number of members who have not read it and may not read it and may depend on either their critic or the minister to carry the day.

1610

I am urging members to seriously take a look at the bill. See how the discretionary power of the board is going to be increased. See the many occasions in the bill where the board has to deliver services where the board considers it appropriate and not where the legislation states the board will provide services; that occurs many times. I think members will see and understand, as I did from someone who worked there and saw how legislation was undermined, that there is real potential for the same thing to happen here.

Third, this bill represents very bad legislation. I want to assure the minister that I have read it many times. I have read it thoroughly many times. I have looked at it as well in conjunction with people, from the legal clinics in particular and from the trade union movement, who deal with compensation every day, whose job it is to understand this act and to fight on behalf of injured workers. They have gone through it very carefully, as a group and individually, and have come together to critique it and state their opposition to it.

After reading it, there are a couple of things we have figured the bill will not do. These are simply: It will not make compensation in this province any fairer, it will not provide security to injured workers and it will not make the system more just. What it will do, after our reading of it, is it will tremendously increase the discretionary power of the board, it will decrease both the rights and benefits of injured workers in this province and it will cause, at 2 Bloor Street East, an incredible bureaucratic nightmare, which will spread to all the regional offices of the WCB right across this province.

Before I begin my analysis, and I am getting to it, I want to deal with two pressing issues that should be gone through. The first is that the minister has stated, and he has done it on more than one occasion, that those who oppose this bill do so because they have not read it. I will say to him that is fine in the House, as we square off, he and I, because that is part of the political process here. We can expect that and so can other members of the Legislature.

But he is making a grave mistake when he suggests that those who are opposing the bill outside this Legislature do so because they have not read it and implies that they do not know what they are talking about. Those people deal with compensation every single day; every working day they have to deal with this bill and its implications for their workers. They know more about compensation than he and I will ever know. In fact, they have probably forgotten more about compensation than we will ever know. They know more about Bill 162 than any member in here; that includes myself, and I am not ashamed to say it. The minister may not like their opposition, but he cannot say it stems from their ignorance, because it does not.

I must say that he does some damage to himself when he states that those people opposing it have not read it and do not know what they are talking about. That is fine between him and me, but I should advise him that he should be very careful when he states that about other people outside this House who are opposing it.

I guess the second thing I want to make an issue of, because the minister himself has made an issue of it this week --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: You know I never said that. It makes a marvellous speech, but you know I never said that.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Miss Martel: Let me respond to that, Mr. Speaker. The minister and I had a debate on Sunday night on Maclean Hunter Cable TV. The second half was a phone-in. He will recall that one of the calls that came in last, and in fact was not on the air, was from a gentleman who actually said he opposed the bill. The minister said to him, “Have you read the bill?” He said: “No, I haven’t. I talked to my rep. They said it was bad.” The minister said, “Maybe you should read the bill and you will find that you will not oppose it.” In question period on the first day this House resumed, when I got up and said the bill was bad, the minister stated in his response to the supplementary on the first question that maybe I should read the bill.

That is fine. There are a lot of us out here in this Legislature, and out there, who are reading the bill. The minister has stated on more than one occasion that they have not read it and that is why they are opposing it. I suggest he go back and check some of his remarks, both in the paper --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Not true.

Miss Martel: You can shake your head, and that is fine, but we will go through it. Check some of the remarks you have made, because I have heard it more than once.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I recognize one member at a time. And the person talking will address his or her remarks through the Speaker. I think that will make it easier.

Miss Martel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The second thing I want to look at, and I think it is most pressing that they deal with it, goes back to what has been happening in the House this week; that is, the minister’s anger -- I do not know if it is feigned or not, but we will find out -- and suggestion that the New Democratic Party has misled the public over this bill.

I have always understood that before you make accusations about statements by other members or other parties or any information put out by those people, you check your own house and find out exactly what you have said on the issue beforehand. I think the minister is certainly not in a position to accuse anyone about misleading anyone on this bill.

Just to make the point, I decided to go into the backgrounder put out by the ministry on the bill and I decided to go back to the minister’s statement, which he made in this House June 20, on this bill and compare what was put into the backgrounder and the minister’s statement versus the legislation itself. Let me just go through this.

On the first discrepancy, in the backgrounder, on page 11, it talks about the new system and how the new system will work. In particular, the section here deals with earnings ceilings. It says:

“In the new system the worker would receive temporary total disability compensation of $556.17 per week. This is significantly higher than the corresponding payment in the old system, because the worker would benefit from the rise in the covered earnings ceiling (a ceiling of $44,000 is assumed in this calculation).”

If I go to the legislation, on page 4 of the bill we discover that the ceilings in fact are laid out quite clearly. On the day that the bill is passed the first ceiling will be $35,100; on January 1, a year after the bill is passed, the ceiling will go to $40,000; two years after that, the ceiling will be 75 per cent of the average industrial wage in the province.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is 175 per cent.

Miss Martel: Excuse me, 175 per cent of the average industrial wage. I will admit my error there.

Nowhere in the legislation is there any reference to a $44,000 ceiling, and when we go back to what appears in the backgrounder, I have to wonder if the new ceiling, the new benefits the worker is going to get, which the minister is trying to sell people on, are based on that ceiling or not, because if it is, it certainly is a misrepresentation of what is actually in the bill.

Let’s go to another one. The second area refers to compensation for lost earning capacity; that is, if you go back into the bill, the dual system itself, the loss of earning benefits that the minister has outlined. This is what it says in the backgrounder:

“The fully indexed benefit established at the second review will continue until the worker attains the age of 65. At such time, the earnings loss award will be replaced with a retirement pension.”

What does it say in the legislation? It says the fully indexed benefit I have just referred to will continue “up to the time that the worker reaches 65 years of age, as the board considers appropriate in the circumstances.” That is quite a bit different from what the minister stated in here. There is no guarantee at all, is there?

The minister has said here that people will get it up to age 65, no problem, but if you go and look at the legislation, you find out that it is left to the discretionary power of the board. If they consider it appropriate, they will then allow it up to age 65. I think those are quite two different matters we are referring to.

Let me continue, because there is more. Let me go to the statement that the minister made in this House the day this bill was introduced. Again, it refers to the section on the compensation for future loss of earnings, which I have just referred to. The minister said:

“Some workers who are injured in the future will receive more money than they would have under the old system; some will receive less. But all of them will receive what they need to make up for their loss of earning power.”

That is pretty specific: “...all of them will receive what they need to make up for their loss of earning power.”

1620

Let's go back to the legislation. Members will find that on pages 7 and 8, under section 45a of this legislation, the legislation is quite specific. It states:

“90 per cent of the difference between,

“(a) the worker’s net average earnings before their injury...; and

“(b) the net average amount that the board considers that the worker is able to earn after the injury in suitable and available employment.”

That says to me that there is nothing in here to do with the actual loss of earning power. This bill does not represent 90 per cent of the actual loss; it is based on what the board considers the worker is capable and able to do after the injury. He may not be able to do anything or he may be capable of doing something; but it is up to the board to determine this job for him, and it will base the earner’s capacity on that, not what he earns, not what the actual wage loss is.

Mr Polsinelli: Is that appealable to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal?

Miss Martel: I am not sure, because the legislation does not say, but in an analysis on this which was done by the ministry, we have that it is not appealable to WCAT. So we are not quite sure on the reading of that.

I must say, though, that the Canada pension plan is also integrated; so it will not be half as good as the permanent pension, which is not integrated with CPP.

The Deputy Speaker: Please address your remarks through the Speaker.

Miss Martel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I go back to the statement the minister made the day this legislation was introduced. I want to go to a very important section. It is the rehabilitation provision in this bill. The minister said in his statement:

“The WCB will be required to make contact with injured workers within 45 days of their injury and provide prompt rehabilitation services where appropriate. Injured workers who have not returned to employment within six months of an injury will be entitled to a formal evaluation of their need for vocational rehabilitation and to subsequent appropriate services.”

That sounds to me as if once you do the rehabilitation assessment after six months, you are guaranteed subsequent appropriate services. But if members go to the bill under section 54a, they will find out it does not say anything of the sort. In fact, it reads as follows:

“(6) The board shall contact every worker,

“(a) who has not returned to his or her pre-injury employment or to alternate employment of a nature and at earnings comparable to the pre-injury employment within six months...

“in order to offer the worker a vocational rehabilitation assessment....”

That is all it says. It says nothing like “the board will be obliged after the assessment to provide appropriate rehabilitation services,” absolutely nothing.

