Hansard Transcript 1988-Nov-23 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Reville: The Ontario Nurses’ Association, Local 162, is involved in a labour relations matter with the Etobicoke General Hospital. The nurses there have not received a salary increase since April 1, 1987. They are being paid less than their counterparts in other parts of the province. The negotiations process has broken down and the union has filed for arbitration under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The hospital is demanding from the union major monetary concessions, concessions that would reverse clauses that have been in their collective agreement for a number of years. The administration tells the nurses that these actions are necessary because of the budget deficits. The hospital in the past has never operated with a budget deficit and these provisions were never necessary before.

Of course, the government will allege that this is a matter between the hospital and the nurses’ association, and nothing could be further from the truth. What is happening in this province is that the Ministry of Health is forcing nurses to deliver services for less pay and under grim working conditions, and that is not appropriate. It is high time that the Ministry of Health provided adequate funding so that nurses could be compensated properly and so that their working conditions could be conducive to giving care.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cousens: The Toronto Transit Commission’s plan to raise adult fares in January 1989 is not unexpected. Each year the Toronto Transit Commission is forced to increase its fares under the users’ fair share policy. Transit users in Metro understand that increased demand for service places an additional burden on the TTC to deliver.

What concerns me, however, is the fairness of a provincial policy that seems to place more of the burden on transit riders until the Ministry of Transportation gets its own house in order. Has the increase in provincial funding kept pace with the increase in fares? Where is the government’s commitment to transit services? What is its direction?

A while back, several priorities for transit were set out in Network 2011, among them the Sheppard subway line. Today, we in Metro and greater Metro are unsure of this government’s direction and commitment. If the government is going to encourage greater use of public transit, is it going to provide consistent funding for more lines, more trains and more service overall? Is it going to provide the needed funding to increase the efficient use of these services?

The province needs to entice those in the greater Metro area to use public transit and to leave their cars at home. What programs are in place to provide integration of neighbouring systems with York, Durham and Peel?

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. McGuinty: The removal of the Lord’s Prayer from our schools’ opening exercises has provoked reactions from concerned people. Some with compelling argument support the move on the ground that some people found the prayer to be offensive, some say that the mechanical reciting of the prayer involved little more than a cold ritual without meaning and others maintain that the “Our Father” has a kind of symbolic significance.

The issue may serve a useful purpose as it draws attention to a problem we encounter in our public school system, the question of religion and values. In our society there is a real problem posed for the school, for the school must serve children who come from families divided into hundreds of religious and antireligious bodies.

This is pluralism with a vengeance. This is a fact and the fact has implications. The school must attempt a so-called neutrality on the great issues of life. It must operate within limited horizons, and this is reflected by the removal of the Lord’s Prayer from the opening exercises.

This is an important issue, for there are ways in which the fortunes of a free society are intimately linked to a morally informed and sensitive citizenry with values and standards which are more than mere habits, which go down below the soil of custom into the rock of clear conviction and are founded on a philosophy of life.

The liberal state depends upon the morality of its people. The state cannot create this morality. It has to take it for granted. Many people feel they want the help of the school in this regard, and the state which is not cognizant of this fact may very well deprive itself of the kind of citizens --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time has now expired.

MINISTER’S ANNOUNCEMENT

Ms. Bryden: Yesterday the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) unveiled the details of a new regional geriatric program to be established in 1989 in Metropolitan Toronto. An RGP is a co-ordinated system of specialized health services for older people with complex health problems.

The Minister of Health delegated to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) the responsibility to make the announcement of this program yesterday at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, one of the seven hospitals and geriatric centres to share in the program.

While I heartily agree that we need to develop a much broader program for delivery of geriatric services to the million senior citizens in the province, I do not think the announcement of this long-overdue addition to our health care system should have been made outside the Legislature. After all, the Metropolitan Toronto program is going to involve startup costs of $1 million and annual operating costs of $5.7 million when the program is fully operational.

The minister should have recognized that members of the Legislature expect to hear about new programs in the Legislature before public announcements are made. Members would then have an opportunity to comment on the program’s adequacy and to respond to media inquiries about the program. I would have told them that the program should have been extended to the whole province as soon as possible.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mrs. Marland: Later this afternoon, I will be presenting a petition from the Best of Five campaign, a group dedicated to having all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, receive their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than the present seven- or 10-year rule. Eighty members of the campaign led by Marion Hazelton from the Peel area will be on hand to see their petition presented.

There are presently 23,462 retired teachers in Ontario. An amendment to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act addressing the proposal I have outlined could benefit 14,589 retired teachers. These people are not asking for retroactive awards but simply a recalculation of their present pensions to ensure a fair and equitable pension for their future for all retired teachers.

1340

In 1986 the estimated cost was $65 million. Today that has dropped to $50 million. Money from the pension surplus should be used to fund the recalculation.

I hope the government takes the request seriously and moves in a positive direction on this legitimate and worthy proposal; and I might add, it probably eventually will cover some of the members of this Legislature.

LAMBTON COUNTY AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

Mr. Smith: I am pleased to stand in my place today to announce the opening of a new facility in my riding of Lambton. On November 10, 1988, I had the pleasure of participating in the official opening of the Lambton county agricultural office located in Petrolia. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) and the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Government Services, were in attendance to join in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for this new facility.

I am pleased that the creation of this agricultural office will better serve the rural needs of the communities in Lambton county due to the additional space provided for the people and for the 14 full-time staff to utilize. This new building will enhance the staff’s ability to serve the rural community and will offer a meeting place for local agricultural organizations.

The facility features a large boardroom, two computer rooms, a demonstration kitchen and ample parking. I might just add that this new building is approximately two and a half times larger than the old one and the parking lot is approximately four times larger.

The opening of this facility marks a new era for agriculture in Lambton and will contribute to my riding’s development. The erection of this building enforces the government’s commitment to improve and update services to our rural communities across Ontario.

I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Government Services for their assistance in this package.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Ms. Bryden: Yesterday the Toronto Transit Commission announced plans to increase fares on January 1, 1989. While they claim the proposal amounted to an average increase of only five per cent, the cost of an adult Metropass will go up by 6.5 per cent and a senior’s pass by 7.6 per cent, as well as a student rate at the same amount.

Is this the way to encourage use of public transit? I urge the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) to sit down with the TTC and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and work out a new cost-sharing formula that will put a larger percentage on the province so that we can save the building of highways, we can save the building of expressways and we can save the pollution that comes from the use of auto and bus transit.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Mr. Pouliot: There are no ministers here.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Ministers are here. Cabinet has just ended. The rest are on their way. They will be here directly, if the honourable members opposite can give me specifics. I know the Leader of the Opposition wants the Premier; I have already sent word that his presence is requested.

ORAL QUESTIONS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier (Mr. Peterson), but I also have a question for the Minister of Housing. In the absence of the Premier, perhaps I could proceed with that question.

This morning the retiring chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority --

An hon. member: Retiring?

Mr. B. Rae: -- retiring involuntarily, I might add, thanks to the actions of the minister and the Premier -- held a press conference in which he had some very critical and well-documented things to say about the administration of the Ministry of Housing and the neglect of public housing by this particular minister and by her ministry.

In particular, Mr. Sewell commented on the fact that he has put forward proposals to the ministry over the last two years for some very significant redevelopment on various sites which are now occupied by Ontario housing and which he believes should be improved and renovated.

I would like to ask the minister: Can she explain why her ministry has refused and has failed to proceed with these particular proposals? The Three particular proposals I am referring to are Finch-Birchmount, Edgeley Village and Moss Park.

Mr. Speaker: I think the question has been asked.

Mr. B. Rae: Can she explain why none of these proposals has been given the okay?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: This government and this minister are committed to regeneration of our Ontario Housing Corp. stock. We have, in fact, been working actively with our partner, who is the federal government, on doing this. We are committed to doing it and we will proceed with regeneration as we work through our partnership with the federal government, the board of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority and the Ontario Housing Corp.

It is because of our commitments to this that the board of Ontario Housing Corp. set up a committee on this entire question, examined the question and came out with some policy decisions about how to do this.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Sewell does not set up committees; he gets things done. He gets the architects to do the work and he puts forward the proposals. The minister is blaming Ottawa for the problem, just as the Premier was blaming Ottawa. I think we can begin to see the emergence of a pattern.

Mr. Sewell said, “The problem seems to be the ministry and the minister. They have dug in their heels and seem prepared to do anything they can to sabotage these opportunities. It is a real pity, given the housing crisis and the sad state of existing projects.”

I would like to repeat my question to the minister. Why has she failed to proceed with specific proposals, architects’ designs included, which have been on her desk in some cases for over a year and which she has failed to do anything about?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think the member opposite may not be fully aware of the realities we face. Our housing stock, which is managed by the Ontario Housing Corp. all over the province, is jointly owned by ourselves and the federal government. In order to achieve a reasonable way of dealing with regeneration all over the province where there needs to be work done, in order actually to proceed, we need to work with our partners. We are committed to regeneration. We will be moving on it as quickly as possible, and we have done some backup work to make that possible.

Mr. B. Rae: The fact of the matter is that the card of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority net with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. MHC said it was eager to proceed. It has not had problems with the suggestions.

What the minister is saying has been documented as being incorrect by Mr. Sewell, and I think it is important that the House should know that her side of the facts is completely at variance with those that have been put forward by Mr. Sewell.

By way of final supplementary, I want to ask the minister how she can explain the rejection by he MTHA of a very practical proposal which was made, which was going to go ahead and which has now been cut back on; that is, a simple proposal that every single unit should have a superintendent with clear responsibilities and authority for renovation and repair within a building. You cannot go into an Ontario Housing building without finding elevators that do not work, fridges that are on the fritz, people who are living in conditions that are inappropriate and unacceptable, and she has refused the one major reform that would make a difference -- to have a superintendent on every site.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The whole question of proper maintenance is a very serious one. The idea of having superintendents is a very good one, and in fact the issue here is under discussion n negotiations between the union and the management of MTHA. There is no disagreement about this as an appropriate way to help manage the building more effectively, but it has to be worked out as part of the negotiations between the union and the management of MTHA.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to stand down the second question? Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

PROPOSED INCINERATOR

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, if he would return to his seat. I know the minister is aware of a proposal for Augusto township by a United States-based firm called Environmental Services Co. Inc. to construct a hazardous waste incinerator. The company has been told it has to follow the Environmental Assessment Act because of a ministerial directive. It is not, however, a legal designation under the act and, as a result, many questions are being raised about how the minister’s staff is handling the project.

So far, Ensco has breached the act by only identifying one site. They have already purchased the property, which is also a questionable step, and they say they will be going ahead with the project despite local opposition, making a mockery of the presubmission, public consultation stage of the process. Has the minister instructed his staff to give private sector projects certain exemptions from some parts of the environmental assessment process? Why is Ensco not required to follow the act to the letter, as are public projects?

1350

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In fact, I have discussed this with the member previously and I am pleased that he has raised it in the House to clear up some of these problems. The situation will be that they will be required to follow the Environmental Assessment Act if, indeed, they ever put a formal proposal before the government of Ontario.

What they have done, in effect, is to make inquiries about what procedure they would have to follow. The member is quite correct, as far as I know, certainly in ascertaining the degree of opposition in the area, because of (a) the fact that no other options are looked at and (b) the somewhat surprising way in which it was brought to everyone’s attention.

The member also knows that the people in his area who were on the council that made the invitation are no longer on council, as far as I know. I can tell the member they will be required to follow the full provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act should they decide to proceed with an application of this kind. They have not submitted any formal proposal.

At that time, when a formal proposal is submitted, I then have the opportunity to designate it officially. I have announced that it is going to be designated if they are going to do that, and if they actually do put forward a proposal I will proceed with that designation.

Mr. Runciman: We would like to know how the minister is going to require them under the act, since it is not part of the act. On July 28, the ministry officials met with Ensco representatives. They indicated at that meeting that they were going to take a hands-off approach in respect to this proposal.

This American-based company has looked at a small rural municipality without professional staff, easy pickings for that company. I think it is incumbent upon that minister’s staff to play an active role. He is always talking about being proactive. Here this ministry has taken a hands-off approach and left this municipality to hang out to dry. I am asking the minister why he has adopted this hands-off approach with no consultation or assistance provided to that municipality. When are they going to play a proactive role?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the minister hear the question all right?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: One day I get questions from that party saying, “Why are we going so tough on proposals that come forward?” This proposal has not been submitted to us. The next day I hear, “Why are we taking the opposite tack?”

I can assure the member -- and I know the concern people in his area feel -- that they will be required to go through all of the provisions in the Environmental Assessment Act. If every time I did not like something or ministry officials did not like something that was about to be proposed we said, “Don’t bother proposing anything,” the province would, in effect, come to a standstill.

What will happen is that if they submit such a proposal, the Ministry of the Environment and a number of other ministries will evaluate that proposal very carefully to determine whether it is acceptable in any way. If there is an acceptance of the proposal after it has gone through the review, then there is a hearing where the people have an opportunity to make known their views. As members know, with the new intervener funding policy that the government of Ontario has, they would have that available to them.

But to this point in time no such proposal has been received. They should know we will make them go through the very strictest provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mrs. Marland: It is very interesting to hear this minister be so casual and offhand about this particular incident. We have people whose property values are now being diminished in the area of this incinerator. When he says we stand in the House and ask for this approval and that approval and then we come in and balk at something like this, the point is that this is an incinerator we are talking about; we are not talking about a sanitary landfill project.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mrs. Marland: Based on the fact that the minister is now saying he might allow this to go through an environmental assessment, it is very interesting to us to hear him say that, because I do not know how he can assess something environmentally when he does not have a benchmark against which to measure the operation.

In this case, we are talking about an incinerator. Could he tell us how he would plan to proceed to evaluate through an environmental assessment this kind of proposal by Ensco when he has already told the House that the clean air act will be at least two years away?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member would know, for instance, that right in my backyard, if you will, about 20 miles from my house as the crow flies, the proposal for the Ontario Waste Management Corp. facility has been put forward. Among the proposals is a component of the OWMC facility that is an incinerator. The Ministry of the Environment will evaluate that according to the criteria that are available in various places, including the World Health Organization information, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, our own testing and Environment Canada.

There are a number of different areas, and as the member knows there was an incinerator approved by the Environmental Assessment Board, I think with 39 or 40 provisions or conditions, in Peel just a short time ago. If the board were to approve it, presumably it would put some conditions on it. The board could still turn it down. There are a number of proposals before us at the present time, including the hazardous waste facility in West Lincoln, which is 20 miles from my house.

Mr. Brandt: I stand down my question and defer to my colleague on his question.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. You wish to stand down or give up your turn?

Mr. Brandt: I wish to stand down the leader’s question at this time until the Premier (Mr. Peterson) arrives.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board. The minister will be aware that the Rowan Task Force on the Investment of Public Sector Pension Funds has recommended that public servants have some influence and participation in the administration and, indeed, the investment decisions made about their pensions. I wonder if the minister can tell the House whether he is in agreement with that recommendation.

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to pensions, we have a whole series of issues that we are now dealing with and taking time to study in relation to what our options are. We will be making decisions with respect to those in due course. I can tell the honourable gentleman that we see the approach on pensions as being best aided when we have the best available advice provided to us as we sit around considering these studies. In due course, when that consultation comes to an end, we will make announcements with respect to our pension policies.

Mr. Philip: A year ago, this task force was tabled with the minister. He has been sitting on this report for a year. It has some very specific recommendations, and they are recommendations that can be fairly easily implemented in terms of legislation to allow his 80,000 employees to have some say in how their pensions, which belong to them, are invested. Why is he not prepared at least to take those specific recommendations and bring them forward in the form of legislation immediately?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to dealing with pensions, as I have said to the honourable gentleman, we like to take some time to consult with the various people involved in pensions. It extends much beyond just the public service employees with respect to all of the things that government makes decisions about.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that there is a good deal of dialogue taking place with respect to pensions between government and employees and others. I can tell the honourable gentleman that we are, in my mind anyway, making progress in discussing the issues at hand. I am not prepared at this point to make announcements or statements that will compromise the discussions we are having in a very real and meaningful way with the public service employees’ representatives.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that I am aware of the interest to move forward with discussion on these and to come to final decisions, but I think the best interests of the public and the best interests of the employees are met by ensuring the fullest possible consultation with them.

1400

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Harris: I would like to go back to the Minister of Housing and follow up on a couple of the items that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae).

The minister has said numerous times over the last few weeks in response to questions that she is counting on the new chairman to continue the agenda of reform that has been set for the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. In view of Mr. Sewell’s comments this morning, specifically the advice to the new chairman when he said, “She is going to have to find some way to get the minister out of the way in terms of implementing the kinds of reforms that are required,” and given that the minister has said she wants the new chairman to continue the reforms, some of which were mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition today, my question to the minister is this: Will she now end her obstructionism and permit the new chairman to get on with the reforms that are required?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am very delighted that the new chairman will be taking her job tomorrow. She has a history of commitment to social causes. She is an outstanding individual in terms of what she has achieved in her own life against great odds. I think she understands extremely well some of what the people who live in our housing face as problems.

I am delighted to be able to support her and the board of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority in doing the work that is really important here, and the work that is important is doing whatever we can to improve the quality of life for our tenants. That means helping them to live in buildings that are well maintained. That means helping them to live in an environment in which they do not have to tolerate drug dealing going on around them. It means working effectively with the board of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority to improve the lives of our tenants. I am delighted to continue to do this with the new chair, as with the old.

Mr. Harris: The minister was very obstructionist with the old chairman; I do not think anybody could deny that. She blocked the 20,000 new units. She blocked the superintendents into the homes. She blocked every reform proposal that he brought forward.

I want to ask the minister this. The MTHA has been called an authority without authority. Under the operating agreement it states that the Metro Toronto Housing Authority can only change staffing complement with the consent of the ministry. It must have its budget approved by the ministry. It can fill senior positions only with individuals approved by the ministry -- not the political appointments, the senior positions; we all know about the political ones -- and cannot alter wage rates without the consent of the ministry.

Is the minister prepared to look at this operating arrangement, where everything that the Metro Toronto Housing Authority has to do comes under her direct control as minister?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Ontario Housing Corp. is the body that makes policy decisions about housing authorities all over the province. There are 58 of them. One of them is the one for the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. They are governed under an act of this Legislature that was passed long before I came here. So far, that act has served us well in all the housing authorities all over the province. We are always prepared to look at improvements to the act if we think they will make a difference in making the lives of our tenants better.

The most important thing I can say is that I am committed to doing everything possible to make sure that the lives of the people who live in the buildings we manage are as good as they possibly can be. That is why we appoint people to the housing authority boards, together with the federal government and with the city governments. I believe that there is lots of work left to do. I know that the new chairman relishes the work that is left for her to do and that she will get a commitment from the rest of the board to work with her, and I believe that the member will see us continuing to improve the lives of the tenants in our buildings.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ms. Collins: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As the minister is aware, there is an increasing realization that economic development should not be at the expense of the environment. Would the minister tell this House whether the Premier’s Council will consider as part of its mandate the development of an internationally competitive industry in the area of environmental science and technology?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure members will know that the Premier’s Council was established to assist the government in preparing itself for the advent of the new technological age and to make us internationally competitive. One of the areas that we see as a great growth potential is in the whole area of managing the environment and providing research and equipment to do that kind of job.

Ms. Collins: Could the minister tell this House what initiatives have been undertaken by the Premier’s Council to promote Ontario-based expertise in the area of environmental science and technology?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: One of the centres of excellence that was established was established at the University of Waterloo, and it is a centre of excellence in ground water management. What they are doing is looking at the whole area of waste disposal, hazardous waste storage and the whole area of ground water equipment management. That is an area where we think we can become leaders in the world. We are very excited about it and we think it is an area that is going to show a great potential and great results for us.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition might like to place his question to the Premier.

WAGE PROTECTION IN INSOLVENCIES

Mr. B. Rae: Following some questions that I was putting to the Premier yesterday, do I understand it correctly that it is the position of the government of Ontario that plants will close and that, indeed, some companies may go bankrupt as a result of the free trade agreement, which takes effect on January 1?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the government has said that there are a certain number of vulnerable industries. I think we have identified those areas.

Obviously, what happens depends on a great number of corporate decisions that are made by individuals and by corporations. Many of them are not resident here. I think my honourable friend will have a fair fix on where those vulnerabilities lie. Obviously, we will be working with those industries to try to keep them here so they will not close their doors and will be working with all sectors to keep our economy competitive.

At the moment, there are no clear guarantees one way or the other. I do not think anybody is in a position to put a precise figure on that. We will be watching that corporate activity very closely. My honourable friend has read about some of the ones that consider themselves perhaps in some difficulty as a result of the trade agreement.

Mr. B. Rae: In April 1985, when the Premier I am sure will remember there was an election campaign on, he stood outside the gate of a factory in Kitchener and promised the workers there that he would bring in provincial legislation requiring companies to justify that decision to close.

On November 26, 1985, which was three years ago, his government received a report from Donald J. M. Brown, QC, who is someone known well to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Wage Protection in Insolvency Situations, which refers specifically to three things that Ontario is constitutionally capable of providing: It can create a trust fund, it can establish a fund or it can create personal liabilities for employers and for senior officers and directors of corporate employers.

In fact, on November 26, 1985, the then Minister of Labour is quoted as saying that he can and will go ahead with provincial legislation this spring -- that was the spring of 1986 -- if in fact the federal government fails to act, and we all know the federal government has failed to act.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: These are two very specific things that fall clearly within provincial jurisdiction, and if the federal government were to do them, they would be ruled unconstitutional by any court, and the Premier knows that: plant closure legislation requiring a justification for that closure and legislation amending the Employment Standards Act to protect workers who are affected by bankruptcy.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can tell us why he has not moved in those two critical areas that would help workers.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is right. There are a number of areas under which we have the constitutional jurisdiction to act, and one looks at those all the time. These policies are constantly under review, and we are analysing how we protect our people, how we protect our jobs and how we keep our economy competitive. All of those things are looked at. All sorts of punitive legislation could be passed, no question about that. This House has the power to do so.

Would that make us more competitive? Would that really sustain the jobs? Would it really assist us to build a higher standard of living for the people of Ontario? Those are the questions.

I understand generally the line the member is coming from on these matters. He can ask himself whether it is going to help investment, help our factories or help businesses here in that regard. We think we have put in place a reasonable set of protections, but as my honourable friend knows there is in some cases no protection against certain actions that people would take.

1410

Mr. B. Rae: My definition of punitive legislation is when workers are told on a Monday that they should not bother coming in on a Tuesday because there is nothing for them, when they have not been paid three or four weeks’ back wages and when they are the ones who are being punished because this government is failing to act. That is my definition of punishment, and that is what affects working people; it is when a government fails to protect those very people it talks about being worried about.

I am giving the Premier two very specific areas where he can do something on behalf of working people as we head into an era of tremendous change, when commission after commission has told him that he can act and he should act.

I would like to ask the Premier again. Let’s focus specifically on the question of bankruptcy. Is the Premier telling us that legislation that gives priority to wages instead of giving it to creditors, that makes sure everybody who gets laid off gets some severance pay and has some money in his or her pocket as he or she faces a very uncertain world is his definition of punishment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not get the impression this government is trying to punish anyone. My honourable friend, I am sure, would have some advice on new areas of legislation. I can tell him that the government is always looking at those, looking at them in terms of the real effect on workers; how we can assist, how we can keep jobs here and how we can keep the economy growing. I say to my friend, if he has advice on these matters, I am delighted to have it.

NATIONAL SALES TAX

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier as well. I wonder if the Premier would share with this House whether it is the intention of his government to participate in a national sales tax.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is absolutely no indication whatsoever, and I do not know the details. There has been no indication with respect to that.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to inform the Premier that an assistant deputy minister from Treasury appearing before a provincial committee studying this matter in fact indicated that most of the technical details have been worked out relative to the question of Ontario participating in a national sales tax, as proposed by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Wilson, at the federal level.

That being the case, the fact that an assistant deputy minister in a fairly senior position within the government has indicated that most of the technical details have already been worked out, is the Premier prepared, assuming Ontario is to join in a national sales tax, to make the same commitment to the people of Ontario that the Minister of Finance made at the federal level; namely, that any introduction of any change in the tax scheme will in fact be revenue neutral? The commitment has been made federally. Is the Premier prepared to make that commitment provincially, if he enters into the scheme?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not prepared to make a commitment we are going to enter into the scheme. I think my honourable friend probably should understand that. I am not saying that there are not discussions going on, but I think the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will stand in this House and say this. I say to my honourable friend that the Treasurer will make the decisions on these matters, not some bureaucrat.

Mr. Brandt: These meetings, as the Premier is well aware, have been going on for some time, and I think it is fair to the people of Ontario, particularly now that the rhetoric of the federal election has been concluded that all of the misstatements with respect to the amount of revenue that would be generated by a national sales tax can perhaps be put into a more accurate perspective. Let me just share with the Premier that the amount of revenue being generated by his sales tax at the moment is some $7.8 billion.

According to the assistant deputy minister at these committee hearings, the parameters under which he was asked to work were very simply that this particular tax was in fact to be relatively revenue neutral. In other words, there would not be a net increase to the people of Ontario. All I am asking the Premier to indicate today is exactly the same commitment made by the Minister of Finance federally. With regard to either the national sales tax or some other tax mechanism that is agreed upon, will he give a commitment that he will not look at that as another cash cow to take more money from the people of Ontario and will he keep the total revenue in the ballpark of the $7.8 billion that he is now collecting? That is a very easy question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If I may say so, my friend is in a somewhat difficult position. He is accusing the federal government of creating a cash cow for itself. That is what my honourable friend is doing. Let me say to him there has been no commitment from this government on entering into any kind of national sales tax and I think my honourable friend should understand that very clearly. It is a different tax. We have a retail sales tax that everybody is aware of and that taxes a number of things, including business inputs. The tax base would be substantially different in this tax, and I can tell my honourable friend that there has been no commitment to go ahead with that whatsoever.

OIL CANADA LTD.

Mrs. Grier: I want to ask a question to the Minister of the Environment about a company, called Oil Canada, with which I know the minister is familiar. Oil Canada has a refinery here in Toronto where it takes waste oil, rerefines it and sells it as a pure product. This company has been in business for about 10 years and handles up to 10 million gallons a year. Can the minister tell the House whether he approves of this kind of recycling and reuse and, if so, what policies or practices his ministry has to support it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have in fact met with officials of that company who have expressed concern that when the price of the product goes down, as the world prices of oil are -- there are times when we consider that to be very good from a consumer point of view, but not necessarily from an environmental point of view -- the company has problems. They have had discussions with me and asked me to discuss with other ministers what possible actions could be taken in conjunction, for instance, with the federal government to determine whether some sort of support could be made known to them.

I think the concept of recycling oil, of rerefining oil is a good one. I certainly support their efforts to have the federal government assist them in this regard.

Mrs. Grier: I guess we have another example of putting it on to the federal government. The meeting the minister spoke about took place many months ago. The minister promised the representative of the company at that time that he would assist it in promoting the sale of its product. They have heard nothing since.

Last July, the Canadian Association of Re-Refiners wrote to the minister asking for help because the price of crude oil was dropping. They have received no reply. Because of this inaction, Oil Canada is due to close this week, putting 55 employees out of work and affecting about 350 indirectly employed people, because their jobs will be at risk too, and, far worse, putting 10 million gallons of waste oil a year out there with nowhere to go.

Mr. Reville: Down the sewer, that is where it goes.

Mrs. Grier: Down the sewers, into landfills or, even worse, being resold as home heating oil. How is the minister going to deal with this problem and why has he failed to deal with it so far?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is interesting to see where the member wants money to be put in and on occasion where she does not. There are some cases, of course, where the New Democratic Party objects very strenuously to governments providing funding to various companies within Ontario, and I understand that from the philosophy of the New Democratic Party.

In this specific case, the New Democratic Party wants the government to provide funding to the private sector to allow a company to go on, because essentially that is really what would be required. The member would know, and the member did not mention, as the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) does not mention, that of course there is another company in Ontario that deals with rerefined oil as well. It is a company, called Breslube Enterprises, located in Breslau, Ontario. That company is also dealing with rerefined oil.

I suppose that if they happen to be in trouble, the member will be up saying that the government of Ontario should provide them with some funding. I think we have to decide where members want government to intervene to provide money for these companies and not. I recently saw the letter from Mr. Fisher to the federal government. They were looking for its assistance. I said I would certainly be happy to support that contention, that they may on a national basis, in a national energy program of reusing oil --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

1420

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. My constituents, Cathy and Bill Jordan, applied for assistance under the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons early this summer for their son, Christopher, who is not independently mobile, is visually impaired and has a seizure disorder.

To this point in his life Christopher has been dependent on physical support from the members of his family in order to move about. Christopher is now adult in size and they desperately need to install a stair guide and modify their family bathroom in order for Christopher to have mobility within their home.

The Jordan family made application for this interest-free loan through the government program last summer. They have had their renovation plan approved by the Ministry of Housing and we now have a contractor lined up to do these required renovations.

What will the minister tell the Jordans, who are now at about number 100 on a waiting list of over 200 in eastern Ontario, to have this kind of work done? What will she tell Christopher Jordan?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Under the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons, we have indeed been able to do what you have described here, which has helped a large number, in fact 750 families, to make the kinds of improvements to their households that would allow disabled members to live within them more comfortably.

When our program was originally started, we allocated about $1.5 million to it. We have now spent $7.5 million. The allocation for 1988-89 is $3 million, so we are working through the people who are asking for this kind of help and we are continuing to do that work.

Mr. Sterling: There are many families who have already had their plans approved by the ministry, received estimates which are usually only valid for about three months; they usually have a contractor lined up to do work over the winter and it is usually cheaper to do this during this period of time, because small renovation project contractors are not as busy. Would the minister consider waiving the condition that if an applicant who has his plans approved goes ahead with the work, he will not be denied future funding if he has to go ahead in order to accommodate people like Christopher Jordan?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am prepared to look into that, but the reason for making the decision to give funding only before someone has started is to control the costs. There are good reasons for that method of doing it but I am prepared to look into it.

BUSINESS ASSESSMENT

M. Morin: J’aimerais poser ma question au ministre du Revenu.

Mr. Wildman: Why don’t you just walk over and ask him?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Then you wouldn’t have the benefit of the answer.

M. Morin: Pardon?

A constituent of mine, Susan Jacobsen, owns a small wholesale business in my riding. Mrs. Jacobsen is concerned about the discrepancy in the rates at which various kinds of businesses are taxed. Wholesalers are taxed at 75 per cent of assessment while retailers are taxed at 25 to 30 per cent.

I am aware that property tax initiatives were deferred in 1978, when Ontario municipalities failed to reach a consensus regarding the implementation of specific tax reforms.

My question is, when can we expect a review of the business tax in Ontario and what would be the time frame within which the minister would anticipate some concrete results from such consultations?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I thank my colleague, the member for Carleton East, who poses a very important question which has been on everybody’s mind since 1967 when a commission --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am surprised the opposition did not ask this question.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Exactly. In 1967 a commission was instituted and a second one was instituted in 1977. As the member pointed out, no consensus was reached and for that reason I have established a committee of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Revenue and also the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

I am pleased to report that I am expecting a final comprehensive report very shortly, in 1989, which will be introduced to cabinet, and I intend to bring in the proper legislation.

Mr. Morin: Thank you. By way of a supplementary, may I ask the minister: how can I best advise Mrs. Jacobsen on the steps that she should take to have her assessment review, pending consultations with the municipality?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaitre: If my colleague the member for Carleton East can provide me with the specifics, I will certainly look into it. I will have the commissioner of my regional office look into it and provide him with an accurate answer.

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the accident this morning at 10 o’clock to 19-year-old John Ramos at 7 Bishop Avenue, north of Finch Avenue East and Yonge Street?

The release I have simply says: “The elevator was travelling upward, apparently out of control, when the deceased attempted to jump from the elevator to the 10th floor. He became lodged between the elevator and the underside of the 11th floor, then falling to the bottom of the elevator shaft. He was taken to North York Branson Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.” Will the minister tell us what he can tell us about this accident?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have before me on my desk a report that I assume the member for Hamilton East is reading from. I cannot tell him any more than he has read into the record; that is, an accident did happen at 10 o’clock this morning and John Ramos, age 19, was pronounced dead at Branson hospital. There is an ominous note in here because of the tragedies that occurred at Scotia Plaza, but I do not have any other information on the incident and I cannot report further to the House.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister tell this House how many health and safety committees we now have on construction sites across the province? The minister knows that we have been after him for months and months about the fact that up until recently we had only two. Can he now tell us how many health and safety committees there are on construction sites and when we are going to have health and safety committees on each site in the city?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: What I can tell my friend the member for Hamilton East is that I hope it is not too long before the regulatory regime in this province will require joint health and safety committees at virtually every construction site possible.

FUNDING OF GENERAL FARM ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Premier. He will remember that two weeks ago he promised the Ontario Federation of Agriculture action within one week on the issue of instituting a checkoff for funding of Ontario farm organizations. Since he was not able to meet the commitment made at that time, can the Premier tell the House when his government will introduce such checkoff legislation for the financing of farm organizations?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To the best of my knowledge, my honourable friend was not at the meeting and his facts are incorrect. We did have a discussion. We indicated to the OFA that we are sympathetic with that proposal. There have been meetings with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). He spoke at their convention. The member may well have been there. I am sure he enjoyed his speech, if he was. I think he indicated his approach. They are working now on some of the details.

Mr. Villeneuve: The Minister of Agriculture and Food got a standing ovation for stating that the government would, again, institute a checkoff method of financing farm organizations. However, we think that the government and the Minister of Agriculture and Food are now backing down on this.

Could the Premier confirm today that he will be initiating, as soon as possible, funding via checkoff for farm organizations and also provide any information that he has regarding any challenge that could occur under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if this were initiated?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I think he is right. I read the same article my honourable friend did, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food got a standing ovation at the OFA, which is a remarkable achievement; I am sure an experience never shared by my friend opposite.