The point of all this is simply this. I do not think the minister is in any position to accuse anyone of anything on this bill, but if he wants to get into a mud-slinging match on this, then we will. I must say that if that happens, I think I will win.

Mr. Reycraft: Is that a threat?

Miss Martel: He has gone on about it all week, so I thought I would respond to it.

I want to get into the details of the bill. I am going to spend some time in each of three sections, actually. They are, for us, probably the most onerous details of this bill and the reason we will not be supporting the bill.

Mr. Mahoney: We have only got an hour and 40 minutes to go, Shelley.

Miss Martel: I am getting there. We might carry this to Monday.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. One member at a time. The member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Miss Martel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to begin with the rehabilitation section because it is the one thing the ministry has really been hanging its hat on in this whole bill. It has certainly implied throughout anything it has written that it has followed up the recommendations of Majesky and Minna; so I think it is really important that we go back to the report done by Majesky and Minna and spend some time on it to find out exactly how they said the board should change the system and make rehabilitation meaningful at the Workers’ Compensation Board.

The members of this Legislature will know that the Minister of Labour in May 1986 actually established the task force. It is important to remember as well that the task force was made up of not only labour reps but also employer reps and people from the medical profession; so it was a fairly broad-based group representing the interests of both sides of the compensation system, not just workers. It was headed by Majesky and Minna.

The task force spent more than a year studying the system. It spent quite a bit of money, and in the end it published an absolutely damning report of vocational rehabilitation as provided at the Workers’ Compensation Board. It was just absolutely incredible, and it was incredible to me that the government sat on it for such a long time as it did, but maybe that was because it is so damning.

I want to go back to the report and take a look at what they said. In the final statement the task force said this:

“The experience of the task force in the past year was long, painful and emotionally wrenching. The tales of injustice, neglect and rejection recounted by the injured workers throughout the province were so harrowing as to leave the task force members disgusted and frustrated.”

The WCB “has failed to recognize the emergence of a society that is more understanding of the needs of the disabled.” It is unresponsive “to the fact that hundreds of thousands of workers have become partially or totally disabled in the past years and that society cannot ignore or reject them.”

Let me go a little further, because they made some very careful statements on rehabilitation and what should be provided.

Before I get to that, they have said, “In effect, the WCB does not serve the rehabilitation needs of all injured workers and those who are referred are served inadequately.”

The purpose of rehabilitation must be not only to provide vocational assistance but also to restore the injured worker to his or her maximum physical, mental, social, vocational and economic usefulness.

In summary, they said:

“Clearly there are unions, employers and groups of injured workers who have taken a leadership role in attempting to change the system. However, there are far too many who do no more than is required by law.

“Changing a monolithic system such as the WCB requires involvement by caring persons at all levels. But, first of all, it requires the government to enact new legislation and to translate it into change throughout the system.”

Based on that, and as the government has said it followed those recommendations and the task force report quite carefully, you would have thought that there would be some very important changes concerning rehabilitation incorporated into this bill. You would have thought that, as the minister said, rehabilitation would become the centre of the workers’ compensation system.

I want to take some time to go through exactly what this legislation states about rehabilitation and compare that to what Minna-Majesky said had to happen at the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Let me begin by looking at the section called “The Right to Total Rehabilitation.” The task force people recommended this:

“Any worker who sustains a serious injury or a debilitating disease linked to the workplace shall have the statutory right to all rehabilitation required by that worker. Rehabilitation shall be defined as ‘to assist workers who have suffered occupational injuries or debilitating diseases linked to the workplace in the process of restoration, to their fullest physical, mental, social, vocational and economic independence to the maximum possible extent.’ Serious shall be defined as a situation in which the worker is unable to return to the job within 30 days of injury.”

That is pretty specific-statutory right to all workers after 30 days because their condition will be considered serious. On the extent of rehabilitation, the requirement is fairly broad. But what does it say in the legislation? In section 54a, the legislation says:

“Where, in the opinion of the board, a worker should be provided with a vocational rehabilitation program, the board...shall design and provide the worker with a vocational rehabilitation program.”

“Where, in the opinion of the board” -- that is absolutely key. It was a fundamental principle Put out by the task force. They stated that every worker who had not returned to work after 30 days had a statutory right to rehab. This is a far cry from a statutory right to rehab. In fact, this is a farce. It does not even come close to what they have said.

But there is more. The task force also recommended that all cases in workers’ compensation which have been open more than 30 days but not referred to vocational rehab services be referred for service under the broader definition of rehab. Within 30 days they should go to rehab and get the services they require.

What does the legislation say? Basically this:

“The board shall contact every worker who has not returned to work within 45 days...for the purpose of identifying the worker’s need for vocational rehabilitation services, and the board shall provide such services to the worker if the board considers it appropriate to do so.”

1630

Again, if the board considers it appropriate; not that the worker should have the statutory right to expect it but only if the board decides that it will he appropriate. I cannot believe the minister can leave such discretionary power to the board to do that. He knows that if it does not have to provide service it will not. That was the problem Minna and Majesky found. But he has refused to take it upon himself to put into place some legislation to respond to that.

There is another one. The recommendation from the task force: “That the board take a proactive role in identifying those injured workers who have not received, have been denied or were never referred to rehabilitation services and that the board accept the responsibility of supplying satisfactory rehabilitation services and ensuring financial security.” The board has to accept the responsibility of offering something to those who were already denied or never had a rehab program.

Let’s go back to the bill. The bill says this: “(6) The board shall contact every worker, (a) who has not returned to his or her pre-injury employment...within six months after notice of the accident...is filed; (b) who is not receiving vocational rehabilitation services; and (c) who has not completed a vocational rehabilitation program, in order to offer the worker a vocational rehabilitation assessment.”

“Assessment.” Not services. Do the members want to know what “assessment” means under this act? “Assessment” refers to “a comprehensive evaluation of an injured worker’s functional or physical capability after the injury, to include personal interest, aptitude, education, language skills and work history.”

I go back to the point that all the board is committed to do after six months is offer an assessment. This act says nothing about offering services and the obligation of the board to offer those services after an assessment. It is left to its discretion again.

I go back to the problem which was inherent, which the task force heard again and again, that unless the board absolutely had to provide rehab it would not and it would find every excuse not to provide that service. The minister has not gone a step further in ensuring that injured workers get the rehab they require because he has left it up to the board to determine if it is appropriate or not. That is a far cry from what was asked, called upon and demanded by the people who wrote this on his behalf and on behalf of the government.

Just in the final part in this book there was something quite simple the minister could have done to provide even a symbolic change to what he says should be the centre of the compensation system which has rehabilitation. Very simply, the task force said:

“1. That the name of the act be changed from the Workers’ Compensation Act to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act to reflect the importance of the rehabilitation function of the board.

“2. That the name of the board be changed to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Board.

“3. That the Minister of Labour add one injured worker and a vocational rehabilitation practitioner to the corporate board of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Board.”

You know what? We did not even get that. It could have been very simply done. If the minister had been intent on providing at least a symbolic change to show that rehabilitation was going to come at the centre of the compensation system, he could have done that, and he did not. In what I have read so far about rehab, it is a far cry from what the task force demanded happen in Ontario.

I want to go and look at just a few of the other problems inherent in the rehabilitation section. For the first time ever in rehabilitation, time limits to rehab services have been imposed under this bill. I go to the section on the board providing assistance to a worker who is looking for employment. The board can offer that assistance for six months or it may offer it up to one year if the board considers it appropriate to do so. That is the first time we have ever seen in this system that a time limit has been placed on vocational rehab services.

I think the second part of the rehab provisions is probably the most important because it shows quite clearly that this government and this minister are not intent on providing rehab services and full rehab to injured workers.

If you go to the section you will see that rehabilitation will be given to workers who receive benefits under section 40 of this act. For those of you who are not very clear on what that means, section 40 benefits are benefits given to workers who are considered temporarily totally disabled; that is, they have been hurt on the job and are trying to recover in order to go back to work. Section 40 benefits also refer to people who are working with rehab. They may have a partial disability. They are working with the rehabilitation department in order to find suitable work.

The legislation is quite specific and it says that rehabilitation will be offered only to those people who are on those benefits.

If you go to the section on the second benefit that the minister talked about, that is the loss-of-earnings benefit, you will see that in fact this provision severely undermines the length of time a worker can expect rehabilitation at the board and that, where possible, the board, in the 12th consecutive month after the worker is determined totally disabled, or a year after notice of the accident when a permanent pension is noticed, or 18 months -- and this is the maximum -- after a notice of accident is given, the payments to the workers will switch from the section 40 benefits that I talked about to new benefits under section 45a, and those new benefits are the benefits reflected under the dual award system.