Mr. Villeneuve: He is backing down.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say that the government is not backing down. They are discussing the details. It is complicated in terms of its implementation, whether it should be tied, what mechanisms should be used. There has been a variety of suggestions, including a property tax rebate or a tax on certain commodity groups, as I think my honourable friend knows. Those discussions are ongoing right now. I cannot tell him what the final result will be, but as I said, the government is comfortable with the idea in principle.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. As the minister knows, one in six children in Ontario live in poverty, 44 per cent of these children have parents who work for inadequate minimum wages, and 20 per cent of those who receive food from food banks are children under the age of five. Those children and their families now face a triple threat: not just the onset of winter, but also the re-election of a government in Ottawa that has done nothing in four years for the poor in this country and the institution of a free trade regime that will have ominous repercussions in terms of the dislocations of many of the working poor.

1430

Why is the government to which this minister belongs not even now announcing such measures to protect the poor, of which they will be in desperate need, such as a minimum wage of at least 60 per cent of the average industrial wage; lilting the asset ceiling for social assistance which now drives families into deeper poverty and prolongs their climb back into independence and prosperity, and other such measures proposed in the Thomson report that are a needed bulwark for them in the current circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will recall that two years ago we recognized that families on social assistance moving into the winter months had a particular problem with respect to winter clothing, and we provided additional assistance. I believe it was $80 per child at that time, and that, of course, has gone up with the cost-of-living increase.

As the honourable member knows, at the present time under our existing legislation, we do not have the authority to provide assistance to working families except in the situation where a local municipality can accept the fact that either mother or father as the head of the family and the nonworking parent can therefore qualify for social assistance.

With respect to the Thomson report, the honourable member is also aware of the fact that this government is reviewing it. We are receiving reaction from groups who are going to be impacted by it. I have indicated that an announcement with respect to our next rate increase would be coming fairly soon. I cannot tell him when we are going to be able to make an announcement with respect to specific enactment of any of the Thomson commission requests.

Mr. Allen: The minister and the government do have jurisdiction on the question of minimum wages, for example. But he must be aware, surely, that free trade is going to leave the poorest in Ontario much more exposed and more vulnerable than ever: for example, to low minimum wages; to absent, exploiting foreign owners; to the destruction of social programs; to the dislocations economically which inevitably are going to come and which will leave, as every economic dislocation does, a deposit of poverty that under normal circumstances would be permanent and ongoing unless severe and important measures are taken to counteract that.

He will also need to have assurances, he knows, from the new federal government with regard to the cost-sharing of various programs that enable him to do things in this province for the poor.

I wonder whether the minister is even now, for example, approaching the federal government with such questions as to what its attitude is going to be around negotiations under the cap for increasing asset ceilings, for example; what its attitude is going to be to cost-sharing comprehensive disability insurance or expanding child care spaces in Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member knows that my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has been responsible for seeing to increases in the minimum wage in every single year in which we have been the government of the province.

With respect to relationships with the federal government and other provinces, two weeks ago I met the directors of income maintenance of all of the provinces of Canada, and there were two representatives from the federal government there. I spent personally four or five hours discussing with them the implications of the Thomson report, and my staff spent two days with them discussing the implications of that report as well.

The honourable member realizes that it is just as of yesterday morning that the new government in Ottawa took effect. No, I have not yet contacted them, but the member knows that I did, in response to a previous question, forward a copy of the Thomson report to the federal minister on the same day that he and I got our reports. I have not yet heard back with respect to their reaction to it.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Government Services, and it concerns the flagrant abuse of the rules of this Legislature. I have had two questions on Orders and Notices since December 15, 1987, and I have yet to receive a final reply.

The first question concerns the cost of new furniture and television sets for the offices of the ministers, their staff and all members since June 1985. His interim answer was tabled on December 29, 1987, and he indicated that I would have a reply on or about February 29, 1988. I also have another question with the same dates on it. We are now ending November 1988 and I have yet to receive a reply.

I believe the rules of this House say that I should have a reply within 14 days or a date indicated by the minister. Does the minister know what is going on in his ministry, and when will I have the replies?

Hon. Mr. Patten: First of all, it was not just my ministry. Second, the minister asked a question that pertained to the purchases of equipment throughout the government. I assure the member that the information is forthcoming. I believe when the information is forthcoming, he will see the extent of information that is there related to the question he asked.

Mr. McLean: I do not know how much longer I am going to have to wait, and I do not believe the rules of the Legislature say that I should have to wait any longer.

On 10 different occasions his ministry has delivered furniture to my constituency office. I have asked for the costs of what the government has paid for delivery on 10 different occasions to my constituency office. Is his government out of control? Is his ministry out of control? If he does not know what is going on, why does he not resign?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What a waste of time. Order.

Hon. Mr. Patten: My colleagues here are suggesting that I be kind and, in fact, I shall be. The information, as I have said, is being amassed at the moment. He has asked a question that I think raises a very important point, and that is that yes, we are obliged to respond to the member. As I suggested before, when he sees the report, which is probably about an inch thick, it raises the question of how long it takes and the legitimacy of certain questions that might be directed to the auditor instead of making the request of my ministry to spend the kinds of resources that I think were spent in this instance; but the report will be forthcoming and is imminent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter has been dealt with.

BINGO LOTTERY LICENCES

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would like to ask him a question in connection with the issuance of bingo lottery licences. I thought the members opposite would appreciate it.

The people back home are very concerned because, under the current terms and conditions, the aggregate amount of all prizes offered in bingo games on a single occasion under the authority of a regular bingo licence shall not exceed the sum of $5,500. Municipally licensed events are not to exceed $3,500, and the province has to approve anything between $3,500 and $5,500.

With many local nonprofit groups and charities participating in bingo events in order to raise much-needed capital for their programs, can the minister please clarify the reasons for the different levels of prize money and the different levels of authority?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The current levels of $3,500 --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a thing.

Mr. Ballinger: You’re lucky.

1440

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Is the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) finished?

An hon. member: That’s one for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Thank you. They pay more attention when they are calling the numbers up in Mississauga at the bingos.

The present $3,500 limit was set by order in council back in 1974 and it has not been changed since. The reason it was set at that time as being the limit of municipal responsibility is that it was felt, and still is, that once one got above the $3,500 figure, the bingo was beginning to attract people from other municipalities.

In the honourable member’s situation a very large giant bingo, as we call them, in Mississauga, giving a very large prize board, would begin inevitably to attract people from neighbouring municipalities such as Etobicoke. It was felt, to be fair to neighbouring municipalities and bingo halls and to the charities in those municipalities, that the province ought to have a handle on those very large prize boards. That has been our view in the past, and certainly that is the reason we have limited the right of municipalities to get involved in these very large bingos.

Mr. Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was under the impression that when a member was named in the House, as you named the member for Durham-York, he has to leave.

Interjections.

Mr. Mahoney: I do have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I have other things in mind at the moment.

Mr. Mahoney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is always nice to get encouragement from your colleagues.

In many large urban communities particularly, where the bingo business has become so competitive, the groups that do rely on the funds that they raise from these events are looking to offer larger prizes so that they can attract more people and therefore make more money. I wonder if the minister would consider allowing municipalities to have the authority to approve prizes up to $5,500, above the $3,500 level, particularly in large urban communities?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are always willing to look very carefully at the suggestions made by my friend the member for Mississauga West.

I would remind him, however, that that cuts both ways. Certainly while charities in Mississauga and his community might be the winners this week in terms of having a bingo with a large prize board, if there were a competitive situation where there was a very large bingo taking place in another nearby municipality, the very charities that he wants to protect might be victimized in this case. So we have stayed with the $3,500 figure. It may be time to have an appropriate look at it.

I must tell him -- I will just make this as a final point -- that certainly we have had no pressure from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or, indeed, from any municipalities, including the city of Mississauga.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: If I could have your attention, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation from France, including members of the French National Assembly.

The members are Jean-Pierre Bequet, Claude Birraux, Maurice Briand, Nicole Catala, Jérome Lambert, Alain Vidalies and Jean-Marie Demange. Please welcome our visitors.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is signed by a large number of teachers.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. Tatham: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

“Pensions: We Pay; It’s Time We Had a Say!

“Our pensions come out of our paycheques and determine our future. We want a say over how our money gets used, so we can get a fair rate of return on our savings and turn extra earnings into improved benefits. We want to keep our pensions indexed. We want the same rights as private sector workers and unions to negotiate our pensions.”

It is from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and is signed by 136 signatures. I have affixed mine to the bottom.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

Miss Nicholas moved first reading of Bill 191, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: No explanation?

Miss Nicholas: I would love to make an explanation.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry.

Miss Nicholas: The bill requires motor vehicle dealers to notify purchasers within 14 days of entering into an agreement for the purchase and sale of a new motor vehicle of the expected date of delivery. This date is made a term of the agreement. I look forward to debating it in the House in a couple of weeks.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (SUITE)

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 member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) adjourned the debate. The member for Cambridge.

Mr. Farnan: I have here a cartoon I wish I could share visually with all members of the House, but I will try to describe it, because it in fact captures the essence of the problems of injured workers and those who have to deal with the Workers’ Compensation Board and their perception of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

This cartoon shows two women talking over the garden fence, and in the background the husband of one of the women is banging his head against the wall. His wife remarks to her neighbour, “George is conditioning himself for his visit to the Workers’ Compensation Board.”

I think all members of this House may identify with that cartoon. We can identify with that cartoon because we have the experience on a very regular basis, certainly on a weekly basis when we are back in our constituency office, of meeting injured workers who are dealing with the Workers’ Compensation Board and recognizing their frustrations and their despair.

When we talk to others who deal with the Workers’ Compensation Board, whether it is legal clinics or worker adviser offices or trade unionists, the message is the same. I know that in Cambridge at least half of the individual cases that are on my files of individuals seeking support with their problems and their concerns relate to the issue of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

1450

There is no need to describe the kinds of despair that individuals have in dealing with the board. I am sure all members will identify with the individual who comes into your office with a very large and thick file, a file that he has been working with for several years trying to get some justice, an individual who has been to every possible source where he feels there may be some help. When you look into the eyes of that particular worker, you can see written in his eyes the despair, the humiliation, the desperation. Very often, they are beaten men and women. They have come to the end of the line, and you will probably gather that, although they are coming to you, they are doing it more out of routine than any real hope that their situation will change.

I know that as a newly elected member back in 1987, as soon as I was elected and had established an office, a succession of injured workers came to see me. I can recall one individual who had a belt tied around his complete package; it was that large. He came in and he put the file on the desk with the belt holding it together. He just sat it on my desk and said: “This is the background of my case. Can you help me?” Simply to go through the documentation in any kind of thorough manner would take several evenings.

I think we have a situation where there are basically thousands of people out there frustrated with the system, knowing there is real injustice in the system, who are desperately hoping that things will change.

The fate of working people who are forced to put themselves into the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board because of work-related injuries and illnesses is a scandal; and it is a scandal that this government cannot dissociate itself from. This government has been in power now for some three years and the best it has been able to come up with is Bill 162. As I will comment on later, Bill 162 does not address the real problems of injured workers in our society.

Only about one in 65 injured workers will ever receive any retraining, and only one out of five workers receiving continuing compensation say they have regained their pre-injury standard of living.

Thousands of workers are injured every year and the numbers have steadily climbed, from 344,000 in 1983 to 442,000 in 1986, an increase of over 28 per cent in three years.

I have to stop and think. The question that was asked by my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) about the unfortunate and tragic fatal accident of the young 19-year-old worker who died on a construction site in Ontario today really drives home to us the importance of this debate.

While New Democrats have been demanding consistently, year in and year out, that there be health and safety committees on every work site in this province, and while as recently as just months we had only two sites where we had this particular form of committee, it certainly reflects very poorly upon this government. When I listened to the minister’s answer, that the government is reflecting on the situation and maybe things will change, it simply was not good enough. I think we have to ask ourselves, how many young men and women will die? How many workers will be injured before we address that particular aspect?

Simply to procrastinate, I know you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, is morally irresponsible, and it is unworthy of this government. I can assure members that New Democrats will continue to press the government to do what is right to ensure health and safety in the workplace so that the number of cases that end up at the Workers’ Compensation Board can be radically reduced and these people can have a normal, healthy life instead of having to go through the awful despair experienced with the Workers’ Compensation Board.

The number of injured workers in Ontario who now receive a permanent pension is 106,000, an increase of 29 per cent since 1983. Almost all of them need rehabilitation, yet only six percent get any rehabilitation service and only one in four of that small group receives job retraining. This is a terrible indictment of us as legislators and of this government in particular, because instead of tinkering and fine-tuning, we need a radical response to a desperate situation.

These are not just statistics. Every individual we are talking about is a breathing, living, warm human being with a family, children and responsibilities.

As I talk here today, flashes are going through my mind of individual friends back home in Cambridge who sit down across the table in my office. I know what they have gone through over many years and I know the tragic consequences to family life, to their own emotional stability as well as their health, and I know that not just their lives are being wrecked and crushed but the lives of their spouses and the lives of their children.

1500

So when I say an increase of 29 per cent and I throw out a figure of 106,000 receiving a permanent pension, each one of those individuals and each individual who deals with this board, the 442,000 -- let us face it, we are approaching half a million people and we are saying that of those who need rehabilitation, only six per cent get any rehabilitation service and only one in four of that small number gets job retraining.

That, my friends, suggests to me that we are giving up on these individuals. In a sense, we have abandoned them, and I believe we do it at our own peril because they are a rich human resource. They are fine individuals who can contribute and want to contribute, and indeed their dignity as individuals demands that they be allowed to contribute to our society. We as legislators have a responsibility to ensure that they have the opportunity to do so.

Behind the statistics, I want members just to allow themselves to think of the people in their riding that they have sat and talked to, injured workers. What do members see in their eyes as they talk to them? Do they see neglect? Do they see humiliation? Do they see misery? Do they see despair? Do they see hopelessness? That is what! see. I see human lives destroyed.

But always there is flicker of hope. I suppose that is part of the human condition. Although they have been everywhere -- they have been to heir union, they have been to the worker adviser, they have been to the legal clinic and they have been to the previous member, and there is a new member of provincial parliament or a new individual who has come in as a worker adviser -- they say, “Maybe if I go to this individual, there might be a chance.” Hope springs eternal, and I suppose when we lose all hope we have lost the reason for living. But there is a small flicker of hope that perhaps justice will prevail.

I suppose when the government takes an initiative and says, “Okay, we are going to look at the Workers’ Compensation Board and we are going to introduce a new bill, Bill 162,” in the eyes of the workers this bill only represents a small flicker of light. That is all. It only represents a small flicker of light because they have a feeling that they have seen it all before. They have been down this road before and nothing has changed. Fine-tuning of the board has not resulted in any significant change in their condition.

The government may like to refer to this bill as reform legislation. We saw what reform legislation was back in 1985 with Bill 101. The significant thing about this bill is that it will do a lot. The problem with the bill is that it will not do anything to help the worker.

My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) very clearly pointed out that if this bill is 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 realize, and because it has such dramatic implications it was rather sad that the Minister of Labour attempted to rush this piece of legislation through. The Minister of Labour is on record as saying that he wanted to have this legislation through the House before Christmas. He wanted it through without having proper public input, despite the fact, as my colleague pointed out, it had very broad implications to injured workers; we talked, in terms of numbers, of 440,000 people.

There was not broad-based consultation, and of course New Democrats, realizing the implications and realizing that this bill deserved careful scrutiny, fought the approach of the minister. We have demanded public hearings and the minister basically said no. He was asked again and he said no, and he was asked again and he said no.

However, let us be clear that injured workers, people who work in legal clinics, Office of the Worker Adviser offices, trade union movements, all of them realize --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you finished?

Mr. Farnan: No, I am not finished.

The Deputy Speaker: In that case, we would appreciate it if the individual conversations would stop so we could listen to the member for Cambridge. You may continue.

Mr. Farnan: I find it rather sad that on a debate like this, which means so much to the injured workers of this province, a government backbencher has nothing better to do but to interject. I am sure if he wanted to participate in the debate he had ample opportunity. I think all of the members of the House had the opportunity to debate this issue. Simply to sit there and to interject while the workers of this province and the legislation that affects them are being discussed is unworthy of a Liberal backbencher and unworthy of this government.

The record will show that out of frustration and out of fear that this bill was going to go through without the injured workers of Ontario having an opportunity to make comment on the bill or to give their input, the injured workers of Ontario came to Queen’s Park and participated in a demonstration. Following upon that demonstration, only then did the Minister of Labour, only then did this Liberal government agree to a series of public hearings. That is sad; that is very, very sad indeed.

1510

I want to make a brief comment about the discretionary power of the board. I am very wary personally, and I can tell members that the injured workers in Cambridge whom I have spoken to are very wary of the discretionary power of the board as it is included in the new bill, because whenever the board has had discretionary power, the injured workers have recognized that this power has been exercised not with justice, but very often to discriminate against them.

On too many occasions in this bill where the board has to deliver services, it does so where it considers it appropriate and not where the legislation states that the board will deliver the services. I think members should understand that the more that is put into the discretionary power of the board, the more injured workers will be critical.

If we think that the current system of workers’ compensation is unfair, dehumanizing and miserly, we should wait until we see what happens with the new improved version that the Liberal government is putting forward. If the government gets its way, workers injured on the job will get even less than they do today. Bill 162, the Liberals’ proposal for the Workers’ Compensation Board, would give injured workers two payments instead of one, but the new pension will be smaller. Even today’s meat chart would seem generous in comparison.