The point of the matter is that if after 18 months, at max, a worker is going to be moved from section 40 to section 45 benefits, then it follows that after 18 months maximum, an injured worker cannot receive rehabilitation at the board because he will no longer be on section 40 benefits.

I have to say to the minister that in fact what he has done is dramatically decrease the possibility of injured workers in this province who require rehabilitation, who should have a statutory right to rehabilitation, actually getting those services. Many injuries at the board go longer than 18 months. Those people will not even get a crack at rehab.

It also implies that a worker may start a rehab program and be cut off that program after 18 months because his benefits will change, because he will go under the new section 45a benefits.

What the minister has done is really change the intent of Minna-Majesky and all the recommendations that they put forward to the government in this very important report.

By not stating quite clearly in the legislation that the board will have to provide rehab services to a worker after a serious injury, which is 30 days, and by cutting down rehabilitation to 19 months maximum after the date of injury, the minister has thrown out the window any of the good that was in this report and any of the important changes he could have made concerning rehabilitation. It is a far cry from what was in here, from what was recommended and from what he could have done on behalf of injured workers who deserve proper rehabilitation in this province.

I must say that for the minister to get up in this House and state that rehabilitation is going to become the heart of the compensation system is completely unacceptable, because that is not what is going to happen under this bill and anyone who reads the bill can clearly see that.

I want to move to the second set of provisions in this bill. Those provisions include reinstatement, and the minister has talked a little bit about that in his opening remarks.

I want to go back again to Minna-Majesky, because not only did they talk about rehabilitation, but they also made some important points about re-employment issues and reinstatement. Let me quote what they recommended to the Minister of Labour in this report, and it is this:

“That a worker who is injured at the workplace or contracts an occupational disease shall have the statutory right to return to the pre-injury job. Where the worker is no longer capable of performing that job, he or she shall have the right to another job in the same enterprise, respecting seniority rights.”

That is pretty straightforward. I do not think you can get away from what they are asking in terms of misrepresenting it or not understanding what it is saying, but when you go to the legislation, surprise, surprise -- or maybe not any surprise -- you see what the task force report recommended is again not included in the bill.

1640

If I go back to the section on reinstatement and re-employment, it says in the opening remarks, “This section does not apply in respect of...” and then we start. It does not apply in respect of “employers and workers engaged in the construction industries” in this province. That is a heck of a lot of workers. In fact, it is about 323,000 workers in this province who have been cut out of this completely. I have yet to hear a very adequate response as to why this has happened. I know the minister did say on Sunday that there would be a problem because much of the work done in the construction industry was contract and it would be difficult to have the worker return to the pre-accident site or to the pre-accident employer.

It has been my impression that construction industries usually have more than one project site and it might not be all that difficult a task to have some of those workers return either to the original site or to another with the same employer. I do not know if he looked at that. I certainly know he is excluding a large number of people who probably need reinstatement the most from these actual provisions.

Let’s go on. The next group exempted are the “employers who regularly employ fewer than 20 workers.” That works out to be about 20 per cent of all establishments in the private sector. I would say that is a fair number of workers in this province as well. It is probably the same group of people, under 20 or less, who do not have occupational health and safety standards either. He is really slamming a group that has the most problems and also, again, requires reinstatement rights.

He includes in this category a lot of people working in the bush and people working in agriculture, where some of the most serious injuries suffered occur. It is the same group that is excluded, some of the people who need it the most. A significant proportion of the population is excluded. But it gets even better.

The third group that is exempt includes “such classes or subclasses of employers and workers as may be exempted by the regulations.” If that does not leave it wide open to just about everyone, I do not know what else does, because that gives the board the opportunity at any point in the future to determine a class of employers who do not have to be covered and a class of workers who therefore do not have any rights under this section. I cannot believe, quite frankly, that kind of power would be given to the board to determine, because that leaves it wide open for the board to go at any future time, without legislative review, to determine any class that could be taken out.

I really wonder why, if the minister is going to put in place provisions for reinstatement, they are such half-measures of reinstatement rights. If one is going to implement change in the province and try to bring out good change on behalf of injured workers, then one goes all the way and does it right the first time. One does not put forward these kind of exemptions. By the time one is finished, one is looking at about 25 per cent of the population already excluded and who knows who else in the future when the board gets around to doing something about it.

I think there are a few other problems in this section. They refer to the obligations of the employer. Under the bill, the obligations of the employer to reinstate people are such that the employer is obligated for only two years after the date of injury. There are many workers in this province who suffer serious injury who are nowhere near returning to work after two years and so they sit out. The employer is under no obligation to take them back.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is a fraction of one per cent.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Miss Martel: I am not sure what the minister is referring to.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: A fraction of one per cent.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Miss Martel: The minister has said a fraction of one per cent. I am going back to the number of workers he has already excluded, including workers who are injured now who have no rights under this section, and I would say that it may be a fraction of one per cent, but he has already done in about 25 per cent of the population. How much more does he want? This is getting ridiculous, quite frankly. If you are going to put in stuff to protect people, you protect them. You do not put in all kinds of discretionary power that the board can use later on to exclude large numbers of classes as well.

Let me go on. We have got a problem as well in that the accident employer, instead of actually modifying a job, can sit out the two-year period. The accident employer is supposed to accommodate the injured worker in getting him back into the workplace. There is nothing under the legislation that obliges him to modify an existing job in order to accommodate the worker. It could be much easier for the employer to sit out the two years, stating that he does not have suitable and available work for the worker and leave it at that, and then his obligation is complete.

I think the worst part of the legislation in this regard refers to the fact that this is one of the sections where there can be no appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. I think my leader was right today when he posed the question to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), “How can you deny basic rights to injured workers in this regard?”

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal was established primarily because of the horrendous decisions coming out of the board, the ridiculous decisions that did not reflect in any way, shape, or form justice or rationale or fairness within the system. People were given the opportunity to take their complaints then to a higher, independent tribunal that might have more sense in actually determining and trying to resolve the dispute.

Here we have it. For the first time since WCAT was instituted in 1985, we see the chipping away of the power of that body and the right of workers to appeal to that body.

Let me go into Hansard and take a look at that, because I did ask the minister why, in both this case and in the case of pension assessments, he was no longer allowing the appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. He said to me, in response to the question of why this was happening in terms of the reinstatement rights, “We provide no appeal because the time limit” -- that is, the obligation of the employer – “is a two-year time limit period for reinstatement, and we think that to have a long appeal mechanism would be inappropriate under these circumstances.”

I must say that I consider it completely inappropriate that he takes away the worker’s right to appeal to WCAT.

Let me just refer as well to the time limits, because the inference here was that after two years the obligation ran out, and I remember the minister saying as well that an appeal to WCAT may take much longer than that and then the time would have run out. But if you go into the legislation in a different section of the act, you see that the board is given the power to do this,

“The board may extend the time limits set out in subsection 6 in the case of a worker who is not receiving compensation...and whose entitlement to compensation is in dispute.”

So we have in one section of the bill the right of the board to stay a decision and to oblige the board to pay compensation, even if a time limit has been met; and yet in the same bill, under a different section, we have the right to appeal refused because the minister has said the time limit will run out and the obligation of the employer may run out by the time we appeal to WCAT.

I want to suggest to the minister that the reasoning behind this is completely ridiculous and I would suggest strongly to him that he go back and take a look at it again, because he has already put into the legislation in another place a prerequisite allowing the board to do away with time limits and implement compensation after. There is no reason why the same thing cannot be applied here, and I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why it has not been done and why he is using that type of reasoning.

At this point I would like to move into the section that is probably the most important in this bill, and it is probably the section that we disagree with the most. It is at the centre of the proposed changes to permanent disability and the way permanent disability is awarded in this province, and it is the implementation or the reintroduction of the dual award system.

The dual award system, as the minister has stated, is supposed to replace the meat chart as the basis for determining economic loss of a worker who is injured in the province. The dual award system is supposed to do two things. Number one, it is supposed to provide benefit for a noneconomic loss, that being defined as the loss of amenities that one suffers because of an injury.

1650

The second benefit is to replace earnings which are lost as a result of an accident. If we go back to the history of the dual system, we actually see that it is not a new idea in the province at all. In fact, in 1980 Paul Weiler, in the first Weiler report, introduced the idea of the dual system when he was looking at the compensation system in Ontario.

From there, we had the government in 1981 -- it was the Tory government at that time -- put that idea into a white paper. Between April 1982 and December 1983, that white paper was actually studied in the standing committee on resources development of this Legislature. At that time the majority voted in favour, but we in this party dissented in a 40-page report, which included not only the dual system but also many other aspects of the system this party was concerned with.

In 1985, although Bill 101 was introduced and in fact passed, the dual system did not appear in the legislation. I think it was because the Tories realized, first, that there was great opposition to it, and second, that the dual system would not do what it was set out to do in the first place.

In December 1986, the system was mentioned yet again by Paul Weiler. At that time, he was doing a report on compensation for permanent disabilities in this province. Then in June 1998, the dual system, under Bill 162, was announced in this Legislature by the minister.

I must say, as we did in 1983 in our dissent in the resources committee, we reject this proposal and this system once again.

I want to go through why we reject it. I think it extremely important that people have a perception of why we are very concerned with it, why we do not think it is going to make the system any fairer or any more equitable.

Let me deal with the first component of the dual award system, that is, the lump sum payment for noneconomic loss, what the minister referred to as loss of amenities in life. There are three things that really should be said about the noneconomic loss. It is probably the only guaranteed payment under the dual award system. I state that very clearly. It is the only payment that is guaranteed under this system. Second, it represents much less than the present pension does. Third, although the minister will say it is not, it is based on the meat chart.

I want to go through the sections where that becomes applicable. I will deal with the last one first, the question of the meat chart. The minister has said in several of his statements: “We are doing away with the meat chart. We’ve all hated it. It was unfair, it was arbitrary,” it was this, that and the other thing. Yet when we look at the legislation, we find it appears again. It is the meat chart under a different name which is going to be used to determine the lump sum payment.

If we look at the proposed regulations attached to this bill, they state quite clearly: “The board will have the power to establish a rating schedule setting out the degree of permanent impairment for specified types of impairment.” I think that is pretty clear. That says to me that we are going to have a rating schedule, albeit another name and not the meat chart, but certainly a rating schedule as we have always had to determine the degree of permanent impairment of a worker.

If we go into the section on the lump sum payment in the bill, we will find out, and it states quite clearly, that the injured worker is assessed for the lump sum award. When he is assessed for the lump sum award, he will be assessed “the degree of permanent impairment of the worker according to the prescribed rating schedule.” That is pretty clear again, and that is the second reference we have to it in the legislation.

We have a third reference as well in the same section and it is this, that the lump sum payment, the payment for noneconomic loss, will be determined by using “the percentage of the worker’s permanent impairment from the injury.”

I think it is very clear that the meat chart has not been done away with, that it appears in this legislation, albeit under a different name. It is the same thing and it is alive and well in this legislation. The one symbol that has become meaningful for workers, that is, the meat chart, which they and we have hated and said had to be done away with, in fact has not been done away with in this bill. I think it is important to let people know that so they understand that it has not gone away at all.

Second is the whole concept that presently pensions in this province are paid on a monthly basis and are guaranteed for life. We are living at present under the concept that a pension for life reflects a disability for life. While the minister has talked about this new lump sum, we find that if we compare it to what workers are receiving now, the new lump sum proposed under this bill is much less than workers receive now under their permanent pensions.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Of course it is.

Miss Martel: The minister says, “Of course it is.” The other problem is that of course it is the only payment that is guaranteed, because when you get to the second component, the loss of earnings component, you find out quite quickly that there is no guarantee in this section that workers are going to receive anything but the noneconomic loss, a small lump sum pension. I can see the minister shaking his head, but I will get to it, because it is most definitely there, and that is what frightens us the most about this bill.

Let’s look at the lump sum payment. The calculations are you start off at $45,000. If you are 45 years old, you do not get penalized. If you are over 45 years old, for every year you are over 45 years old, you get $1,000 knocked off the calculation of your pension. If you are under 45 years old, you get $ 1,000 added to your pension or added to the lump sum figure, depending on your age. What happens is that we have inherent in the system the use of an age factor, which in my opinion is completely discriminatory. I do not know how it can be used. It discriminates against workers based on their age. If you are older, you get less; if you are younger, you get more. It completely negates the fact that you have suffered an injury and that injury was permanent regardless of your age.

I go back to what we said in 1983 on the same issue when we determined to dissent against the whole system. We said, “We also reject the majority’s proposed age factor adjustment.” Consider the case of a worker with a permanent hearing loss assessed at 20 per cent. The majority proposal treats that 20 per cent as 20 per cent only if the worker is exactly 40 years of age. By contrast, the dollar benefit received by a 50-year-old worker in the same circumstances would be 20 per cent less. Same injury, same pre-injury earnings, same disability; why the difference in benefits?

In our view, compensation for injury should not be adjusted according to the age of the worker who has been hurt. What results from such a scheme is a discriminatory, voodoo disability rating system. That is exactly what happens here. The age is not 40, as was used in the resources committee; it is age 45. What has happened is that you see set in place a discriminatory system. If you are older, it is not worth as much; if you are younger, you get more. I think if there is anything that pits worker against worker, it is that type of system being put into place. I think that is really unfortunate.

I want to go through -- I was not going to, but I remember that when the minister and I spoke last week, we went through the pamphlet the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and I have put out.

Interjection.

Miss Martel: No, I am getting to it. He mentioned in particular the sum of $23 that we outlined, which he said was not true, it would not be that low. For his benefit and the benefit of other members in this House, I am going to take just a moment and go through the calculations. For all those people who think it is not going to be less, and considerably less, they can go through the calculations themselves. They will find out quite quickly that workers are going to lose dramatically under this section in particular.

First, we used the example of a skilled worker who was 45 years old and had a 10 per cent permanent disability. In the province, the monthly pension rate is determined by taking what the injured worker makes, his weekly amount -- it is called the temporary total rate -- while he is on compensation. You multiply that by 4.3 -- the number of weeks in an average month -- and you multiply that by the permanent disability of the worker. Our 45-year-old worker was a skilled worker getting a weekly rate of about $450. His pension now works out to about $191 a month.

1700

Let’s take a look at the same worker and how the new bill and the new economic loss provision is going to affect him under this section in particular. We have a 45-year-old worker. He again has a 10 per cent pension. He is going to get a $4,500 lump-sum award at the end of the day. He is going to get that as a payoff and he will not be entitled to anything after that in terms of the noneconomic loss provision.

What that works out to on a monthly basis -- It is important that I point out “on a monthly basis” because as I go through this you will see our concern that it is the only payment he gets is very real. His monthly sum is going to be dramatically less than that. We worked out to a figure of $23 and we did it in this way: We used actuarial tables the board uses now when it assesses a permanent disability to the employer. That table is a four per cent discount table used by the board in order to make those payments out.

What happens is simply that the lump sum is divided by the discount rate. When you divide $4,500, which is his lump sum, by 193.28 -- that is for a 45-year-old worker, male -- you will find that the calculations turn to $23 per month, as we used in our pamphlet here.

We have some other ones given to us by the injured workers’ clinic. It is the same type of thing. The monthly payment a worker can expect, if indeed he gets over $10,000 and asks to have it on a monthly basis, is much less than the present pension he receives now.

The third point, the one I have been trying to make which the minister has been arguing about, is that it is the only guaranteed payment we see under this system. It is the only thing you can actually depend upon, the only payment under the dual system. That is because the second component of the dual system which the minister has talked about is a payment to try to replace lost earnings which result from the accident.

But this is not guaranteed anywhere in the legislation. We went through this before. The minister has said you are going to get 90 per cent of net of which you lost because you can no longer return to work. I point out that this award which is 90 per cent of net is again at the discretion of the board, after two years, after five or at any time the board considers appropriate, and there is no guarantee anywhere in the legislation that the basis of the calculation will be actually on the job the worker had.

I want to go into this system in a moment because I think it is awfully important, but I want to go through some of the other problems with the lump-sum system. Not only is it smaller, not only is it the only payment that is guaranteed and not only is it also based on the meat chart as before, but there are some other major problems with the lump-sum payment, problems my leader referred to this morning.

The first is again that the amount of the lump sum you win is not appealable to WCAT. The assessment of your permanent disability is not appealable to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. In fact, what happens in terms of the assessment is that the control of the assessment and the appeal process has all become in-house. We know that when something moves in-house at the board, the discretionary power increases and it becomes more and more difficult for anyone to get any justice under the system.