Let’s look at an example. Let’s say there is a 45-year-old skilled worker with a 10 per cent permanent physical disability. Today that worker would get a monthly pension for life of $191. Under the new Liberal proposal, that worker’s monthly pension would be $23. From $191 monthly pension, that worker’s pension would be reduced to $23. In addition, the WCB could also give the worker a second payment based on what it thinks he could earn, but if the board decides he has recovered or if he goes back to work, the second payment stops.

We believe that this system will mean less money for injured workers. It is an insult. The beautiful expression that the minister has used throughout his comments on the bill is that the bill is, I think he calls it, “revenue neutral.” Do members know what that says to the hundreds of thousands of injured workers? What it says to the hundreds of thousands of injured workers is: “You are suffering now. We are not going to spend any more money. You are going to continue to suffer.” It is very, very simple.

There will be a little bit of juggling around. There will be a little bit of smoke and mirrors. There will be a lot of the use of the right buzzwords, a lot of progressive-sounding words that are meant to impress people that real change is taking place. But the message is very clear when the Minister of Labour says this legislation is revenue neutral, because an injured worker who is struggling to make ends meet, struggling to keep his dignity and the dignity of his family, sees no reprieve.

If the Liberals get their way, it should be very clear that injured workers may still not be able to return to their employer. Bill 162 sounds good. It says that employers should rehire workers within two years of their injury, but there are so many loopholes that this guarantee really does not mean anything.

Bill 162 will not help if you are a construction worker. It will not help if you have been off work for more than two years. Even if you are rehired, the new bill says the employer only has to keep you for six months. Worst of all, injured workers who are already on a pension are left out. All those injured workers who have fought for years for reform of the Workers’ Compensation Board cannot be rehired. All those who fought so hard for fair treatment get absolutely nothing. Is this the Liberal government’s form of justice?

If the Liberals get their way, the Workers’ Compensation Board will have even more power over workers’ lives than it has right now. Let me tell members that injured workers right now believe it already has too much control, but under this Liberal proposal -- I should say under this proposal of the Liberal government -- the Workers’ Compensation Board will decide what an injured worker might earn and the board will say what jobs the worker can do.

I think we have to accept the fact that, in reality, there are some individuals who can be retrained and there are other individuals who cannot be retrained. I am not going to go into all the details, but certainly for some individuals it is significantly more difficult to redirect them into employment. In some communities there are immigrant workers who have worked all their lives in one industry and who perhaps have some difficulties with the language.

We know that very often there are industries that are being affected by trade fluctuations. I am thinking of the textile industry, the shoe industry, where there are significantly large numbers of immigrant workers. This legislation is scary if you are an immigrant worker in a vulnerable industry, because not only is your job in peril but also there is very little option if you are injured at work.

1520

For the first time ever, some of the rights of injured workers will be taken away. For instance, Bill 162 says you cannot appeal the size of your pension to an independent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. What kind of system is this? We have partisan differences and we take shots at each other from time to time but, by and large, I think we like to view each other as being honest and fair. Within any justice system that makes sense, within any justice system that is fair, there is a right of appeal.

There is something wrong, and I ask the members of the Liberal government: How can they enforce a system on the injured workers of this province where their future is, in many cases, ruined? Here they are coming before a tribunal or coming before the Workers’ Compensation Board, which will make a decision on their pension, and having made that decision, there is no recourse of appeal. What happens when there is a bad judgement? What happens when it is an unfair settlement and there is no appeal process? Can the Liberal government, can individual members of this government, reconcile their consciences with that situation?

For the people who sit across from us in our constituency offices, I would say, more than anything else, it is the feeling not just of despair but of unfairness. If you have an appeal process that you can go to and present your case, there is always the hope that justice will be brought back into the system. But this new legislation, Bill 162, says an injured worker cannot appeal the size of his pension to an independent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. That is a real tragedy.

It is ironic. The next line I was going to say reads as follows, “In the next 24 hours, someone in Ontario will be killed on the job.” We heard my colleague the member for Hamilton East stand up in the House today and report the tragic death of a 19-year-old construction worker. Almost every working minute, someone is injured, and thousands die each year from cancer, heart or lung disease caused by work.

Just as we are sitting here, just as we are making this speech, from the time I stood up to address this House until the time I sit down, there will be 20 or 30 individuals whose lives will be for ever changed as a result of a workplace industrial accident. These are the people who today left their families with their dreams intact and tomorrow will sit down with their lives shattered. These are the people who will come to our constituency offices three months from now and say: “Mike, I can’t understand it. I’ve been to the WCB. I can’t get any answers. I can see things are going from bad to worse.”

This bill, Bill 162, does not address the problems of the workplace and the problems of injured workers. Anyone could become a victim of a workplace accident or disease. Everyone deserves a compensation system with a decent income, rehabilitation and then a job again. It is a complete cycle. It has got to be from the time of the accident through treatment to rehabilitation and back to work.

Ontario’s Liberal Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised to improve health and safety in the workplace and to restore confidence in the Workers’ Compensation Board. He has not done that. There has been no legislation to improve health and safety. My friend the member for Hamilton East has pointed out that despite the repeated calls of New Democrats for health and safety committees on industrial work sites, there are only two such committees as of a couple of months ago.

We had a death today. We had a death just the other day. The question is, how many people must die? How many people will be injured? We have construction sites all over this province without health and safety committees, and that is a moral crime. It is a crime that this Liberal government must take responsibility for. It has been in power for three years, and as it procrastinates, people are being killed and people are being injured. That is not good enough for the people of Ontario. This bill will increase the distrust that injured workers have of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

In conclusion, I simply state that we must make sure that injured workers can live with dignity and that they can be treated fairly. My friends, I have heard the expression used around this House and in the halls of these chambers and buildings when people talk to each other about the Workers’ Compensation Board. They refer to it as the swamp. Is it not a tragedy that the members of the provincial parliament of Ontario talk about the Workers’ Compensation Board as the swamp?

When I talk to a Liberal member or a Conservative member in the corridor and I use the expression “the swamp,” they know what I am talking about. I do not have to explain it to them because they have been into the swamp themselves. They have gone into the workers’ compensation bureaucracy and tried to solve the problems of their constituents. They have been caught up in the bureaucracy, and the problems have not been solved.

We are lucky because we are going in there on behalf of someone else, but for that individual whom we represent when we approach the WCB, his dignity is at stake. His life is at stake. Very often his marriage is at stake; very often the continued existence of the family unit is at stake; very often the lives of his children and the quality of the lives that his children will lead are at stake.

Bill 162 is a very, very sorry response to the hundreds of thousands of real human stories that are out there, real human beings who are suffering. I can pledge right now, as our critic for this area, the member for Sudbury East, has done already, as our leader will do later today and as my colleagues in this debate have done as they have addressed the issue, that we as New Democrats will continue to fight to stop this bill. It is a fight we are very proud of. We have carried this flag on behalf of injured workers, we pressured the government for public hearings and eventually the government has succumbed. I hope as the committee travels this province it will do one thing.

1530

Mr. Reycraft: Do we start next week?

Mr. Farnan: I am hoping the committee will listen.

Mr. Reycraft: Let’s go next week.

Mr. Farnan: Here again we have a government minister coming in, in the middle of a debate, he has not heard what has been going on and wants to interject; he wants to shout out nonsense. Right at a time when we are discussing the problems of the injured workers of this province, we have a minister of the crown come into the debate who has not heard a word that has been said, and that is the minister’s response to injured workers. That is an insult to the injured workers of this province, and he should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Take it to committee. You’re scared to take it to committee and have a public meeting on it.

Miss Martel: No, we’re not. Talk to the minister. He’s the one who didn’t want it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Cambridge has the floor.

Mr. Farnan: As this committee makes its rounds, let me say simply this: I ask the Liberal members and the Liberal government to listen. In my short period in this House, I have seen a committee make the tour of the province on Sunday shopping. While the province spoke with one voice unequivocally and people said to the government, “Don’t go through with this legislation,” the government has continued to press forward.

I want the government, please, at least to do this: Listen to the injured workers of the province, listen to the people who deal with the injured workers and deal with the WCB and let the legislation reflect that. The best way they will reflect that voice will be to withdraw this legislation, start anew and let’s have some real reform.

Again, as New Democrats, we pledge that we will fight to make the changes that will benefit injured workers, will benefit their families and will give them real dignity. Bill 162 does none of these things.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to compliment the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) for his comments and the serious viewpoints put forth, but I think I must bring to his attention one comment I had difficulty in following. It is on page 5086 of the debate on October 20, 1988, and this is the Minister of Labour speaking. He says:

“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.”

I think the member for Cambridge implied that the bill was not going to a standing committee of the Legislature, and I thought I would correct the record by reading that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there any other comments or questions? The member for Halton Centre.

Interjections.

Mrs. Sullivan: Are we on rotation?

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry, we are on rotation. The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs. Marland: I certainly did not mind yielding to the member for Halton Centre (Mrs. Sullivan), because I would like to have heard some interesting educational comments, which I am sure will be coming from the government side of the House on this bill in this debate.

I just want to say in response to my colleague in the New Democratic Party, the member for Cambridge, that although some of his pleadings are indeed quite eloquent and certainly sincerely put forth on behalf of injured workers in this province, we certainly must realize that he is speaking to a government which has well demonstrated now, in three and a half years, that it does not listen, it does not care to listen, and when there is a major responsibility that it feels it does not wish to deal with it simply passes that responsibility off to another level of government. Sometimes it is the federal government; sometimes it is the municipal government.

I am certainly hoping they will act on the petition that I presented in the Legislature this afternoon on behalf of another employee group: namely, the professional teachers in this province, who simply would like to have this government amend an act that affects their pensions, and therefore their future, simply to make an equitable pension for all teachers. It would be very encouraging if this government were to realize that equity for pensioners, especially when there is a surplus in their pension fund, is all they are asking for.

I hope this government will listen a little more than it has in the last three and a half years, because that is the promise it made to the public in Ontario.

Mrs. Sullivan: I appreciated the words used by the member for Cambridge in terms of some of the pain we have seen injured workers go through in dealing with the current workers’ compensation system, and that indeed is one of the reasons that this bill is before us.

I am really quite concerned, however, at one of the illustrations that the member used in his remarks to compare the proposed bill with the current legislation. The speaker indicated that a worker at 45 with a 10 per cent disability would receive a lifetime pension of $191 under the current bill and $23 under the new bill.

I am afraid that the member does not understand the bill in its entirety. The reason I am as concerned as I am is that I have seen this illustration used before and it is incorrect, because what the member is referring to is the noneconomic-loss award, the pain and suffering award, and he has not taken into account the other part of the dual award system that is included in the bill, which is, of course, the economic-loss award. The combination of the two means that there is an enormous difference and the illustration, in fact, is not accurate and will not work.

Mr. Farnan: I will not use up the full time, I do not think. I just want to comment on the information or the position that was put forward by the member for Halton Centre in questioning the statistics that were used.

I want to refer the member for Halton Centre to the debate that took place on October 20, when my colleague the member for Sudbury East, on page 5098 of that particular debate, very clearly went through a detailed breakdown of how these figures are arrived at. I would remind the member for Halton Centre that my colleague the member for Sudbury East has worked for a considerable amount of time with the WCB, is very knowledgeable and extremely knowledgeable in the area and did quite extensive research in the area. If time permitted, I would read to the member from Hansard the very detailed and accurate manner in which my colleague presented these facts. They are of great concern, I will tell the member, to the injured workers of Ontario.

Indeed, the second part of the equation that the member for Halton Centre talks about is also part of the equation that the injured workers are themselves concerned about, because that second part of the equation can mean very little in terms of real support to some workers, and the tragedy is may mean no support to some workers.

1540

Mr. Mackenzie: I do not intend to take a long time, nor will I be original in terms of any new arguments that have been made in this debate in this House, but this debate is important enough that I want to highlight a number of the points that were made by my colleague the member for Sudbury East. I think there are questions, as I said when this debate started, that the government and Liberal members are going to have to answer -- indeed, if they can -- in this piece of legislation.

There are two or three areas where, for reasons that escape me, this government has really made some bad moves. One of them obviously is the Sunday shopping legislation, where they are not in tune with, I think, a majority of the people. In spite of arguments -- and that is what bothers me, even about the hearings on this bill -- I am not sure they are listening or their ears are open at all, no matter what workers in this province are going to say.

But there is Bill 162, and if any area should wave red flags or danger signals to a government, it is the area of workers’ compensation, because it is an area that is a mess and that we have had trouble with for a long time and where there need to be some changes. They have brought in a bill that once again appears to be, unless there are some answers that we have not figured out as yet, totally unacceptable to injured workers.

I do not know whether the government is doing any work on this or not, but I am wondering if it has a single injured workers’ group, a single union, a single legal community so far in Ontario that thinks this bill has any merit. I would like to know if they have. They may have one or two. I do not know of one right across the province, and these are the people who are directly involved: the unions, the legal aid, clinics, the injured workers’ groups and, surprisingly enough, a fair number of members, who also have some expertise in this area. The government literally has here a bad bill, and I cannot understand it.

Another area is, I guess, allied in some of the labour areas, and I think the tragic death of John Ramos underlined that here today. I cannot for the life of me understand why we have to wait months and months, almost a year, for a whole series of amendments, when a very few amendments would at least deal with the construction problem that caused the death of another worker here today. That could have been done months ago. It could be done next week, and the minister knows it. It does not need the kind of delays we have had.

There are one or two areas where the minister is just walking a slippery slope, and I do not know why, because it is not necessary and he could do a lot to regain some of his own credibility if he took a look at these particular issues.

Okay, Workers’ Compensation Act: As I said, my pitch is not new, but I think it is worth doing. This bill does contain some of the most significant changes we have seen in the Workers’ Compensation Act since the last bill, Bill 105, in 1984-85. That actually contained some considerable improvements, such as the establishment of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, the expansion of the Office of the Worker Adviser, a number of moves that were useful and certainly moves that I know have been used by one heck of a lot of government members, and other members in this House as well, to ease some of the workload and to try to resolve some of the workers’ problems and Workers’ Compensation Board cases. There were some benefits in the last bill.

In the current bill, unless we are totally misunderstanding it, we do not see them. I think the speech that my colleague made on October 20 in this House was about as good and intelligent a speech on WCB as I have ever seen made, and it was point by point. Sure, at times we get a little partisan, but I did not have the impression that day, while she made her arguments very, very strongly, that she was being partisan. She was speaking as to what she had seen, and not only she.

Members should understand that we sat down for two or three days with the very groups I am talking about -- injured workers, union representatives, community and legal workers -- and went over the bill. What was outlined to this House was a summary, really, of the concerns they all had and their reading of the new legislation of the Workers’ Compensation Board, Bill 162.

The points that were made, and I am not going to reiterate all of them necessarily, were that there have to be answers by this government. There has to be an explanation that holds water -- not just an explanation, because we do not accept that any longer -- or there have to be changes in the legislation, or the minister is really going to have himself some trouble with Bill 162.

Let me just go over them by headings. Rehabilitation: The Minna-Majesky task force strongly recommended the right of total rehabilitation -- physical, mental, social, vocational and economic -- for every injured worker. Bill 162 gives the board continuing power to provide rehabilitation services if it considers this appropriate. There is not a statutory right to it. Further limits have been placed, for the first time, on rehabilitation assistance to a worker seeking employment: a maximum of one year. Finally, a worker can apply for a supplement only if he or she has already begun a rehab program. At present, supplements are awarded if you are waiting to start a program.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Bob, that’s not true.

Mr. Mackenzie: Well, if these can be satisfactorily answered -- but the minister is going to have to answer every one of them.

The minister stated that the bill will oblige employers to reinstate injured workers in their jobs. That being said, the bill immediately excludes the following classes: construction workers, 323,000 workers; industry with fewer than 20 workers, about 20 per cent of the workers in the private sector; classes or subclasses that may be exempted in regulations. How do we know whom they are going to hit next in this?

The employer’s obligation lasts only two years, an employee can be terminated six months and one day after being rehired and the employer will have fulfilled his obligations. In some cases they could pay somebody for two years or hold him for two years and get rid of him. The board decides if the employer has met his obligations, and there is no appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. I think there are a number of questions that have to be answered, and a number of those question marks will make this bill simply not good enough and will give the minister nothing but trouble for a long time to come.

Current pension versus new noneconomic loss benefits, points that were outlined, not all of them but some of them: While current pensions under the meat chart are totally inadequate, they are generous in comparison to the new lump sum benefit. Under the new calculations, the pensions granted are much smaller than at present. The principle of a pension for life or a disability for life is destroyed, since pensions under $10,000 will be given out immediately as a lump sum.

Further problems are that only two reassessments are permitted, and only if there is significant deterioration not anticipated at the time that the rating occurs. I leave that to the members’ own imaginations without going into explanations, because, as I said, I am just going to go over the highlights once again that have been raised. At the time the rating occurs, the board appoints the practitioner who will conduct the assessments. The amount of a pension cannot be appealed to WCAT.