What has been proposed under the legislation is that in terms of pension assessments the board will use its discretion and will establish a roster of doctors who can look at the injured worker and assess his permanent pension based upon the meat chart or the permanent disability rating. What happens is that the mechanism completely negates or disallows any input from the treating physician, the doctor who actually services the worker, examines him, provides for his treatment and his care. He has no place in this system and that, I must also add, is the first time that has happened under this system.

Now, if we have a worker who is assessed by the compensation board, he gets his pension. Perhaps it is a 15 per cent pension. He does not agree with the amount of that pension, so that worker comes to our office and we say to him: “All right, Mr. Smith. You go to your family doctor or the orthopaedic surgeon you have seen, get a medical report from him stating that you in fact are worse in his belief, and we will appeal on your behalf. We will take that medical report and we will go to the compensation board and we will appeal and say, based on the report of this doctor, who has actually treated the man, that we believe the injured worker is entitled to more, that his pension is in fact greater than what you have provided him with.”

That has been taken completely out of this section and has been replaced by an in-house mechanism, so that if an injured worker does not like his pension, what he can do is this: He has got to go back, and the board will provide a list of three doctors. From that list the worker and the employer -- and that is another provision: the employer, for the first time ever, has a say in the doctor whom the injured worker sees; that has never happened before -- are supposed to sit down and, from this list of three doctors, choose a doctor whom the injured worker can see for a reassessment. If the worker and the employer do not agree and they cannot come up with a common name between them, then the board turns around and the board decides whom the injured worker will see.

The ability of the injured worker to have a say in who sees him or, at least, the ability to put forward a report from a physician who actually treats him, is taken out of the legislation completely. It is the board who has the roster of doctors, the board who sets out the names of the doctors you can see and the board again who, if you cannot come to a satisfactory compromise between the employer and the worker, determines whom he will see.

I say it is a complete destruction of rights of injured workers to have their family physician provide information on their behalf and to have that information considered on their behalf as well. It is the first time that the role of the treating physician has been completely taken out, and I think that is not right. I do not think that makes the system any fairer, I do not think it makes it any more humane. I do not think it makes it right. I think when you start undermining the rights of injured workers in that regard, then you are seriously in trouble in terms of the system that workers are going to want to trust or going to want to work with.

The appeal, again: As my leader said this morning, there is no appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. That is the second provision in this legislation that is not appealable to WCAT. Whether the minister likes it or not or whether he agrees or not, that is certainly taking away and undermining the right of the worker to appeal, and it undermines the spirit of the legislation that put WCAT in place in the first place.

I will go back and state again that it was set up in the first place because of the most outrageous decisions that were coming out of the board, based on its policy reading of our legislation. What we have done, not once but twice, in this legislation is to take away the right of workers to appeal. I think that is wrong and I am not sure why it is in the legislation. We have not heard from either the Premier or the minister why this has been done, why he agrees that the role of WCAT should be undermined in such a way and why he is in agreement that workers should not have the right to appeal to that same independent body. So we have some real problems in the section on the loss of earnings lump sum payment.

I want to deal with the other components of the dual award system. I have stated already that there are two components. One is the lump sump payment that I have referred to. The second is the payment for the loss of earnings that a worker may suffer as a result of his injury. I think it is really this component that we have the most difficulty with, because it is arbitrary, it is discretionary and it is not guaranteed in any way under the legislation.

Now, the payment for the future loss of earnings is supposed to do this: It is supposed to recognize and pay for the loss of earnings suffered by an injured worker because of injury. It is supposed to be based on what he earned before the accident and on the earnings, if he has any, after the accident and he is ready to return to work.

If the award itself were actually based on the actual loss he will suffer, it would not be all that bad. But the problem is that that is not what happens, under either the legislation or, if you look at the board, the practice of the board in this regard now. In fact, what is happening is that, whether the injured worker has a job or not, whether the injured worker has a job offer even, the WCB determines what he or she is capable of earning after the accident and bases the payment on that. It has nothing to do with what the injured worker did earn or what his situation is after the accident, but it has everything to do with what the board determines he or she is capable of earning, regardless of whether or not they have a job.

1710

If I can just go to this section of the legislation, it says quite clearly that, “the amount of compensation payable to a worker for future loss of earnings arising from an injury is equal to 90 per rent of the difference between (a) the worker’s net average earnings before the injury...; and (b) the net average amount that the board considers the worker is able to earn after the injury in suitable and available employment for such period, up to the time that the worker reaches 65 years of age, as the board considers appropriate in the circumstances.”

In this very important component, which is supposed to reflect actual wage loss suffered by the worker, you see that the board has discretionary power in two instances. The board determines what the injured worker is capable of doing, not what he is doing, and the board determines that it may be paid up to age 65 as it considers appropriate, meaning that it at any time can review that and do away with it. You get into a real problem, as I said before, because the board is actually doing this now.

I want to look at the area of supplement -- and this is in many ways a supplement as well -- supplements to permanent pensions. Right now, at the board, if you have a pension and you have not returned to work, you can obtain a supplement or at least ask for a supplement and the board will base it on what it thinks you are capable of doing.

It is exactly what is going to happen under the new bill and it is why we feel it is so important that this part either be done away with or amended to a great measure.

Let’s take a look at Mrs. Coletta and see what has happened to her at the board under this provision. Let me go back and just explain what is happening. She has a pension. She has not returned to work. She has applied for a supplement, which is supposed to be 90 per cent of her net earnings based upon the wages before the accident and the wages after. She was denied.

This is what is happening at the board. This is the letter the board wrote to her. “In order to establish your potential post-accident earnings capacity...we conducted a vocational assessment. Having regard for the previously stated factors” -- that is, her age, her employment status, what she did before, her education, etc. – “we have concluded that you are capable of working as a packager of materials, a light-assembly worker or a picture frame assembler.”

Mrs. Coletta has a 20 per cent permanent disability for a herniated disc and she has never worked in this capacity before. But the board went on: “We have used information available from Statistics Canada and have determined that the average weekly wage for these positions is $306.66. This has now been deemed to be your post-accident earning capacity. Your pre-accident earning capacity was $207.57. The difference between the two figures, when compared with your permanent disability award, does not constitute an impairment of earnings capacity which can be considered greater than is usual for the nature or degree of your injury. Thus your request for temporary supplement benefits is denied.”

Mrs. Coletta has never worked as either a light-assembly worker, a packager of materials or a picture frame assembler, never in her life. She had never applied for a job in that regard in her life. Mrs. Coletta, because she was denied a supplement, has for the last six months tried to obtain employment in that regard. She has been unable to do that.

She was cut off from the board in terms of a supplement because it estimated she could do something which she had never done before at any point in her life. She has tried to find employment in that area and she has been unable to do that. The board does not take into consideration what her earnings were before, what she had actually done before, and used that as the basis of the calculation. It estimated what it thought she could do.

It looked at the amount of money you could earn in a position with StatsCan. It found that after she had been hurt, she should have been able to earn about $100 more than before she was hurt.

The problem is that this kind of thing is happening at the board now. The board is using its discretionary power. It is determining or deeming what it thinks injured workers are capable of doing and it is cutting people off supplements because, in the supposed job which they do not have, which we call the “phantom job,” they would make more money than the money they were making before the accident. It has nothing to do with whether they have the job or not or if they have a job offer or if they have ever done the job; it is the board that deems they are capable of doing it, and because that amount of money is more than they earned before, they do not get a supplement.

The same type of thing applies in the dual system, because you are looking at the same principles. It is the board which decides what your earning capacity is after you are hurt, and on that basis, if you make more money, or supposedly make more money, you do not get the supplement. In this case, you do not get the future-loss-of-earnings benefit.

I want to look at another one, because this is becoming widespread at the board. It started in November, and we are getting more and more people with the same type of letters being cut off the ability to obtain supplements.

In this case, we had an injured worker whose pre-accident earnings were $328. The injured worker had a pension. He could not return to his former employment, so he took it upon himself to attend George Brown College and he took an appliance servicing course, a night course, for three months. He had actually completed only part 2 of the three-part course; that is, in fact, he had only completed the theoretical part.

He applied to the board for a supplement. The board wrote him back. They said they had contacted StatsCan and found out that a refrigerator maintenance person or a person doing electronic equipment repair could be earning $329.80 a week. It was about a dollar more than he had earned before.

Based on the fact that they thought he could be a refrigerator maintenance person or an electronic equipment repairman, they denied his supplement, even though the worker had no practical experience, he did not have the job, he had never had a job in this area, and in fact he was going through school to try to become this but had not even finished. He has had no practical experience, no training, and now he does not get a supplement. The reason he does not get a supplement is that the board deemed him capable of doing something that he was not, took the earnings of that job that he was not doing, and said it was more than he had before; therefore, “Too bad, you get nothing.”

This is the kind of thing that is happening. I have another example. This one comes from Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan the dual system is already in place, so the fears we are seeing here in terms of supplements have begun there and the same type of thing has happened under the dual system there.

In this case, we have a 57-year-old male. He is blind. He was previously an electrician. He suffered an accident there and it left him with 20/200 vision. He is considered blind, actually, by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. But the board, in its letter to him when he applied for a future-loss-of-earnings payment, which is included in this bill, said to him:

“Commencing August 1, 1988, your entitlement will be equal to $449.80 per month, which was calculated by taking your earnings” -- before the accident -- “in 1984, less those earnings which the board felt you were capable of, as a counterman in a hardware store, an arcade attendant or a parking attendant, earning $1,768 a month....”

He was not cut off completely, but the board looked at him and deemed him, a gentleman who is considered blind by the CNIB, capable of working as a counterman in a hardware store, an arcade attendant or a parking attendant and therefore reduced his loss-of-earnings supplement dramatically.

I want to go back to the minister and I want to say to him, this is what is happening. This is what is happening in the board now under this provision. This is a case from Saskatchewan that I just mentioned; the two before happened in Ontario. They have been happening since the board instituted its new supplements policy in November.

People who should be getting 90 per cent of what they earned before and what they are capable of earning after are not, because the board is basing it on what it feels a worker is capable of doing not what he is doing, not what he did before, but what it thinks he is capable of doing. Regardless of the fact that they never had the job, never had a job offer and probably will never find work in that area anyway, the board has taken it upon itself to cut these people off or not provide supplements.

1720

I cannot stress enough that the real reason we are looking at this system and do not want to have the dual system is that there is no guarantee, under that type of power at the hands of the board, that people are going to get loss-of-earnings supplements.

There is no guarantee because there is nothing in the legislation that states specifically you cannot deem. You cannot provide a phantom job. You have to base your calculation on what the real state of the worker is at the time of the assessment. That is not happening, and it is not guaranteed under this legislation.

What we are going to see, if this legislation goes through, is more and more of the discretionary types of decisions which are completely unrealistic, which do not take into account the situation of the worker and which result in fewer rights and fewer benefits for injured workers under this system.

I think the minister has to take a serious look at what is happening now in order to get a sense of what this legislation permits the board to do, because it is really frightening.

In terms of the dual system, the minister, in his statement to the House in June, named a number of other provinces which had actually implemented this system. He said:

“In the past decade, Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the Yukon have put a dual award system in place. Quite simply, it is the fairest system for all concerned and the one that lends itself to most efficient management.”

I want to discuss for a moment the Saskatchewan model; the minister has mentioned it several times, once on Sunday and again here in the House. I want to look at what has been said, in fact, about the dual system in Saskatchewan where it has been in place since 1979.

The comments I am referring to are those of Brian King, a former chairman of the compensation board in Saskatchewan. He is now the chairman of the Manitoba WCB review committee. He is a member of Parliament there. He said he now opposes this system “because it invades workers’ privacy, it can become a bureaucratic nightmare and it is a disincentive to rehabilitation.”

On the third point, concerning the disincentive to rehabilitation, of course it would be that because it is easier to deem an injured worker capable of suitable work rather than actually putting into place the mechanisms that ensure he is rehabilitated to do that work.

It is easier to project a wage loss for the worker than it is to guarantee rehabilitation and then base benefits on the actual wage.

Finally, it is cheaper for the Workers’ Compensation Board to create a phantom job, as it is doing now in Ontario, than it is to give workers the necessary tools to obtain a real job and get back into the workforce.

I must say that if you look at the rehabilitation provisions now under the board, which I went through at some length, they are lousy already; if you put the dual award system in place which provides a disincentive to rehabilitation, then you weaken even further the commitment of this government and of the board to try to provide that type of rehabilitation.

I must say that between the two of them, rehabilitation in this sense under the legislation is not going to work; it is really a farce.

I want as well to look at the concerns of the compensation committee in Saskatchewan, a review committee of the government there. They looked at the practice of deeming, which I have talked about already; they looked at how unfair it was, how inhumane it was and how unjust it was for workers in their province. They said this:

“The specific complaints of workers regarding the way in which these sections of the act are being interpreted and applied can be summarized as follows:

“(1) Workers are being ‘deemed’ by the board to be capable of engaging in work for which they are not qualified without first being given appropriate training.

“(2) Workers are being ‘deemed’ by the board to be capable of obtaining employment at rates of pay that are unrealistic having regard to the going rates for the jobs actually in question, and

“(3) Workers are being ‘deemed’ by the board to be capable of obtaining work in fields of employment where job opportunities simply do not exist.”

That is happening now in Saskatchewan. This is a WCB review committee of the Legislature that is talking about deeming. It is the same type of thing we are proposing here.

“The position of workers was that by ‘deeming’ them capable of earning income which...in fact they are not capable of earning, the board is wrongfully reducing or...cutting off altogether the benefits which the 1979 legislation was supposed to guarantee to them.”

Finally, the committee said: “The principle of income maintenance...the cornerstone of our 1979 legislation, is under attack. If the income maintenance sections of the act are not being fairly and properly interpreted, the entire structure of workers’ compensation is in danger of collapse. That makes ‘deeming’ one of the most crucial issues faced by the committee,” and the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: They’re changing to a system very much like ours, says the minister of labour for Saskatchewan.

Mr. Mackenzie: She’s telling you they have reservations now, strong ones.

Miss Martel: They have more than strong reservations. They have looked at it quite seriously. They looked at it because there was such a complaint against it and because the problems of deeming, which I have outlined here. The problem of basing benefits on phantom jobs versus real jobs is real. That is what is happening in this system. It is happening now in Ontario. That is why we are so concerned about the bill.

It is not fair to say to a worker: “You should be capable of doing this. We don’t care whether you are or not or can even find a job. We’re going to base your benefits on what we think you can do, not what you are doing.” That does not provide for 90 per cent of net income at all. That does not say to a worker he is going to get back anything he had before he was actually injured. It does not fairly compensate the loss of earnings he actually is affected by because of the injury.

I go back to the review board. They were quite clear in their condemnation of the board as well. They said, “The 1979 legislation...in adopting the income maintenance approach, requiring the board to ‘estimate the effect of the injury on the loss and the earning capacity...’ was spelled out quite clearly in the intentions of the Legislature. It was, however, left to the board to undertake the difficult task of determining how it could arrive at its estimate of loss of earnings capacity.”

What happened when it was left to the board was that the legislation was undermined. The board went ahead and did what it wanted and used deeming to the fullest extent it possibly could and workers across the province were being cut off or getting supplements far below their actual loss of earnings had been before they had been hurt. That is the real problem with this system. That is why we reject the system, because the same thing is happening now in Ontario. What the bill does is put that into place. It allows the board to continue on the way it has been; that is, using discretionary power to cut people off based on jobs and capabilities they do not even have.

We reject that because this is inherent in the dual system, it is arbitrary, unfair and a practice that in other jurisdictions has proven to actually happen, and workers in those provinces have had their benefits reduced and have had their rights reduced as a consequence.

I think the major problem with the legislation, besides the three -- rehabilitation, reinstatement and the dual system -- I have talked about, goes back to the increasing power of the board which is seen under the legislation. We all know that the WCB at this point in time is really a symbol to a number of people of a couple of things.

First of all, they have complete mistrust of the system and of the people who work there. It is a symbol of arbitrariness, unfairness and of all kinds of discrepancies. It is unfortunate that the WCB has become a symbol. I really believe many of the people who work there are actually committed to helping injured workers. They have a genuine concern for injured workers and are as unhappy as injured workers in recent months because of the changes that have occurred at the compensation board and because of the increasing discretionary power the board has displayed in recent months with the new administration.

The rules have become even more unfair in the last number of months. The rules on supplements and on commutations have become more unfair, and there has been a persistent attempt by the administration to take the legislation and undermine it and use it in policy ways which are unfair and unjust.

It is funny. We talk about how everyone else outside -- the trade union movement and injured workers, etc. -- is opposed to this bill, but if you talk to the workers at the compensation board, those organized under Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1750, you will find out they do not want this bill either. They are opposed to it for many of the same reasons we are, but in particular, they are very concerned about the discretionary power that is inherent and outlined in the bill.