To take a look at a new benefit for future loss of earnings, this benefit and the new pension for noneconomic loss replace the present pension for life. This component is probably the most complicated and is one of the points the Minister of Labour uses when he is trying to sell this bill. The bill says that if a worker gets a pension or is totally disabled for 12 consecutive months, he or she is entitled to this bill. The amount payable is 90 per cent of the difference between what the worker earned before the accident and what the board believes he or she is capable of earning after the accident. This is called “deeming.” It is already happening at the board with pension supplements, and the minister knows it and knows there is a problem there. The board deems a worker capable of performing a job on the basis of personal characteristics such as education and language. It checks with Statistics Canada to see how much the job pays, and if the worker will make more with this phantom job, he or she is refused a supplement.

This is occurring whether or not the worker even has the job, and we have had some prize cases, a few of which we have raised in this area. The point is that few workers are going to actually qualify to receive this benefit, even though the Minister of Labour is telling everyone that they will get 90 per cent of their pre-accident earnings until the age of 65.

If the benefit is granted, it is reviewed after two and five years or whenever the Workers’ Compensation Board considers it appropriate in the circumstances. The bottom line is that the change from the present pension scheme to the dual system represents a drastic cutback in workers’ benefits and dramatic savings to employers. There is little security for injured workers, and the discretionary power of the board is increased even further. I think my colleague the member for Cambridge points out the concern that workers have there universally in terms of the discretionary power of the board.

These represent just some of the worst details. I did not try to cover them all, but there are specific ones, point by point, that are going to have to be answered before this bill begins to pass muster.

I want to conclude my remarks by simply saying this: The minister has said, and said it in this House, I can recall, that this bill is going to be revenue neutral. If he ever gave a wrong signal right from the beginning of the debate, that was it. He has also said, in answer to some of the more heated exchanges in this House over the last few weeks, that this bill is what we are trying to do in terms of a worker who has injured his back and is living on an inadequate income, that this bill will give him more or solve that kind of a problem in terms of the pension that he or she will have.

When it is revenue neutral and when you are going to give that worker more -- if indeed we accept that some workers are going to get what they need, and in many cases substantially more than they are now getting -- I want to ask the minister and I want to ask every Liberal member sitting in this House, from whom are they going to take it away? If they are going to give some more and they have a revenue-neutral bill, and some of those are going to be substantial increases that they are talking about, who wants the problem of telling the injured workers in the province of Ontario: “Hey, you are getting too much. We have to give John Doe more because he has a serious back problem and this bill is revenue-neutral -- no more money involved. We are going to have to take some off it.”

1550

The minister himself has said there will be adjustments. Do they honestly want the job, any one of them, with the problems we have already had, with the inequities in workers’ compensation legislation in the province of Ontario? Do they really want the job of deciding who they are going to take away from so they can give a little more to somebody else? I do not doubt for a minute that if they do a real, in-depth investigation they will find the odd cheater in the system. We found that in terms of cheating, whether it is social welfare or WCB, it is an extremely small percentage, but they might find the odd one. They might find the odd case where there has been a misassessment, or maybe somebody really is not entitled to that much, although I will tell them, when it is an injury and you are off work and you have to pay the bills and keep your family, that is a pretty difficult decision to make, that maybe we have given you $10 or $15 or $20 a month too much or whatever we have done.

But once they have got to a position where, to sell what they have here they are going to have to cut X number of workers -- and I suggest to them that if they are going to solve some of the gross inequities in what workers are getting, it is going to mean a considerable amount of cutting -- I would not want to be the one who has to go to those workers and tell them, “Hey, to give somebody else a just and fair pension, we have to cut back on what you are going to get.” The minister should stop and think about that and every member in the Liberal benches should stop and think about that.

When the hearings are held on this bill, and when workers and community legal aid workers and unions and other interested parties come before them and make their arguments -- as I said at the very beginning, I have not yet heard of one of these groups in Ontario; maybe there is one and there are a lot of them and they are involved in workers’ problems that think this bill is anywhere near the answer -- when they raise their questions in those hearings, it is not just the two New Democrats who will sit on that committee. It had better be the six or seven Liberals who sit on that committee who are listening to what those workers say, because otherwise they are really asking for a pile of trouble. If their minds are as closed as they appear to be on the Sunday shopping bill, I have not got an awful lot of faith in what is going to happen to workers.

I can tell them, they have seen a demonstration here. They have seen them keep their organization together over the years. They have seen them demonstrate probably a couple of times a year in this Legislature. They have seen themselves get lobbied. They are going to see workers more angry, more upset, and there are going to be one heck of a lot of community groups that are going to be alongside them, unless they give some specific answers to the kinds of points that my colleague raised, which I attempted to summarize once again here today. Those have got to be answered, the changes made, or this bill is simply no good.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any questions or comments arising out of the speech of the member for Hamilton East?

Mr. Morin-Strom: It is with considerable concern that I come to speak on Bill 162, this government’s attempt to do something about the workers’ compensation system. Certainly as an elected member -- and I would think that most elected members would have the same experience -- I think there is no part of the government of Ontario that we see more in our day-to-day working with individuals in our local communities, which is of tremendous concern at the local level. We get more people coming into my office in Sault Ste. Marie who are having problems, who are having fights, who are having real injustice done to them when it comes to their treatment by the Workers’ Compensation Board. It is the most serious single area of activity of this government in terms of causing serious impact on the day-to-day lives of families across this province. For years we have had governments that have attempted to do something in terms of wrestling with the workers’ compensation system, but with very little effect. It has been a tough area and the efforts to date have been not very impressive at all.

Sure, in recent years, particularly under the minority government of 1985-87, there were a few important reforms. For example, in 1985 all WC benefits were indexed to inflation. We had the establishment of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal and then we had the establishment of worker adviser offices as well, the kind of offices needed to provide professional advice and counselling to workers in the fights they were having to wage against the Workers’ Compensation Board to ensure just and equitable treatment. Those have been benefits that have assisted workers to some degree, but the fundamental problems remain.

The workers’ compensation system in Ontario is not working. Discriminatory and inconsistent in its application, petty and inadequate in its coverage, clumsy and frustrating in its administration, workers’ compensation has lost the faith and the trust of the very people it should be serving, the injured workers of Ontario.

There are difficulties in analysing Bill 162 with precision. Many of the changes Bill 162 will bring about will be implemented and operated through regulations which will be formulated later and, it should be noted, which are outside of this legislative process and outside of the bill we are addressing today. It is unfortunate that the government has not been much more specific in this bill in terms of where we are going to go with the workers’ compensation system and enforcing on the Workers’ Compensation Board some discipline in terms of fair and equitable treatment of the workers of this province.

Of greater concern, many of the new sections of this bill are subject to enormous discretion on the part of that board. This gives the minister his out in terms of who he can blame for the problems of the compensation board, but we would point out that the enormous extent of discretion that has been built into the current regime has not resulted in fairness and justice for workers to date and that adding to this discretion is not likely to be of benefit to workers in the long run.

There are many things that are questionable, arbitrary, unfair, wrong and unacceptable about Bill 162. Today, I will discuss just a very few, because the time is limited. I will start with the minister’s statement on June 20, 1988, when he tabled Bill 162. It goes on at some length about the good things the government is doing and will be able to do more of or better once Bill 162 is implemented. Then it notes: “The overall financial impact of these reforms will be revenue neutral. They will reallocate resources within the workers’ compensation system.”

This pretty much sums up the significance of Bill 162. Every positive step is accompanied by a major regressive move, whether it is increased discretionary power in the hands of board functionaries, financial cutbacks, decreased access to benefits or what have you. They rob Peter to pay Paul. Whatever benefit comes to injured workers from Bill 162 will come on the backs of other injured workers. That is reactionary cynicism at its worst.

The whole history of the workers’ compensation reform in Ontario is a sad testimony to the continuing power of the employers whose only concern is to limit their own costs and financial risks. Ontario’s working men and women pay the price with their health, their backs, their blood and their lives.

In the throne speech of November 3, 1987, the Liberals promised to “take steps to ensure a healthy and safe environment in the workplace.” However, since the Liberals have formed the government, work-related accidents and fatalities have steadily climbed. The Workers’ Compensation Board statistics confirm this disturbing trend.

1600

Meanwhile, the simple truth is that things are just not getting any better. More workers are getting hurt and dying on the job every year, and the minister has not done anything to change that from occurring.

It is very much like the problems we are facing in the health care system today. Rather than address the problem of the health care needs of ordinary Ontarians and their families, the government has become obsessed with the cost of providing it. Never mind that a major part of the cost is due to their receiving improper health care in a needlessly expensive manner; never mind that an endless stream of expert advice says to provide health care through a variety of health professions and in the community, rather than in institutional settings, no, the Liberals simply charge ahead and target hospitals for budget cutbacks.

The same thing has been happening with the worker’s compensation system. Rather than clean up the workplaces of the province, the Liberals want to focus on the cost implications of unhealthy and unsafe workplaces. It is their blind spot and the same fundamental error as they try to come to the assistance, not of the employees but rather the employers who are having to foot the bill. In this case, however, the error is a tragic one because while the minister reassures himself and his government colleagues that big changes are under way, men and women are dying and being injured in record numbers.

And the legislative changes to address the problem? The minister might have something this session and he might not. He does not want to remember that a package of legislative changes that would do the job was accepted at second reading by this House way back in February 1987 and subsequently ignored by this government.

I refer, of course, to the bill in the name of my former colleague Elie Martel. His draft legislation from the previous minority government session received second reading approval from this House in February 1987. But where is it today? If the minister has a better idea, where is it? Where is the action on worker health and safety now that there is a Liberal majority? There is no action from this government.

Where is this government’s concern for working men and women, now that it does not have to listen to their concerns through the mechanism that we had from the accord agreement during the minority government years? In Bill 162, if the Liberals get their way, workers on the job will receive less than they do today in many, many cases. Bill 162, the Liberals’ proposal for the Workers’ Compensation Board, would give injured workers two payments instead of one, but the new pensions will be much smaller. Even today’s meat chart, notorious as it is, would seem much more generous in comparison.

Let’s look at an example that was detailed by my colleague the member for Sudbury East previously in this House. If you are a skilled worker, 45 years old, with a 10 per cent permanent physical disability, today you would get a monthly pension for life of $191. Under the new legislation that is being proposed in this Bill, the Liberal proposal, your monthly pension would go down from $191 to a meagre $23 a month.

In addition, the WCB would be giving you a second payment, based on what it thinks you could earn. But if the board decides you have recovered or if you go back to work, the second payment stops altogether. We believe this system will mean less money for most injured workers and it is an absolute insult to those workers.

If the Liberals get their way, injured workers may not even be able to return to their employers. Sure, the words in the bill sound good. The bill says that employers should hire workers within two years of an injury, but there are so many loopholes that this guarantee really does not mean anything.

Bill 162 will not help you if you are a construction worker. It will not help if you have been off work for more than two years. Even if you are rehired, the new bill says the employer only has to keep you on for six months. First. injured workers who are already on a pension are left out. All those who have fought so hard for fair treatment will get nothing from this new legislation.

We could go on and look at what this bill will do if the Liberals get their way and give the Workers’ Compensation Board even more power over workers’ lives. If workers think they have it bad now, under this bill the WCB will decide what an injured worker might earn. The board will say what jobs the workers can do. And for the first time ever, some of the rights of injured workers to appeal are being taken away altogether.

For instance, Bill 162 says that you cannot appeal the size of your pension to the independent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. So, again, some of the benefits that were provided under minority government are being now taken away as the right-wing, new Liberal government implements its new plans for the workers’ compensation system.

In conclusion, the provincial government has to act now to end the misery that the WCB inflicts on injured workers. During this debate, we in the New Democratic Party have highlighted the Liberals’ failure to protect working people from injury and disease on the job. Any of us, no matter where we work, could become injured workers. Every working person needs and deserves the guarantee that he will not be thrown away on the scrap heap, that he will get the help he needs if his work injuries make him sick or unable to continue his job.

What the system does now to injured workers is wrong. I and our party will continue the fight to put it right for all working people in Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any questions or comments arising out of the speech of the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom)? Are there any other participants in this debate?

Mr. Hampton: I want to speak on this bill because I realize in the short time that I have been elected and from my experience before being elected how important this bill is to so many of the people I represent in my community and so many working people all across Ontario.

I think it is worth pointing out that my constituency, the riding I represent, is truly an industrial riding. Almost everybody who lives in the riding is involved in some type of natural resource harvesting, some type of natural resources processing or some kind of manufacturing. We have two pulp and paper mills. We have a couple of what are called chipboard mills. We have a number of sawmills. We have a number of mines. We have a number of people working in the bush logging. We have a number of railroaders.

They are people who work in dangerous occupations; people who very often are injured on the job. They are people who know something about the Workers’ Compensation Board because if you go through any paper mill, if you go through any mine or if you go through any logging mill, what you inevitably find is half or more of the workforce will say to you: “Yeah, I had a fight with the Workers’ Compensation Board. I don’t ever want to have to deal with them again. It is the most depressing, the most damaging relationship I have ever had with any form of the government, dealing with the Workers’ Compensation Board.”

The minister knows of my interest in the Workers’ Compensation Board. A little less than a year ago the WCB decided to do a review of the logging industry. I made it plain to the minister that if he was going to do a review of the logging industry, he should visit virtually every town in northwestern Ontario if he wanted to get an accurate assessment of how people feel about the Workers’ Compensation Board.

I have asked the minister a number of questions about the role of the worker adviser. The minister says, on the one hand, that the office of worker adviser is very important in helping injured workers deal with workers’ compensation cases. Yet, at the same time, he acknowledges that the waiting list at most of the worker adviser offices is at least a year and in some cases longer than a year. That means an injured worker can go to the workers’ compensation office in Thunder Bay, let’s say, and ask for assistance, and they will say: “Why don’t you come back and see us a year from now? That’s how long it’s going to take us to deal with our backlog of cases.”

1610

I want to say something else about involvement with workers’ compensation. Even before I was elected to this House, we had an office in our constituency, which was partly financed by the federal member, partly financed by trade unions, partly working in terms of volunteer work. In the last four years of handling workers’ compensation benefits, we have won nearly $1 million in benefits for injured workers. That is in a small community of 10,000 people.

But the untold hours of work that we have had to put in, the hours of hassle with the Workers’ Compensation Board as it is now, are incredible for anyone to imagine, to win those kinds of benefits. We have a lot of experience in my constituency with the Workers’ Compensation Board. We know a lot about how it works and how it does not work and, by and large, we can say it does not work.

We also know some of the myths about workers’ compensation. One would get the impression from the minister’s bill that there must be some people out there receiving workers’ compensation who have a lot of money. They must be living high off the hog from workers’ compensation. For implicit in his revenue-neutral concept of the bill is the idea that some people who are receiving workers’ compensation benefits must be receiving so much money that they can afford to give some of it up.

In all my involvement with workers’ compensation, I have never -- not ever -- met anybody who is receiving workers’ compensation benefits who could in any way be called financially well off. Most people who receive any sort of workers’ compensation benefit or pension, I think it is fair to say, face a very difficult and very slim financial existence. It is tough. How people who are now receiving a benefit or a pension can be expected to give some of it up is totally beyond me. How that concept ever got in this bill is totally beyond me.

I have talked to the doctors in my community, many of whom have 20 or 30 years’ experience with workers’ compensation claims, and they all say less than five per cent of the people who claim workers’ compensation are undeserving. It is an absolutely minuscule number of people who may put in a claim and who may not be deserving of benefits. In many cases, they are deserving of much greater benefits than they receive.

To give members an idea of the integrity of some of the doctors who have spoken on this, these are the doctors that the government listens to in terms of northern health policy. These are doctors who have been elected by the Ontario Medical Association to represent the medical association in their dealings with the government. They are widely respected in their own field and they say over and over again that you have to look very long and very far to find any abuse in the workers’ compensation system, in terms of workers who are trying to abuse the system.

That is the background of what we are dealing with. In contrast to the situation that is there, what the government has presented is not going to help in any way so many of those people who have had such a difficult situation in the past with workers’ compensation; in fact, it is going to hurt them even more.

One of the things we have found in dealing with the Workers’ Compensation Board in my office -- I will say again for the minister that we have 400 cases on the go now and we get 10 new ones a week -- is that the board already, in too many cases, abuses its discretion. In too many situations where the board has either absolute discretion or has a great deal of discretion, it abuses that discretion. I want to give the minister some examples.

The number of cases that we have taken to review and then to appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal is innumerable. We get a large number of successful decisions from WCAT when we take the cases there. We do all right. It involves hours and hours of painstaking work, but we win a number of the cases.

What is so frustrating, after taking a case to WCAT and demonstrating the facts of the injured worker’s situation and demonstrating the legitimacy of his claim, is that a few months later we will have another case that is foursquare identical in terms of the facts, in terms of the medical evidence and in terms of all the other evidence. What does the board do? Does it sit down and look at the previous decision? Does it take into consideration what the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal has said? Not at all. It follows the decision it may have made a year earlier all over again and denies benefits, and we go through the same bureaucratic showdown all over again.

The board seems all too often to ignore the well-placed and legitimate advice and legitimate decisions that have been taken on all kinds of preceding cases. Moreover, the board all too often ignores the expert medical evidence that many claimants present to the board.

We have situations in my office where an injured worker has the opinion of his family doctor as to the extent and the seriousness of the injury. The injured worker then is referred to Thunder Bay to see a specialist. The specialist gives him the same answer, confirming the family doctor’s diagnosis. He then goes to workers’ compensation and it denies his claim. The injured worker then gets referred to another specialist, this time perhaps in Winnipeg or another one in Thunder Bay or even Toronto, and gets another opinion which agrees with the original family doctor’s opinion, which agrees with the first specialist’s opinion.

What does the board do? It may order the injured worker to see his own doctor and it denies the claim again. One visit to the board’s doctor overrules two specialists and the family doctor who have all seen the injured worker. It happens all too often.

Finally, there are the famous clauses in the Workers’ Compensation Act that merely say “in the opinion of the board” or “if the board is of this opinion it may do thus and so.” The number of times that we have had to fight the famous “in the board’s opinion” decisions – “in the board’s opinion, the board does this or the board decides that” -- to a successful conclusion is very depressing.

Yet what do we see when we look at this bill? We see rehabilitation services, again, almost totally now at the discretion of the board -- ”if the board considers it appropriate to do so.” On the whole question of reinstatement, if the board decides that the employer has met his obligations regarding reinstatement, there is no appeal for the injured worker. The board has total discretion.

What if there is significant deterioration in the physical condition of the injured worker? What if his injury becomes worse? Again, the board decides; it has sole discretion. Who appoints the practitioner? Who appoints the doctor who is going to have sole discretion in terms of the injured worker in many of the cases now under this bill? The board decides.

The amount of pension only the board can decide. It cannot be appealed to WCAT. New benefits for future losses, the deeming provision -- the board deems it. This bill gives the Workers’ Compensation Board more discretionary power than it has ever had before, and I say to the minister the board too often in the past has misused a great deal of its discretionary power.

1620

This bill is not going to save money. It is not going to save time in terms of the fights that go on. The minister is going to have more angry injured workers, more cases going to review and more protests about this legislation. On the other side, I doubt very much that it is going to save employers money, because if every case has to go on to review, if every case has to be decided on the basis of painstaking evidence, then we will do that. The legal aid clinics will do it; the injured workers’ clinics will do it.

This bill is unfair: too much discretion, too much unilateral power to the board. Those are the problems. Those are the things the minister has to overcome.

I can only appeal to the minister to go out again and talk to some of the injured workers’ groups, to ask them individually about the kinds of problems they have had to put up with at the Workers’ Compensation Board. If he looks at the kinds of problems they have had to put up with and the kinds of fights they have had to deal with and he places them in the context of this bill, he will see that this bill is going to exacerbate the problem; it is not going to help it. The government is going to create more of a headache. It is not going to solve some of the headaches that are already there.

So I appeal to the minister and I appeal to the committee that eventually holds the public hearings on this: Let’s not have the same kind of show that we had with the Sunday shopping legislation, where a couple of the Liberal members of the committee were heard to say, “These people who are appearing before us are not real people.” This had better be a very good and a very careful hearing and the injured workers of this province had better be listened to, because if they are not, they have nothing else to lose. They have lost most of what they already had and they will fight the minister for ever on this. I hope he is listening.

Mr. Brandt: I welcome this opportunity to share with the other members of the House this chance to respond to Bill 162 as proposed by the minister and to offer some comments in connection with some of our concerns with respect to the bill and also to offer the minister some support in certain areas of the bill that we feel are a step in the right direction.

Let me just say that I recognize -- and I welcome the minister’s presence in the House this afternoon -- that workmen’s compensation is an extremely complicated and difficult area of a ministry. I know the minister will agree with that. It is probably one of the most challenging portfolios in that it is extremely difficult to satisfy all sides of a given argument. I say that as a former minister and one who recognizes that the minister is attempting to do what he believes to be right in the case of Bill 162.

That is probably the only nice thing I am going to say, so I am now digressing to move on to some of the areas that I think I want to bring to his attention. But I want him to know that I recognize that this is not a simple or an easy process. It is one that is going to take a great deal of input. I respect the minister’s agreeing to the public hearings before committee, which I feel will strengthen and improve Bill 162 very considerably.

Let me say to the minister that I think it is necessary to put the bill into somewhat of a historical perspective and to put the Workers’ Compensation Act into a historical perspective as well. The act, as the minister knows, was designed way back in the year 1915, and it was good legislation at the time. It was legislation that was essentially developed and drawn in a fashion that would reflect the needs of the workers and the needs of industry at that particular time, and it worked well for approximately half a century.

But I think it is recognized that the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Workers’ Compensation Act need some very significant revisions and an overhaul of the system to recognize the realities of the workplace that we have in Ontario today and also to recognize the economic realities of our time.

Over the course of the decades that have passed since 1915, there have been a number of studies, royal commissions and legislative reports, as the minister is aware, that have all looked into the operation and the function and the scope of the WCB, and they have come forward with suggestions not entirely dissimilar to the step the minister is attempting to take with respect to Bill 162. Some were accepted; some were not; some were better than others. But if one takes a look back in hindsight, I think the changes that were made over the years were very much with the best interests in mind of improving the act by people who were sincerely committed to making the improvements that had to be carried out.

What concerns me today, if one takes a look simply at what has been happening in terms of the Workers’ Compensation Act, is whether it reflects the realities, the kinds of things that the board should be delivering today, or whether we are developing nothing more than a bureaucratic jungle in terms of increased numbers of people who are shuffling paper and reviewing documentation. The minister, I see, is shaking his head no. However, that is not the experience of the vast majority of the members who have to deal with individual cases that have to be handled in their constituency offices.

That also does not bear up in the light of the increased numbers of people who are on the payroll of the WCB, and that increase is really moving upward at a frightening rate. Some of those increases in terms of personnel, in terms of people to administer the act, are necessary. I do not find fault with each and every one. I would only say that instead of the actual functioning of the act becoming more simple and being more streamlined, what we find is that there is a bureaucratic plugging up of the system which is making it more and more difficult rather than easier for the members to solve the individual problems that come before them.

I would have to say to the minister, and I welcome him to challenge me if I am wrong, that in all probability, if one were to isolate the numbers in terms of increases at the Workers’ Compensation Board, it is probably the fastest-growing bureaucracy in the entire government.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I challenge you.

Mr. Brandt: The minister challenges me. Produce the figures; I want to know which is the fastest-growing bureaucracy. The fact of the matter is that it is growing at an extremely rapid rate and I will await, since I raise this by way of question, the minister’s detailed analysis of what is the fastest-growing bureaucracy in the provincial government and he can then put that into perspective in terms of how that matches up with the WCB.

Let me just say that my concern with respect to bureaucratic growth is not simply that we are hiring more and more government employees; it is that that money should be going to the workers of this province. That money should be going, if in no other direction, to reduce the unfunded liability, which is also increasing at a staggering rate and at a frightening rate at the present time. It should not simply be going to more people who are going to be doing nothing other, in some instances, than reviewing reports and shuffling pages.

In short, with respect to some of the changes that have been made in the WCB over the years and some of the alterations such as the minister is proposing in this new bill, I would like to use an analogy and indicate that the WCB is like a fine old house that has had perhaps one too many additions added or one too many renovations done and now the entire structure is unstable, and if we are not careful, the next ill-planned renovation could bring the entire structure tumbling to the ground. That is what concerns us in this party.

That unwanted and ill-planned renovation that I am speaking of could very well be Bill 162, and I want to outline why I feel that way.

Members will remember all too well the very angry crowd of injured workers who stormed the Legislature not all that many weeks ago. The Speaker himself, a respected veteran of this assembly, stated at the time that it was one of the most frightening incidents he had witnessed here at Queen’s Park. I think the minister will agree, it was frightening and it was unprecedented in many respects.

1630

The question has to be asked: What incited this degree of passion, this degree of concern on the part of these injured workers and this willingness to travel so far outside the normal boundary of conduct we usually see in this province and in this place and that forced them to come here and demonstrate in a rather violent way?

Again, the answer to what precipitated that particular action is Bill 162, which is fraught with unanswered questions and areas of concern to people who are interested in the Workers’ Compensation Board on both sides of the issue, both employers and employees.

This is a bill the minister would have us believe is something that these very workers desire and that will improve their situation. Why would they demonstrate so violently if in fact the bill were going to bring great dividends in so far as the response from the WCB is concerned? Unfortunately, a neutral assessment of the facts simply does not bear the minister out in terms of what those improvements are going to mean.

All members of this House support the purported purpose of this bill, and that is to give the injured workers of this province a better break and a fairer deal. If we can find ways to do that within the context of Bill 162, by amending it properly to explain it more fully, then we will support the bill. But we have questions about it and we have serious reservations about aspects of the bill. In some areas, it may be an interpretative question, and if those questions of interpretation could be straightened out, then we would join with the minister in supporting the bill. But in other areas there may have to be some dramatic shifts.

We all see that the need for supporting the bill has to be founded on the grounds that it will produce what the workers in fact expect and that it does not produce the opposite of that desired goal.

I should point out as well that we have to answer some of the, I think, very serious concerns from the business community that have been laid before the minister, concerns about the costs, which I understand the minister has indicated will be neutral in terms of this bill. If that is so, then I think he has a very, very challenging time ahead of him to convince both the workers that there is going to be an improvement in terms of how this bill is going to impact on them and, on the other side of the issue, the employers with respect to the costs associated with the bill. To put it in a nutshell, this bill proposed by the minister has in fact angered, alienated and distressed the two major client groups that deal with the Workers’ Compensation Board. That in itself, and because of those concerns being expressed, is a major cause for concern on our part as well.

What has the minister done to alleviate these concerns? Has he presented the House with the documents my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and others have asked for with respect to the proof we need that we can proceed confidently with this bill? Have we had, as an example, a comprehensive economic impact study to know what the costs are going to be?

I put that in the context of an unfunded liability which in 1975 was $518 million and which now in 1987 is estimated to be about $6.7 billion. The estimates are that within the next two to three years the unfunded liability, given the kinds of increases we have been experiencing, will probably be in the range of $8 billion to $9 billion.

Have we received from the minister the comprehensive economic impact study we feel we need to make sure we are not causing still further and future economic problems for this province? Has the minister in fact stood in his place and answered in detail the specific questions posed both by members of my party and, in a very eloquent way, by members of the official opposition? Unfortunately, no.

Was the minister, prior to the demonstrations taking place at the very doors of this Legislature, even going to request -- I understand it is not his job to demand it, but was he even going to request that we have public hearings on this bill? It was something both opposition parties had to put before him as an absolute requirement for our co-operation in working with him to see that this bill could become legislation in this province. We have wanted those public hearings in order to defuse the very kind of incident that occurred outside the doors of this Legislative Assembly. We wanted as well to make sure that there were full and comprehensive discussions.

In a bill that is as complicated as Bill 162, where you have actuarial numbers that have been developed in a very specific sense with respect to future payouts relative to pensions, lump sum payouts, 90 per cent factors, all of those things that are going to impact on workers, I think it is only reasonable that we have -- and I understand that the minister has now acquiesced to this –

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I advocated it from the beginning.

Mr. Brandt: No, he did not advocate it from the beginning. His position at that time --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will tell that story, Andy.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: With the greatest of respect, the minister’s position at that time was -- does he want me to read him his quote? I have it here.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Yes, do that.

Mr. Brandt: I am glad he asked me to do that.

The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, of course.

Mr. Brandt: Through the Speaker, if I might, the honourable minister -- and I know he is glad I brought this along -- said in Hansard, October 19, 1988: “I am not going to order public hearings because I do not have the capacity to order public hearings. I think there should be a hearing process, but it has to be done in the way in which we deal with it in every other bill and that is for the process to be discussed among the House leaders ... .” But the leadership, as it would be expected, relative to --

Mr. Faubert: Keep reading it. Read the whole thing.

Mr. Eves: Anybody who knows anything about how the system works knows that if the government House leader wants it to happen, it happens and if he doesn’t, it doesn’t.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Brandt: The member opposite asked me to read the whole thing. The whole point of it is that the minister could have spoken out very early in the discussion of Bill 162 and he could have made it very clear that his position was that hearings would have been necessary.

I do not want to dwell on that point other than to say that when you have a bill that is as comprehensive as this bill, when you have a bill which is going to impact on the lives of workers as this bill will, it is only right and proper and fair that those workers have an opportunity to have input and make sure that we get on the record the specific interpretation of certain clauses within the bill which I think are important in terms of letting those workers be given the assurance, if you will, that their futures are going to be looked after in a reasonably adequate way.

We did support the call for public hearings on this matter. We joined with the other opposition party because we felt that was only justice with respect to what the workers quite appropriately demanded. However, being realists, we also know that no matter now extensive or how worth while or constructive that committee’s work might be and those hearings might be, it is really going to come down to the issue of whether the minister is going to listen and receive the input that is going to be provided to him at those particular hearings.

We have not seen any demonstration of the minister’s capacity to be flexible and pragmatic on this bill to date. Maybe he will be after we go through the hearings, but it has already been noted, I might add, by one of the members of the New Democratic Party that it certainly was not the kind of environment that we worked in as it relates to the Sunday shopping bill that recently went before committee. We would ask the minister, we would plead with the minister, to look with an open mind on some positive, constructive suggestions that will be made when we get into the hearings.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is always my style, Andy.

Mr. Brandt: I recognize that is what he says his style always is, to be pragmatic and flexible, but we will see when we get into the committees themselves.

I would like to close, since my time is running out, by saying on a very sincere note to the minister, as I started out by saying, that I understand the complications of trying to operate a responsive workers’ compensation system. I understand the number of people who are dissatisfied with the system and the kind of struggle that the minister has in coming to grips with some of those problems, but I also say to the minister that the members of my party, joined by the other opposition party, have indicated at least a partial solution to how we can get to the bottom of what this problem is all about and that is a total, fundamental restructuring of the Workers’ Compensation Act through a royal commission. We feel that is absolutely paramount because the kinds of amendments that have been brought forward, the kinds of modest adjustments and alterations that have taken place going way back to 1915 are simply inadequate to meet today’s needs.

That is why we appeal to the minister again to consider not only Bill 162 on which we will work together to see if we can develop it into a better and more responsive piece of legislation, but we ask again, and we put before the minister in a public way, the need for a royal commission to determine exactly what it is that can be done to develop a 1980s and 1990s-and-beyond kind of act or piece of legislation that will truly reflect the needs of the modern-day worker and modern industries.

1640

We have to look at solving some of the problems that are not going to be solved in Bill 162. There are too many areas left open for interpretation in Bill 162 that I, if I have the opportunity, will come before the committee to ask; or certainly through the representatives of my party on that committee, we are going to ask for some of the interpretative aspects of the bill that cause us some concern.

The Workers’ Compensation Board, as an example, shall determine the degree of a worker’s permanent impairment. The question of the right of appeal and the system of being able to solve some of those cases is the very thing that bogs the members down at the current time, where we have this very, very long and very frustrating process, in trying to find some element of fairness to the workers who are not getting what they truly deserve from the present act.

I have a concern about the requirement to reinstate injured workers, when I look at the realities of most of the cases that I deal with. I know that my colleagues have some of the same experiences. But in virtually all of the cases where we are talking about rehabilitation, my success record, and the success record of the WCB, I might add, leave a great deal to be desired, because I have worked, in many instances, with construction workers who have language problems, who have a limited education, who have an injury which will, in effect, not allow them to go back to the type of position they had before.

When you start to look at some form of reinstatement, because of their age and a whole series of other factors, there is simply no way to get them back into the workforce. Those kinds of frustrations have to be responded to in a much more adequate and, I might add, compassionate way by the Workers’ Compensation Board.

I want to be very, very specific in terms of the minister’s response at the committee, relative to the appeals process. I want to make absolutely sure that we do not have some kind of a dictatorial, decision-making body that does not allow members to be able to assist workers when they truly deserve the kind of continued appeal before the board that is necessary in order to bring justice to a particular circumstance.

When the minister looks at an individual member’s situation in this House, and if he were to ask virtually any one of them what his or her highest caseload is in terms of the problems that they have to deal with, I think that the first response that he would get is that the largest caseload, the largest number of files in their particular offices relate to workers’ compensation. The largest number of files that they have, that are outstanding and that go on, in some instances, for months and years, are workers’ compensation.

Some of the problems are most frustrating; to give an example, I had a case in my office this week where an individual whom I have known for years, a construction worker -- and I will not use the name here other than that it is an immigrant family -- came into my office and the Workers’ Compensation Board has accused him of having a leg that was short before his accident.

I knew this man. His leg was not short before the accident. He was injured on the job. He has a legitimate injury. He has a compensable injury and yet somebody in that great tribunal makes a decision and says: “Well, your leg was injured before the accident. Your leg was short.” This man has never had a limp. He has never had an injury, to the best of my knowledge, and I have seen him for many years walk around my community.

He does not walk well today. It is extremely difficult for him to stand. It is extremely difficult for him to work. But when somebody comes up with a comment like that to someone who is injured, not only is it a difficult situation for the worker to accept the fact that he may no longer be able to work, but it starts to develop into psychological damage, as well.

Many of these workers are set back in a very emotional sense because their ability to provide for the livelihood of themselves and their families is taken away from them.

It just bothers me when some bureaucrat somewhere in the system says, “Well, his leg was short before the accident.” I would like to know what kind of evidence that individual has to make that kind of statement. This is a case that I know personally and I know the individual is not lying. I know the individual is not trying to take advantage of the system by suggesting there is an injury that is not real and that is not there.

We could go on at length about individual cases. I will not do that today. I am only citing one because it is the most recent one that I have dealt with and it is one that set me back in terms of my feelings towards the Workers’ Compensation Board and what is needed to bring about a new and, I think, a more responsive system.

I do not in any way doubt the minister’s integrity with respect to what he is trying to do. I know he is trying to bring something forward that he thinks will be a fix for some of the problems. We question the minister on how effective that is going to be. We call on him again to give strong and reasonable consideration to a royal commission, which we feel is essential to clear up a lot of the ills of the past and a lot of the sins of omission and commission of the past and to bring forward a new act, as we say, that will truly reflect the modern Ontario of the 1980s and the 1990s and beyond.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions and comments on the members’ statement? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. B. Rae: I think it is a good idea when we are looking at any law that is brought down that we try to address the question, first of all, of what the problem is that this law is attempting to address. What is the wrong and what is the remedy? It is a pretty good test to apply to any piece of legislation.

I am sure every member in this House has a different view as to what the wrong is or what the problem is. We are all the product of our unique experience and of our unique perspective. I can only describe it as I have seen it and as my friends in this party have seen it, and can only try to speak to the minister about why I think this bill is so wrongheaded. It is because it does not deal with the problems which I face and which, I would think, a great many workers face as well.

I began doing workers’ compensation work about 15 or 16 years ago when I worked as a legal aid worker, a law student at the Union of Injured Workers many years ago. I have handled, I would think, several hundred cases since that time. Of course, it is difficult to sum up one’s experience, but I would have to say that there are basically five problems that I have encountered as an advocate on behalf of injured workers. I would like to tell the minister what I think those five problems are.

The first is that there continue to be people who are not covered by the act. If you look at where industrial accidents or where accidents at work are -- the most difficult and the most prevalent -- you will find, for example, that a great many agricultural accidents are not covered, a great many people who work on farms are not covered and there are significant numbers of people who are not covered by the act and who do not have the protection of the act.

The second problem is even greater than that, I believe. It is, I think, one of the great challenges if not the great challenge in terms of our social security legislation over the next decade. That is not simply that people are not covered, but that there are whole numbers of accidents and illnesses that are not covered.

I can say to the minister that some of the most difficult cases that I am sure all of us have to argue with the board about, are those accident recognition claims where we spend days, months, indeed even years, attempting to establish that a particular accident, a particular illness or a particular disability relates to a specific incident in the workplace. It is in some cases impossible to prove and we are unsuccessful in proving it. As a result of this, people go uncompensated and have nowhere to turn, apart from our welfare offices, and we all know how inadequate and hopeless that can be.

1650

Perhaps I could just give one very personal example to the minister. I do not know whether he has met Mrs. Larcher yet in Timmins. I do not know whether Mrs. Larcher is watching this debate; I would not be surprised if she were. I would advise and urge the minister to spend some time talking, for example, to the group Mrs. Larcher has organized in Timmins of the widows of miners who worked underground, many of whom will never qualify under the absurd rules that have been created by the Workers’ Compensation Board for compensation for illness, for lung cancers that are related to working underground.

Together with my colleague from Windsor, we have met with a number of people from the Bendix plant in Windsor. We have had meetings with the injured workers’ groups in that city. I have met with workers in Sarnia. I have met with workers in Barrie. I have met with workers in Sudbury. I have met with workers in Welland. I have met with workers in all parts of Toronto. All have been affected by an industrial problem.

In many cases, either the families are surviving somebody who has died of cancer, or there is a cancer that has not been recognized or there is a respiratory problem that has not been recognized. One of the crucial issues this government has to address is the number of people who simply are not included and covered by workers’ compensation, who are not covered by any compensation.

I am going to come back to this at the end of my remarks. What are some of the solutions we would put forward? What would we do in the minister’s place? I want to come to that.

The third problem relates particularly to older workers but not exclusively to older workers. Again, I am sure all members who do cases will recognize this problem. People who at 50, 52 or 54, or now even in their 40s, because of the age discrimination that takes place in the workplace are simply rejected by all employers for one reason -- they have a disability.

It may be a small disability. !t may be a residual disability. It may not be a big deal. But they are consistently rejected and discriminated against in the workplace for one simple reason, that they are sick, that they have had an illness, that they are on a pension. The pension is not enough to cover them and is not enough to do them any good, but that is all they have.

The fourth big problem relates very directly to this, and that is the broad issue of rehabilitation and jobs. If any of us were to ask, in terms of the existing board, what the big weakness is, what the big problem is, I think it was identified very clearly and effectively by Mr. Majesky and Ms. Minna, when they said very clearly that the board should be renamed, should be retitled the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Board, that it should have a specific mandate with respect to rehabilitation, and that this should be set out in the act. It should be obligatory. It should be required. It should be statutory.

There should be a duty to rehabilitate on the part of the board, and that duty should be stated clearly and categorically in imperative terms in the act. It should not be wishy-washy. The wording should not be unclear. It should be addressed very directly.

Finally, if you are looking at the board itself, the problems that are being expressed by workers obviously have to do with the process. It has to do with the fact that the decisions of doctors are frequently arbitrary. It has to do with the length of time it takes to get a claim heard. It has to do with the length of time it takes to get appeals dealt with. Now, with the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, it has to do with the length of time it takes to get to the tribunal and the length of time it takes to get decisions.

There are some real hassles, some real foulups and some real bureaucratic problems with the Workers’ Compensation Board. I think the person who hurts his or her arm and is off work for a few days, generally speaking, gets good service from the board. When you consider the number of claims the board has to deal with in a year -- it is hundreds of thousands -- I think it is really quite a tribute to the board that it is able to deal with those particular sets of problems.

Where the system breaks down is when the worker’s problem is more complicated than that. Those are the people who are getting shafted in this system and those are the people who are not being helped in the system today.

If I could make one final point, obviously this whole discussion takes place within an environment of a workplace that is still enormously unsafe, where, as we heard today, workers are dying on the job. They are getting killed on the job. They are getting killed in larger numbers and it is more widespread across the province than ever before in our history. Enforcement is still poor. The act on health and safety is still very weak.

We have, as I have described it, an agenda that is sixfold. We are looking at people who are not covered. We are looking at accidents and illnesses that are not covered. We are looking at older workers who are discriminated against systematically and people with long-term injuries who are discriminated against. We are looking at a job market that is harsh and unfair.

We are looking at a rehabilitation program that really is not in place, that is not guaranteed for workers. We are looking at a process that is arbitrary, whimsical and capricious in many cases, takes too long and gives too much power to bureaucrats and board doctors who are not responsible to the patient, but who are responsible to a bureaucratic board. We are looking at an environment in health and safety that can only be described as primitive, cruel and dangerous.

We had hopes that a new minister, dealing with this environment and with these problems, would turn to his officials and say, “Well, let’s look at the problems, let’s face up to them and let’s deal with them.” I have had hopes over the last three years that the government would finally recognize the extent of the problem.

When Majesky-Minna came down and was as definitive as it was on what the problem was with rehab, I must say I hoped this government would finally act. After all, many of the members on the task force were Liberals. Ms. Minna is a Liberal. She ran for the nomination in the riding where, if I am not mistaken, the minister lives. She is not unknown to the minister. There were many partisan Liberals on that committee. It was not a product of our party or of the Conservative Party; it was very much the product of groups that were represented by Liberals and Conservatives and by many business people.

I think we are entitled to say that this bill is just a bad bill. It does not deal with the issues I have described. It does not touch most of them, and where it attempts to touch them it does so in a way that is thoroughly inadequate.

Before I get into the heart of my critique of the bill, I first of all want to say to the members in this House that I have heard many speeches given on workers’ compensation. In fact, I have read many over the years, because even before I got here we had a great many debates. One of our former leaders, Stephen Lewis, was someone who spoke very eloquently and graciously on this question.

I want to say to the members that I have never heard a more effective, passionate and authoritative speech on the subject of workers’ compensation than the one given by my colleague the member for Sudbury East. I want to recommend that speech to the members. If they were not here to hear it, I urge them to read it, because the member there goes through, quite carefully, clinically and analytically, as well as with enormous passion, but with tremendous force of argument, precisely what is wrong with this bill.

I do not want to repeat that effort in detail this afternoon, but I do want to refer to what she said and to the arguments she made because I think they are so compelling and because I think they are simply right.

What the member did in that speech was to talk about the four elements of the bill: rehabilitation, reinstatement, the dual pension system and the question of appeal and discretion. I think each one of the comments she makes is worth repeating.

On rehabilitation, what was said in that speech and what deserves repeating again today is quite simply this: Majesky-Minna made a point. They said if you are going to do rehab and you are going to establish a rehabilitation mandate, the one thing you have to do for workers is make that system guaranteed by law for workers and take away the discretion from the board to do what it wants with workers.

What does the act say? What does the amendment say that has been produced by the minister? The only thing that is mandatory in the bill is that there will be a vocational rehabilitation assessment, but it says nothing about what happens after you have the assessment. The critical question is not having the assessment; the critical question is what you do once the assessment is made.

1700

I can tell the minister that wherever the board has had a discretion to exercise, it has exercised that discretion in a way that has not done the workers of this province any good. If we give a bureaucratic board the power to decide when and whether it is going to intervene and help or not help workers, we know precisely what the pressures on that board will be, particularly when we have our friends here to my ideological right who are exclusively worried about the cost of workers’ compensation and who are arguing on behalf of employers that the costs should be reduced. We all know what pressures that will bring to bear on the board and on the board’s decisions.

We have a contrast. We have a government report that says we have to make the duty to provide rehabilitation mandatory in the act, and we have a government that has received that recommendation and rejected it. They have rejected that recommendation and replaced it with the old concept that has been so much abused, the concept of the discretion of the board.

When it comes to the question of reinstatement in the workplace, what do we have? Well, as we have said before and as the member said so clearly the other day, the section does not apply in respect of at least 25 per cent of the workers in the workforce. Second, it is so full of loopholes in terms of the powers it has and in terms of the protection it provides to workers that really, in offering something and then taking it away, it is almost worse than not offering it at all.

On the question of the dual pension, and this again is fundamental for us, I think the member described most eloquently the problems that have been experienced in those places that have gone the dual-pension route.

First of all, I saw headlines from this minister saying he was going to abolish the meat chart. I am here to tell the House that is not the case and is not true. The meat chart has not been abolished. There is a rating that is still established by the act, that will still be applied by the board, and that will still apply to the pension which is going to be offered by the board. The only difference is this: This is the first time in our history as a province, the first time since 1915 when workers’ compensation was established, that workers are not permitted under this regulation to challenge the schedule and to appeal to an appeal tribunal the size of the pension awarded by the board.

Mr. Speaker, you are a lawyer and you know how fundamental it has been in this province, particularly since the royal commission set up by Chief Justice McRuer, how fundamental it was in the 1960s when Chief Justice McRuer wrote his report on the status of civil rights in the province. how fundamental the right of appeal was to the notion of fairness and due process in this province.

I cannot remember a government -- I cannot remember a Tory government since 1963 -- that would dare bring in a bill that said a worker does not have the right to appeal the size of a portion of his permanent pension, and yet that is precisely what they have done.

I think it is a precedent that is disastrous, a precedent that is a disgrace and a precedent that should outrage, not any New Democrat but anyone with even a modicum of respect for our tradition of civil liberties and our tradition of respect for due process in this province.

The idea is not acceptable that a bureaucracy, whether it is a medical bureaucracy or a political bureaucracy, whatever it may be, would have the power unilaterally to say: “This is how much you are going to get. This is how much we think your claim is worth. This is how much your injury is worth. That is what your finger is worth. That is what you are going to get and you have no right of appeal against that.” That is what has to be rejected in this bill and that is what I am hoping will be rejected in this bill.

That is the first part of the pension. The first part of the pension is a tiny little knot you cannot appeal. The second part is a part we do not know anything about because it is almost entirely at the discretion of the board. It is a system that will give to the board the power to say to an injured worker: “We think you can do this job. We think this job is worth so much. We are deeming you are capable of doing this job, and therefore, this is what the rest of your pension is going to be.”

That is an extraordinary amount of power to give to an overworked, harassed, busy bureaucracy that has literally hundreds of judgement calls to make every day. How are they going to make those judgement calls? The minister may not know this because he is the Minister of Labour and he claims not to be involved with workers’ compensation.

I will tell him the way the bureaucracy will develop over at the board. They will have a great big book that will be full of sheets. On each one of those sheets, they will say somebody who is such-and-such an age, has such-and-such an education and comes from such-and-such a place can do such-and-such a job. Every quarter they will change the jobs and how much they are worth. They will get it from Statistics Canada, saying a dishwasher makes on average this much and this is what they make.

That is how the discretion will be exercised. In a bureaucracy of that size, with a worker who is dealing with hundreds of claims, with a worker who is harassed working in that bureaucracy, how else is he going to decide? That is the basis on which the system will work. People are going to be told: “We are deeming you can do this. We are deeming you can do that.” That is no way to treat people. It is no way to create a pension system.

Finally, on the question of appeal and discretion, as I have said before, the system gives too much to the board and too little to the worker. It provides for far too little ability on the part of the injured worker to challenge the system and to try to make the system fairer. Just as important, in the bureaucratic battle that everybody who knows workers’ compensation knows is going on between the board and WCAT, this government has come down right in favour of the board and said to WCAT: “We are cutting you off at the pass because we do not want to give you the power to say to the board that they are not doing things right. We would prefer to give that power to the board.”

I think that stinks. To take power away from an appeals tribunal and give it back to a bureaucracy is not the way I want to go on behalf of injured workers.

Monsieur le Président, nous avons un problème dans le système à présent. Nous avons des gens qui ne sont pas couverts par la loi. Nous avons des gens qui ne sont pas protégés par la loi. Nous avons des gens qui travaillent sans protection. Nous avons des gens qui ont été blessés qui n’ont pas d’assurance. Nous avons des gens qui tombent malades, qui ont le cancer et qui ne savent pas pourquoi ils l’ont. Ils vont à la Commission des accidents du travail et ça ne marche pas. La Commission leur dit: «Hé bien, on ne peut pas prouver que le travail est la cause de votre cancer. Peut-être a-t-il été causé par quelque chose d’autre. Alors, pas de pension.» II y a alors littéralement des centaines de milliers de gens qui ne sont pas assurés dans notre province et qui n’ont pas la protection nécessaire.

Nous avons un système arbitraire qui donne trop de pouvoir à la bureaucratie. Nous avons un système où le processus n’est pas juste et où on n’a pas le droit d’appel. Nous avons un système qui donne tant de pouvoir et tant de discrétion au Tribunal d’appel des accidents du travail qu’il faut poser la question: «Quels sont les droits des gens qui sont traités comme ça?»

Alors, on a maintenant l’occasion de changer la loi, de créer un système qui est plus juste, mais qu’a fait le Gouvernement? D’abord, ils ont changé le système de pensions contre un système d’aide sociale. Les gens ne veulent pas un système d’aide sociale, ils veulent un système de justice, un système de compensation qui soit juste. Cela, c’est la différence entre notre position et la position du Gouvernement.

Nous insistons pour que les gens aient le droit et la capacité de travailler, et s’ils n’ont pas de travail, alors tous les efforts du Tribunal pour garantir aux travailleurs qu’ils auront le droit de travailler et la capacité de travailler, c’est ce qui manque.

[Remarks in Italian]

1710

I spoke at the beginning of my personal involvement and not simply interest, but my commitment to changing the system. I would say to the minister that if he wants to change the system, there are two things he could do. One of them would be short-term and would deal with a specific problem; the other would be longer-term and would require greater time and greater commitment but needs to be done.

If he wanted to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act to improve it, to deal with what is the real problem right now that needs to be dealt with, it is to deal with the question of supplementary pensions. If I were the minister, I would withdraw this act and say that I was going to give back to the board the capacity to make decisions on behalf of older workers who cannot work and who are not in the job market, the discretion to award supplementary pensions and to make that power clear in the board so we do not have that taken away the way it was just a few months ago.

Then, having done that, I would recognize that it is a stopgap measure for a time. I would then turn to the vehicle of a major royal commission which would have the obligation in this province not simply to deal with the questions of workers’ compensation, but to go beyond that and look at the question of a universal sickness and accident plan.

If we had the commitment to a universal sickness and accident plan, think of what the benefits would be. People who were injured in an accident, people who were injured in a car, people who were injured at work, people who got sick from smoking cigarettes, people who got sick from working underground, all of them would be covered and by different kinds of premiums.

But the principle would be clearly established that people who are sick and people who are injured, whether from a vaccination when they were six months old or whether from an accident in the workplace when they were 60 years old, would be covered by a plan whose purpose would be clear. It would be compensation for everyone, rehabilitation for everyone and enforcement of safety for everyone. It would not be complicated; it would require leadership.

Going back to what took place in 1915, think how revolutionary the notion of a comprehensive workers’ compensation plan was 73 years ago. It was revolutionary. It was dramatic. It took power away from employers, it took power away from lawyers, and it gave it to workers and to people who no longer had to go and prove that somebody else’s negligence was responsible for their accident.

I say to the minister that there is nothing holding him back. He has reports from the Ontario Law Reform Commission; he has reports at the federal level; he has the recommendations of Mr. Weiler himself on this question of a universal sickness and accident plan.

Mr. Pouliot: He even has the Toronto Star.

Mr. B. Rae: I understand that he even has the Toronto Star, and I do not know whether that has any impact on the minister or not.

I say to him -- and I am sorry the Premier is not here for this debate -- I think the time is right now for a change in our system that is truly comprehensive, that truly covers everybody who is sick and everybody who is disabled, and that guarantees them compensation, rehabilitation and some degree of justice.

This bill does none of those things. It should be withdrawn by the government. It should be changed for a stopgap measure dealing with the problem in workers’ compensation and this direction for change which has to come for the whole system: to put workers back in charge of the system, to give workers the benefits they need and to make sure that, finally, health and safety is seen as something that is going to be enforced by governments, enforced by workers, in which there can be a real change in the system.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is a pleasure now to bring to a conclusion the debate on second reading of Bill 162.

I want to say that I think it has been a good debate overall. I think the debate has been partisan, but that is appropriate in this place. Virtually all of the speakers I have listened to -- and I have listened to virtually all of them -- have contributed to the consideration of Bill 162.

Indeed, this debate on the bill has really gone on, I think, all over the province, and once we have completed our work here and voted on second reading of Bill 162, that debate will continue in the context of the work that the committee will undertake through hearings and through consideration and through clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 162.

Since introducing the bill back on June 20 of this year, and even before that, the debate on the principles and the issues that are addressed in Bill 162 has gone on at a very high level. Since the introduction, I have been around the province in a number of communities, including Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Ottawa and Windsor -- and on Sunday next I will be in Mississauga -- listening to the concerns of injured workers and bringing to those workers what Bill 162 attempts to do, to get their analysis and their feedback.

I want to tell members that since introducing that bill, in the ongoing discussions I have had with workers who have been injured at work and whose cases are before the workers’ compensation system, each time I have one of those encounters, I am reconfirmed in my view that we must proceed with Bill 162 and the reforms that Bill 162 brings to that system.

We will have public hearings. I truly believe that hearing process will add to the bill. In the careful scrutiny this bill will have when it is before the committee and the public, there are some improvements that we can make, but the fundamental principles in this bill must remain intact. We must proceed because we are dealing with a system that does not respond appropriately and effectively to a group of workers -- not all injured workers, but a group of injured workers.

I am glad the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) made the point, because I think it is one that is worth making, that, by and large, the workers’ compensation system does deal expeditiously and appropriately with the vast majority of its cases and issues cheques, sometimes within 36 hours of an injury where a worker will be off work. There are parts of it that are broken. There are parts of this system that need repair; it desperately needs repair and that is what Bill 162 attempts to do.

It is not going to do all of it. If members listen to the debate that went on and has gone on in this chamber, and the debate that has gone on in the province, and the debate that will continue to go on before the committee, time and again they will hear workers and indeed employers and other people who are interested in this system bring about complaints that I acknowledge are not addressed in Bill 162.

1720

There are other issues that we must address. There are problems with administration; in some cases, horrendous problems with administration. There are problems with adjudication. There are problems of delay in having the cases that workers bring before the board and before the tribunal dealt with expeditiously. There are the issues of who ought to be covered and whether an employer ought to be -- all employers, including farmers. Those issues that the Leader of the Opposition raises must be addressed.

Indeed, when I presented this bill I acknowledged that fact and I acknowledge it in wrapping up this debate. We must get on with that agenda as well. We must look at those questions, and I will be presenting in this Legislature, during the course of next year, a green paper that will advance that discussion and take us a further step down the road. I fully expect that there will be occasions, probably daily, as the committee does its work, on which those issues not addressed, I acknowledge, by Bill 162, will be addressed.

While I am on the subject of public hearings, I simply have to address what took place in this building and what took place in this debate around the question of public hearings. My friend the leader of the third party raised it once again, and I think it is only appropriate that I once again address that issue.

I think the demonstration we had here at Queen’s Park was the one black mark that we have had as this debate has gone forward. I think I, like many other people in this chamber, feel that was somehow out of the ordinary. It certainly had a profound effect on me. I really sat down after that and re-examined this bill and asked myself some fundamental questions. But I also asked why it happened.

As we began to inquire, we found that injured workers were told, somehow, that their pensions were to be cut, existing injured workers that their pensions were to be reduced; more than that, that somehow the Minister of Labour was trying to drive the bill through without public hearings, that somehow the Minister of Labour did not want this bill to be put up to public scrutiny.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder where they got that idea.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I wonder, as the Leader of the Opposition says, where they got that idea.

I do not want to go into that history in great detail. I just want to say that before this House resumed its sitting on October 17, I had a discussion with the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, an individual for whom I have a great deal of respect and an individual who has a very good relationship with many people in the official opposition.

At that time, when he phoned me up and asked me whether we were going to have public hearings, I said to him, and I say to this House now, I repeat that conversation, “Gord, of course we are going to have public hearings.” “Well, how extensive are they going to be, Greg?” he asked me. I said to him: “Gord, I don’t know yet. We have just begun the discussions. I have not yet sat down with the House leader and the government House leader has not yet sat down with his counterparts in the official opposition and the third party to work out an agenda. If you’ll let that process work itself out, we will know, but I can’t answer you right now.”

I do not mind taking the partisan flak on the issue of public hearings. I just want to make it perfectly clear that I look forward to the scrutiny and I look forward to the examination that those sorts of public hearings will bring about, because I am convinced, and I tell my friends in the official opposition, that with that public scrutiny, we can make Bill 162 even better than it is now and than it was when it was presented on June 20.

I want to reiterate what the principles of this bill are, what we are trying to achieve with Bill 162. In doing that, I hope to have an opportunity to respond to some of the criticisms that have been raised by the official opposition.

There is a fundamental principle of law, in the law of tort and in the law of restitution, which is this: The law of restitution should, as much as possible, place an injured party in the situation that he or she would have been in, had it not been for the injury. That is a fundamental principle of our common law. What we are trying to do with Bill 162 and what Bill 162 does do is return the system to a system that will put an injured worker in the place that he or she would have been in had it not been for the injury.

How are we doing that? We are doing that in two very important ways. We are eliminating a system that provides compensation based on a clinical rating on the level of injury and takes no recognition whatever of the extent to which that injury impacts on an individual’s ability to earn a living. That system has not worked. The injured workers who were here, the injured workers I see in my office, the injured workers I have seen all around the province and the injured workers each one of us sees in our offices, are conclusive evidence, I submit, that the system does not work.

It does not work because it typically awards a pension, on average, of around 15 per cent, notwithstanding that the nature of that injury in the particular circumstances of the individual may well mean that that injured worker will not soon or ever return to work. Therein lies the fault of the system.

I will read members the section. Subsection 43(1) of the current act says, “Where permanent disability results from the injury, the impairment of earning capacity of the worker shall be estimated from the nature and degree of the injury ... .” It is not based on an assessment of whether or not the worker will be able to return to work and not based on the real impact of that injury on the future capacity of that worker to return and once again be gainfully employed.

What are we replacing it with? We are replacing it with a system known in the parlance of workers’ compensation as a dual award system. The evidence is there. A number of provinces in Canada already have abandoned the former system for the dual award system. A number of jurisdictions in the United States have replaced arbitrary systems with the dual award system. Indeed, the leading authors on compensation systems advocate strongly the abandonment of a clinical rating system for a dual award system.

What does the dual award system do? In Ontario, for the first time, it provides compensation for what we call noneconomic loss. What is that? Noneconomic loss simply acknowledges in a statutory and a compensatory way the fact that an injury impacts on an individual not only in capacity to earn, but also on the daily life of a worker outside the workplace, and that an injury affects an individual as a family person, as a person in the community and that this ought to be reflected in a fair and compassionate system as well.

Second, the dual award system provides effective, appropriate and just compensation for the impact that an injury has on the ability to work. I remember the speech from the member for Sudbury East saying, “This is a cruel and unusual system which will create arbitrary, uncaring workers’ compensation that will be deeming workers.” Those remarks were reflected in the comments of the Leader of the Opposition as well.

But let me tell both of them and all members of this House that we have taken specific steps in our bill to ensure that that does not happen. Far from giving the Workers’ Compensation Board more discretion, we have qualified that discretion and will qualify it even further by, for the first time, putting the principles under which this sort of determination is made in regulation, and not leaving it to policy and not leaving it to guidelines, so that this House will have an opportunity to scrutinize very carefully what regulations the board will use to determine the real impairment of earnings capacity.

1730

In Saskatchewan -- and I checked this with the Minister of Labour in Saskatchewan -- the one problem they have with their dual award system is an annual deeming provision. The Minister of Labour there told me that they are working on eliminating that and adopting a system much like we have presented in Bill 162.

I will tell the member for Sudbury East one thing further. As we analyse this bill in public hearings and in committee, if we can find even more effective ways of doing it to ensure equity when an injured worker has his capacity to earn in the workplace reduced, if we need better and more appropriate language, I welcome the reflections, the deliberations and the choices that the committee will make.

But the principle of the bill must be maintained, whether or not we can find better statutory language to incorporate that principle, so as to give this system, for the first time in its history, a capacity to deliver compensation that really does compensate and not leave someone who really has not worked for years, with a 15 per cent pension. Surely, that is more just. Surely that is something that every member of this House can support. I hope that in committee we will analyse those principles and ensure that we have it right.

I do want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, in response to his comments on appeals for the noneconomic loss, that the integrity of this bill will not be threatened or changed if ultimately we opt for another method of appeal. But the bill does now incorporate a method of appeal, and the reason it is structured as it is currently structured, is to deal with medical questions by medical determinations and to deal with them expeditiously so that we will not have a system where issues remain outstanding for years and years.

As the Leader of the Opposition shakes his head, I say to him that I am sure this is a matter that the committee, in considering the bill, will spend a good deal of time deliberating over. But the principle is there that we abandon an arbitrary system, an unfair system, a system that has victimized far too many people in this province, and replace it with a system which not only I, but so very many experts on workers’ compensation, believe and have evidence to show is a fairer and more just system.

We are doing one other major thing in this bill. We are, through a number of provisions, taking major steps in reorienting the workers’ compensation system and the board towards an agency that does a far better job than it has in the past in helping injured workers get back to work soon, back to the jobs they had before the injury, and if that be not possible because of the injury, to provide a system that provides effective vocational rehabilitation that intervenes early in the life of an injured worker, very early after that injury.

I know that the member for Sudbury East, in her comments, was concerned that vocational rehabilitation was only available for 18 months. That is not the case. If we need statutory words to clarify that, we will make those amendments at the earliest possible moment.

As it stands now, every member of this House who has had a workers’ compensation client in need of vocational rehabilitation has seen situations where the board has not intervened for 18, 20 or 24 months, and then the intervention has been marginal. For the first time, we are placing in the statute an obligation on the board to intervene -- and to intervene early -- and to provide vocational rehabilitation where it is appropriate.

There has been a lot of discussion -- and I heard it in the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and of the member for Sudbury East -- about the fact that it is only a vocational rehabilitation assessment that is required under the statute. It is the assessment, getting on with the process, that is important.

I spoke with Maria Minna on this subject and I asked her point blank what her recommendations were really getting at. I said to her, “Do you really want every worker who is injured and away from the job for 30 days to have vocational rehabilitation?” She said to me, “No, we weren’t getting at that.”

The member for Sudbury East is shaking her head. I will tell her that is what Maria Minna said to me.

Miss Martel: When?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It was about three and a half weeks ago.

Obviously, you do not want every worker who is away from work for 30 days to have vocational rehabilitation, because the vast majority of them will be in the midst of a healing process and will very soon be returning to the work they did before the injury. You want to direct the resources of vocational rehabilitation where they are needed.

You do not want a system where everyone can demand rehabilitation by virtue of statute, notwithstanding that the injury to the leg will heal and the worker will be back to work. You do not want to create a system of job transfer and job change. You do not want to create a system that is designed to help people shift from one job which they do not like very much to a new line of work. We need other agencies for that, I grant, but it is not the workers’ compensation system.

We need to spend more. The board is already gearing up on these proposals, to enhance very substantially the resources that go into a vocational rehabilitation system, but surely not along the lines the member for Sudbury East proposes.

We are taking yet another step on our agenda to ensure that the board does a better job of helping injured workers get back to work. We are providing for the first time in Ontario -- and we are only the second province in Canada to put it in the statute -- that employers must re-employ, reinstate their injured workers.

In that regard, we are setting down a new road. I acknowledge that over the next few years we are going to have to develop our sophistication with this and are going to have to expand our understanding of it. We have not done it before in Ontario, but I want to say to this House that with reinstatement and with vocational rehabilitation we are taking major steps to get over the terrible reality that so many injured workers have, that an injury in the workplace means a permanent bar to working again. I think that as we proceed in our reform of this system, those two themes are going to continue to demand and have our attention.

We are also taking some other steps in this bill that I think will substantially improve, in terms of fairness and equity, the system we have. First, we are saying employers must continue to pay benefits they were paying prior to the injury and must do so for a period of a year. Why are we doing that? The reason is simple. First, we want to maintain that bond between the employer and the worker, but second, subsequent to the injury, far too many injured workers find that they are without Ontario health insurance plan coverage, they are without their pensions and they are without the life insurance that has traditionally been paid for by the employer, that those benefits are summarily cut as soon as the injury takes place and the worker is receiving compensation from the system. We say employers must maintain those for a year, because it is generally within a year that workers are either back at work through reinstatement or through rehabilitation.

Finally, we are raising the ceiling on insurable earnings, once again because the current level simply cuts out too many workers from this system. Imagine you are a worker who is earning $42,000 or $43,000 and you are injured in a way that means you will not be working for many years because of a very serious and traumatic injury. You look to the compensation system to compensate you. Currently, the system would compensate you under those circumstances on the basis that, notionally, you were earning $35,100 per year. That certainly is not just, and we are changing that.

Indeed, in a two-step process we are bringing the maximum level of insurable earnings to 175 per cent of the average industrial wage, and that will take in the earnings of some 96 per cent of the working people of this province.

1740

As we were shaping these reforms and trying to repair some of the most serious problems in the worker compensation system, we had to ask ourselves the question of what to do with the current cohort of injured workers. Some 116,000 people in this province are currently the recipients of a permanent partial disability pension. Many of them are compensated in a way, by way of their pension, which reflects in no way the impairment of their earning capacity.

As we looked around in other jurisdictions, we noted that most provinces, when adopting the dual award system, simply paid no regard at all to the current cohort. We felt, as a government, that would not be fair, that would not be appropriate, that we had to provide a measure of redress for those injured workers who currently receive a pension that does not adequately compensate them in terms of their real impairment of earnings.

The bill provides that a supplement will be made available to any injured worker whose compensation, whose permanent partial disability pension, does not reflect adequately, and the value of that supplement will be equal to the current old age supplement provisions under the current act.

There is much more to be done in reforming this system and creating a fair and equitable system. We need to look at other issues. We need to examine a wide variety of aspects. Indeed, it may well be that, in line with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, we may venture down some of the investigatory paths he is suggesting.

But right now we have a system that is not providing fair compensation. Right now we have a system that does not do a good enough job in providing rehabilitation services. Right now we have a system that cries out for repair.

In reforming this system and in bringing about the dual award system, I am convinced that finally we will have a statutory regime, we will have a set of regulations, we will have policies that will appropriately and justly compensate injured workers, because for the first time we will have a statute that directs the board to provide compensation, not on an arbitrary basis but on the basis of the real impact of earnings capacity on the worker as a result of the accident.

I look forward to the work that the committee is going to do. I look forward to the process of bringing this bill to that committee and to the submissions that will be seen by that committee. I have already personally begun that process in a number of communities around the province; and in every case, having had an opportunity to explain what benefits Bill 162 will bring to the future injured workers in this province, I am convinced that these principles are worth supporting by every member of this House.

There is another agenda as well, and the Leader of the Opposition alluded to it, but certainly we must ensure that our workplaces give rise to fewer and fewer incidents where workers’ compensation is necessary. But so long as there will be injuries in the workplace, we need a system that is humane, that is just and that is fair. I believe that Bill 162 will bring about a system that is far fairer than the one we have now.

The House divided on Mr. Sorbara’s motion for second reading of Bill 162, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Brown, Campbell, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fleet, Fontaine, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hošek, Kerrio, Kozyra, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mancini, Matrundola, McCleIland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., O’Neil, H., Oddie Munro, Patten, Phillips, G., Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Ward, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Chariton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Kormos, Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Pope, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Ayes 64; nays 33.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on resources development.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

November 23, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NURSING SERVICES

TRANSIT SERVICES

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

MINISTER’S ANNOUNCEMENT

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

LAMBTON COUNTY AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

TRANSIT SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

PROPOSED INCINERATOR

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WAGE PROTECTION IN INSOLVENCIES

NATIONAL SALES TAX

OIL CANADA LTD.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

BUSINESS ASSESSMENT

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

FUNDING OF GENERAL FARM ORGANIZATIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TABLING OF INFORMATION

BINGO LOTTERY LICENCES

VISITORS

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (SUITE)