They work there. They have seen exactly how discretionary power can be used and what the result is. The result in the past has been, and if this bill passes will continue to be, the reduction of workers’ rights and benefits and an increasing control of the board to determine a worker’s life. They are really worried about that, and those are the workers at the compensation board.

1730

I must say that the bill, in fact, legitimizes the process that has been going on at the board to date, because we have seen the cutbacks on supplements, we have seen the increasing discretionary power, on commutations in particular. It has gone on and on, and the minister has not yet stepped in to stop it. The policy on supplements in particular completely undermines this legislation passed some years ago in regard to supplements, and yet there has been no move by the minister to step in and say, “We will have none of it, because injured workers’ rights are not protected, because you are undermining what legislatures in this province put in place to make the system better.”

On a couple of occasions the minister, when questioned in this regard -- in particular, I remember asking him a question on commutations -- said that he had no responsibility in this regard; that the Workers’ Compensation Board had its own board of directors, it had its own mandate to determine legislation, and what it did in determining that and putting it into policy was its business.

I do not think anything could be further from the truth, because the Minister of Labour still has the Workers’ Compensation Board under his purview and it is up to him, as minister, to step in. Some of the policies the board is putting into place undermine what we passed as legislators in this House. He has not done that, and the arbitrariness and the discretion of the board have continued.

I think what really concerns me in the final section of the bill in that regard, in terms of increasing the discretionary power of the board, is the large number of sections that are allowed to be established under regulations. If you go to the back of the bill, you see that there are a large number of things that the board can make regulations on. It includes all kinds of things: the permanent rating system that we talked about, the revised meat chart under a different name.

The board can establish the criteria for assessing the personal and vocational characteristics of a worker in order to determine the right to rehab. The board determines what constitutes suitable and available employment for the worker in the case of whether or not he should get a loss-of-earning supplement. The board sets up the roster of doctors whom the injured worker must see in order to have his pension assessed or reassessed. It is the board as well that will determine the classes or the subclasses that are going to be exempt in the future from the reinstatement rights. It goes on and on, in fact. The board has tremendous power to make regulations and to send them over here, where they may or may not be seen in the standing committee on regulations and private bills and where they will be given a rubber stamp, then sent back and the board can do what it wants from there.

I must say that, in the long list that is here, the board is going to be given some tremendous powers, far beyond what it already has. Those of us who have worked there, who deal with compensation every day, see what the board has already done in terms of discretionary power. It is not going to get any better. This bill makes it worse because it gives the board more and more power to determine benefits, to determine how a worker will be judged, to determine workers’ rights and, in fact, to determine control over workers’ lives.

I think that if there is a real point to be made about the bill, it is that the board will be given carte blanche to do really whatever it wants in a large number of areas, which, as we have seen in the past, will be only to the detriment of injured workers in this province.

In conclusion, there are a couple of things I want to say. I have tried this afternoon to outline some of the details of the bill that we, as a party, find most onerous. I have looked at the rehabilitation section, which I think is really a far cry from what Minna-Majesky outlined as having to happen at the board if injured workers in this province were going to have real rehabilitation that responded to their needs.

I have looked at the reinstatement provisions, which I think are extremely weak, and I have stated that if you are going to put measures in place in order to help injured workers, then you go all the way; you do not put in half-measures that are not going to protect at least 25 per cent of the population starting out and you do not give the power to the board to determine in future all other kinds of classes or subclasses that will be exempt.

In terms of the dual system, I have tried to point out why we are so afraid of it and why we believe it will result in reduced benefits for injured workers, because it is based on the discretionary power of the board to determine capable work regardless of what the actual employment of the worker is.

In terms of the discretionary power the board is allowed, we very much reject what has been put into place, because we think it will not make the system any fairer, it will not make the system any more just, it will not make it any more humane. In fact, it will do the opposite and it will give the board in this province increasing power to determine the control of workers’ lives.

It has been said on several occasions that we should probably get on with the job of fixing the Workers’ Compensation Board; that we all know what is wrong with it and we should really get down to the business of trying to do something about it. I must say in response to that that we all have different ideas about how to fix an already bad system.

There are some things we can agree upon, as we did under Bill 101 in 1985, because some of those changes were very good for injured workers. It made the system better, more workable and a little bit more humane. But I must say we are not going to agree on very much in this bill, because we do not believe on this side that it is going to do any of the good things that happened under Bill 101 in terms of making the system a little better for injured workers.

Mr. Ballinger: You do not agree with any of our bills.

Miss Martel: We did on Bill 101. The member was not here then and neither was I.

I want to talk a little bit about the consultation that surrounded this bill. The minister on a number of occasions has said there were broad consultations regarding this bill and regarding compensation in particular. It may be that the minister talked to a large number of people in the past year about compensation issues and some of the problems in this system, but I find it very difficult to believe that there was broad consultation on the particulars of this bill. There certainly was not consultation on this bill with the trade union movement or with injured workers’ groups or with the legal clinics which deal with compensation every day. At a press conference yesterday, representatives from those groups were here and they denied again any involvement, any consultation with the minister or his staff in putting together anything related to this bill.

I find it really difficult that the minister can state, as he did before the standing committee on the administration of justice when he was in front of it talking about Bill 114 or as he has said several times in this House, that there was broad consultation on this bill. I do not know who he consulted with, but I certainly know the people who are going to be most affected by it and the representatives who work with those people were not consulted at all about the provisions of this bill. If they had been, we would never have seen this bill, because now that it is presented and now that they have a chance to deal with it, they are completely opposed to it and would never have had any part in putting it together.

About the minister’s statement to me in this House that if I read the bill I would like it, I want to say one thing: I have read it and I have read it thoroughly. Every time I look at it again, I see things which are even worse and things that worry me more; powers of the board which are going to increase dramatically under the bill.

I do not think it is going to fly that our opposition to it is somehow related to the fact that we have not read it, because we have. We are not the only people who have. There has been a large number of critiques done about it from the people who work with compensation most in this province on a daily basis.

In summary, it must be said that the bill is very important, there is no doubt about it. It is very important because it will have dramatic implications for injured workers now and those who will be injured in the future. It will have dramatic implications in a large number of areas I have already outlined.

I am encouraging all members to read it very carefully and to look for a couple of things, in particular the discretionary power which is going to be given to the board under this legislation. I would also like them to consider what I said today about what the board is doing with that kind of power in today’s system and how it is using its power to cut off workers in a number of areas.

I know, and I think we all do, and we recognize on this side, that we need some desperate changes to the system. Unfortunately, our ideas about how to change the system are very different. In our view, this bill makes the system more unfair, it makes the system more unjust and it makes it more arbitrary. It makes the condition of injured workers, men and women in this province, even worse.

I think on that basis, in view of our reading of it and in view of what we know the board is doing now, that we will not be able to support this bill. On behalf of injured workers of this province, men and women who deserve something better, we will oppose this bill. We will work for change and we will work for something better.

1740

Mr. Mackenzie: In the slightly better than 13 years I have been here, I have not heard a more informative or well-researched or specific presentation to this House than we have had over the last one hour and 50 minutes or thereabouts. I do congratulate my colleague on the comments she has made, but I also ask every member in this House, those who are here and those who are not here, to take a look at the Hansard as soon as it is out and read the specific speech. That is a request I make seriously to every member.

I say to the minister that he is then going to have to respond to every one of those comments, every one of those sections, every one of those arguments; and every member in this House should understand them, because either he has a rebuttal that holds water to that speech that was just made in this House, or there is no reason on God’s earth that the members of this House should support that particular piece of legislation, which is what we have been saying along with a lot of other groups in our community.

I am making an appeal to the members of this House to sit down and read the specific criticisms presented in that speech, and then I am telling the minister he had better have answers for those specific criticisms that should satisfy everybody, not just the members in this party, but certainly the members in his own caucus.

I do want to congratulate my colleague on that speech.

Mr. Runciman: I want to extend the apologies of our critic for the ministry, who is unable to be here today but will have an opportunity, I am sure, during debate on this bill to voice his specific concerns.

I have been thrown into the breach, if you will, perhaps because of my union experience; I am not sure. I know this occasionally rankles the fellows over here, especially the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who consistently tells us that he believes that the leader of the Canadian Auto Workers walks on water.

Mr. Breaugh: You are not challenging that, are you?

Mr. Runciman: If the member watched his performance during the recent free trade debate on The Journal, I think we could all wonder about his ability to walk on water, let alone put together two coherent sentences.

This is one of the things these people like to do when someone has experience and can talk about what it means to be a union member, other than members of the NDP. It really does irritate them.

We do not know how frequently the member for Oshawa has dirtied his hands in real work in life, but I doubt it is very frequently indeed. One of the columnists in the Globe and Mail was talking a week or two ago about the irony of the fact that the NDP consistently talks about representing the ordinary man and woman in society when the fact is that it has very few representatives of organized labour represented in its rank and file. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), who consistently speaks on their behalf, certainly has a background. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) is raising his hand, so apparently he has some as well, but I do not think I have to --

Mr. Breaugh: He has dirty hands, Bob.

Mr. Runciman: He probably knows what the real world is all about.

I want to say that I have had extensive experience, and I will remind the members, just to bother them a little bit more, that I not only have had experience as a union negotiator and as a union president, but I probably also have a unique experience that I doubt that even the meagre number of union-experienced members of that caucus have: I have actually been a WCB recipient. I am one who suffered a serious industrial accident.

Mr. Breaugh: Head injury.

Mr. Runciman: I know where you had an injury and I am not going to talk about it in public.

In any event, I suffered a serious facial burn a number of years ago.

Mr. Breaugh: Get that cross off my lawn.

Mr. Runciman: You know, I take offence at a remark that was just made by the member for Oshawa; I take great offence at it. Their sensibilities are so tender when you start challenging the fact that they pretend to be the only spokespersons for the working men and women in this province. It is phoney and the people out there do not believe it and have never believed it, and that is reflected in the fact that most union people in this province consistently do not vote for that party; they vote for the Liberal or Conservative parties. So it is a phony image and one they just cannot stand to face up to.

Mr. Laughren: Careful, Bob, careful. Close to the edge.

Mr. Runciman: I am not close to the edge. I am just irritated by the kinds of irresponsible remarks that the member for Oshawa consistently likes to make.

I want to talk about the fact that I suffered a serious injury, a facial burn, when I was sprayed by liquid urea quite a number of years ago. I came close to losing my sight and I now, on a continuous basis, suffer from skin cancer problems with my face because of that injury. So I think I am speaking with some empathy with respect to injured workers in this province because I have suffered a serious industrial accident and I have been a recipient of WCB benefits.

I do not pretend at this stage in my life to be totally familiar with the workings of the WCB at present, but I know that my party does indeed fully support the idea of very thorough public committee hearings on this bill. As the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) very articulately pointed out during her comments, one of the main concerns that has arisen is the lack of details about the consultative process.

We hope that the minister is going to inform us which employer-employee groups he met with. I think we would like to know the dates, the times, who attended these meetings and just how meaningful they were. As the member for Sudbury East pointed out, many interest groups in this province have indicated that they were not consulted.

I think most important about this whole exercise, the minister suggested that Saskatchewan is looking at adopting Ontario’s format. Well, I would suggest that they take a second look at it. It may indeed be possible in a province with a relatively small population, but when you take a look at the process in the province of Ontario, I think those of us who have some experience with it over the past number of years as elected members appreciate very much that it is indeed a quagmire or, as the former member for Sudbury East used to describe it, a swamp.

You know, again I have to throw in something about the NDP. There is an analogy here in terms of the fact that they want the government to get into the business of providing auto insurance in the province, and I think it is a fair analogy to talk about what has happened in respect to the operations of the Workers’ Compensation Board and the auto insurance operations being conducted by this province through the government. I think we would be into another situation that would not satisfy anyone in the province and would create interminable delays and frustration among consumers.

We know about the delays in getting answers from the WCB. I know that my colleagues from northern Ontario, and certainly from eastern Ontario, would like to put on the record their concerns about regional disparities, and I am sure this is something you have experienced in your role as a member, Mr. Speaker. It is the regional disparities that exist in terms of rehabilitation services.

1750

We also have concerns about the amount of money being spent on the mushrooming bureaucracy at the tribunal and the board. They seem to be spending a lot of time and money studying each other.

When we talk about delays, again we can talk about delays in medical assessments. We know all about those kinds of problems: delays in appeal hearings from 12 to 18 months. In many instances, we are seeing employees driven to hire lawyers at their own expense because of the complexities of the system.

I do not have that many WCB cases in my office, but it is probably one of the most significant parts of the workload for some of the members in some of the more heavily industrialized areas like Hamilton. I certainly do not have a workload of WCB cases to compare with members in those areas, but I know that one of the problems which seems to be coming to the fore more frequently now relates to the complexities of the system and the delays and the difficulty injured workers have in understanding just what is going on.

When you talk to the board about the availability of workers’ advisers, you are now told: “If you want a workers’ adviser, you’re going to have to look at waiting for up to a year or longer before we can provide you with a workers’ adviser.” This is simply ludicrous. What kind of situation are we placing these people in to get through this complex maze of rules, regulations, guidelines and process, when we are not prepared to readily provide assistance to these people, many of them of modest means and many of them, certainly in the larger urban centres, with language and communication problems, operating under severe conditions with a variety of problems, obviously with their health, but with other problems in terms of income levels in their home?

We are not in any way, shape or form really improving the system and enabling these people to better understand the system and the opportunities available to them to get into the system and to expedite their personal cases. I think it is nothing less than a crime that this government, through the WCB, is not in a position to provide, in very short order, these people with workers’ advisers.

I hope the minister will, through his chairman of the WCB, look at taking very prompt action in respect to remedying that particular concern. I have difficulty in understanding any delays in prolonging the current situation. Coming from a riding which does not deal, I am sure, with the numbers the member for Hamilton East or other areas is dealing with on an ongoing basis, it is much more of a problem for individual members like that particular member.

There are a couple of other things we should be talking about. I talked about delays. Going along with that theme is also the delays many workers face in respect to reviews of assessment levels.

As a result of all of this, we have very unhappy injured workers across this province, as was witnessed yesterday in a very graphic way. We have, obviously, employers across this province who have a whole range of concerns. They are also quite unhappy. If members have talked to any of them lately, I think they will be aware that employees of the board are very unhappy and very disillusioned with what is going on within the system. They are looking for answers; they are looking for guidance; they are looking for direction. They are just not receiving it.

We are making a request, and I am sure this will be reinforced by the critic at some point during the debate on this bill, but before the end of second reading, we are requesting that the minister table with the House the economic impact statements that were made available to cabinet that prove the effect of this legislation is revenue-neutral, and that is in both the short and long term.

It is one thing for the minister to get up and make statements like that. I think there is a great deal of concern in respect to this particular issue and I think the minister has a responsibility, if he has those facts -- and we are advised that he has and presented them to cabinet -- to make all members of this Legislature privy to that information. It is very important and we are going to continue to request that, and perhaps in much stronger language as this debate progresses.

We are also, throughout this process, going to expect the minister to provide this Legislature with specific examples of how the pension and rehabilitation systems would work.

That exhausts my comments. I appreciate having the opportunity to have input into this very important debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Are there any questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, would someone wish to adjourn the debate on that particular matter”

On motion by Mr. Runciman, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, October 24, we will resume the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply. On Tuesday, October 25, and Wednesday, October 26, we will resume this, the adjourned debate on Bill 162, the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act. On Thursday, October 27, in the morning we will consider the private members’ business standing in the names of Mr. Mackenzie and Mrs. Marland. In the afternoon of Thursday, if necessary, we will resume debate on the motion for interim supply, followed by the estimates of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître).

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

October 20, 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE DISPOSAL

INTEGRATED RAIL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

WASTE DISPOSAL

INTEGRATED RAIL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

FIRE PREVENTION

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION

MISS OTTAWA ROUGH RIDER

ERINOAK

HAZARDOUS WASTE

USE OF TIME IN ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTHY LIFESTYLES PROMOTION PROGRAM

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

CONSUMER WEEK / LA SEMAINE DU CONSOMMATEUR

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY / SANTÉ ET SÉCURITÉ DU TRAVAIL

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

HEALTHY LIFESTYLES PROMOTION PROGRAM

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

CONSUMER WEEK

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

HEALTHY LIFFSTYLES PROMOTION PROGRAM

CONSUMER WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

COMMUNITY AND HOME SUPPORT SERVICES

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

LEGAL AID

EDUCATION

RED MEAT PLAN

COURT FACILITIES

ROUGE VALLEY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SCHEDULING OF MEETINGS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

LANDFILL SITE

HOMES FOR THE AGED AND NURSING HOMES

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

PETITIONS

CANADA POST

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 111

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 112

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE