Hansard Transcript 1989-Jan-03 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Breaugh: I am not really a believer in new year’s resolutions, but I think that it is a good time of the year to assess what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong. Most of the members in this chamber and most of those who are paying any attention to us are probably well-housed and affluent people, but most of us would agree that in this community of Metropolitan Toronto there are more than 30,000 people who are homeless. In this kind of society that is surely an inappropriate and sad fact.

Let’s pay a little bit of tribute today to some groups that are attempting to do what really needs to be done. Just before we adjourned for our Christmas break, the Catholic church was here, and in a ceremony in the media studio and again here in the Legislature it was commended for the work it is doing to try to provide affordable housing.

There are literally thousands of other people in the community of Ontario who are trying to do their bit as well. I am reminded, by a constant stream of correspondence across my desk, of church groups and other community-based groups that are trying to put together proposals to house the homeless. Surely, if we all put our minds to it, we can resolve this one major problem.

I would like to remind members that towards the latter part of this month, on January 28, there will be a rally for the right to housing organized by the Toronto March against Poverty. This is the kind of proposal which is often done and, sadly, does not get much support from time to time. Surely we can start off this year by supporting this rally and all of us can turn our efforts towards housing the homeless.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Eves: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me offer to you, the legislative staff and all members of the assembly, our best wishes for 1989.

I want to take a brief moment during this first sitting of the new year to inform all members that January I was the 30th anniversary of the first Ontario hospital insurance plan, the precursor of today’s Ontario health insurance plan system. Premier Frost and the Ontario government completed negotiations with Ottawa for this new health insurance program in 1957, and it came into effect on January 1, 1959.

In the subsequent 30 years, Ontario led the way in improved and enhanced health care delivery. The sound management practices and progressive attitudes of subsequent Ontario governments led to the creation of the finest health care system in the world. Government representatives from around the globe used to come to Ontario to see how we did it. However, that strong foundation has shown signs of being seriously eroded in recent years.

We on this side of the House are very concerned about the current state of our health care system, which once was the envy of the world. One of the most shocking statistics which has developed since this government came to power is the fact that there is now a greater risk of death for a patient on a waiting list for open-heart surgery than there is in actually being operated on the operating table. We on this side of the House have been calling for a number of improvements not only to the health care delivery system, but to the administration of the OHIP system.

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

Mr. Eves: On May 19 of the year just past, the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) received unanimous consent --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

JOSEPH DELBERT ADAMS

Mr. Fleet: The case of Joseph Delbert Adams, a constituent of mine, is one of injustice which should not be allowed to continue. A recent report of the Ombudsman, the second in this matter, contains some startling revelations.

In 1983, while on a short-term contract as a sheriff’s officer, Mr. Adams complained to his superiors about their conducting and condoning pervasive illegal activities in the sheriff’s office; two days later, those superiors effectively fired Mr. Adams. He has not found steady employment since then.

The Ombudsman found that Mr. Adams was a strongly dedicated and committed sheriff’s officer. His allegations of corruption were essentially correct and resulted in a lengthy police investigation. The Ombudsman also found that Mr. Adams’s method of complaining amounted to insubordination and the superiors were legally justified in firing Mr. Adams. In contrast, following an arbitration, Mr. Adams’s superior was only demoted. Surprisingly, the Ombudsman concluded that the treatment of Mr. Adams was not unreasonable, unjust or wrong.

I say the result in this case is unjust and morally wrong. The Ontario government’s obligation to fair treatment goes beyond legal technicalities. I urge the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to offer Mr. Adams fresh employment with the government, so that justice is both actually done and seen to be done.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Reville: Jim Geissinger has had a tough life. Because he has muscular dystrophy, Jim has spent nine of his 20 years in Bloorview Children’s Hospital. Jim’s life recently got tougher. In March, he had an emergency tracheotomy; 10 months later, Jim is still at Sunnybrook Medical Centre.

Jim’s mother, Helen Geissinger, has made all the rounds. She has become convinced that her son is a pawn in a funding game being played out between Bloorview and the Ministry of Health:

Bloorview: “We want an eight-bed tracheotomy unit.”

Ministry: “No.”

Bloorview: “We will take a three-bed tracheotomy unit.”

Ministry: “It’s a deal.”

Bloorview: “We will take Jim Geissinger back, but we will not say when.”

How long does it take to play this game? Who is keeping score? The taxpayers are losing: nine months at Sunnybrook is far more expensive than nine months at Bloorview. The big loser, of course, is Jim Geissinger. Quality care as close to home as possible is the promise. Chalk up another broken promise.

KEN MCCANN

Mr. McLean: My statement concerns an electrical contractor in Orillia whose efforts led to the construction of a house of love for a family that was torn apart by a tragic fire early last year. Orillia’s 1988 Citizen of the Year, the affable, tireless 44-year-old Ken McCann, received the idea of building a new home on the site of a Cumberland Beach residence, the Philion family home which was destroyed by fire last March.

That fire resulted in 15-year-old Joe Philion receiving third- and fourth-degree burns to 95 per cent of his body. Joe went through months of agonizing treatment and skin grafts at Boston’s Shriners Burns Institute before returning to Toronto where he is currently recovering at the Hospital for Sick Children. People throughout this province built up a $135,000 trust fund for the future care and treatment of Joe, but the Philion family was still homeless.

Ken McCann received the idea of building the Philions a new home with volunteer help and materials donated by area contractors. The idea captured the hearts and imaginations of area residents. The work of more than 300 volunteers and tradesmen will result in the new home being completed in an amazing six weeks.

For his effort and creativity, Ken McCann has been named Orillia’s 1988 Citizen of the Year. Mr. McCann is certainly deserving of this honour, but we must not forget the many others like the Philions who could use our help and assistance in the Orillia area, and throughout the rest of Ontario for that matter.

1340

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Sola: I would like to begin the new year on the same note that the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) finished the old year on: the urgent need for the extension of Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10. Since this is of extreme importance to the region of Peel and since I could not get on the speakers’ list to give my support to the motion, I am taking this opportunity to voice my support for the extension of Highway 407 west into Peel region.

The reasons were discussed at length by my colleagues in the debate on the motion, so I just want to reiterate the main points. First, population growth in Peel will be greater than that of Metro Toronto and York combined for the period 1985-2011. Second, the employment growth in Peel will be greater than that of Metro and York regions combined for the same period. Third, the increase in the employed labour force in Peel will be almost double that of the other two regions mentioned. Fourth, Highway 407 will be one of the methods used to alleviate some of the traffic congestion caused by Pearson International Airport.

For all of these reasons, I urge the minister to take up the motto which helped to build Canada: “Go west, young man, go west.”

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed at the Minister of Housing. The Ministry of Housing’s Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons spent $7.5 million to provide interest-free loans up to $15,000 for disabled persons. A total of 751 disabled people were given that interest-free loan before the fund dried up. There are still more than 700 people on a waiting list for a program that covers such renovations as wheelchair ramps, bathroom alterations or the installation of individual alarm systems for the blind.

For some handicapped people on limited incomes, this program is the only means of paying for major renovations required to minimize their dependence and maximize their mobility. The loans do not have to be paid back by applicants whose annual income is less than $45,000, as long as the applicant continues to live in the renovated home. I believe the government has the obligation and responsibility to provide these interest-free loans so that suitable accommodation will be available for our disabled citizens, and I urge it to find the funding to solve this problem.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE SHOOTING

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier today, in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). I would like to ask the Premier if he could answer this question.

On Wednesday, December 28, 1988, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), who was the Solicitor General and a member of the Premier’s cabinet earlier, said:

“We knew there were a number of police forces using the hollow point.... We had made a study and reached that conclusion.” The article in the Toronto Star goes on to say: “Keyes said he ordered ministry staff in early 1987 to review the types of ammunition used by Ontario police forces. It showed that ‘a number of forces’ were using hollow points, but Keyes could not give an exact number.”

I wonder if the Premier could tell us how it is possible that a member of his government would have seen a report indicating that illegal bullets were being used on a widespread basis across the province and whether the Premier could commit his government today to tabling what is described by his former colleague the Solicitor General as “a study.” Can he tell us how the law could have been broken and if he will table the study?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honour-able member’s question. Let me say that I cannot account for some of the statements that were made there, but I do know that we take this matter very seriously.

As I understand it, the Solicitor General has issued a directive confirming what is in the Police Act at the present time with respect to, shall we say, that type of ammunition. She has also ordered a study on whether in fact there are any violations of those rules in the Police Act at the present time. That will be gathered up in a week or two.

That is the approach of the minister at the present time. When that is done, obviously there will be more public discussion about that.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier will know that the question of what kinds of bullets are permissible and what kinds of firearms are permissible is set out in very clear and very specific terms in the regulations under the Police Act. Those regulations are crystal-clear in terms of what kinds of bullets can be used and what kinds of firearms can be used.

The Premier is saying that there is now going to be another study. That was not my question. My question was, what about the earlier study in which the previous Solicitor General said he had personal knowledge of the fact that the law was being broken by police forces across the province? That is his statement, not mine. Is the Premier denying that there is such a study?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I am not aware of any study. The Solicitor General may well be, and the member can certainly raise that with her, but I am not aware of any study in that regard.

Obviously, the member is quite right: There are regulations that are in place and they are there to be followed, not to be deviated from. The Solicitor General, as I understand it, has confirmed that directive in very clear and stark and unequivocal terms. If those regulations are not being followed, obviously we have to get to the root of that.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can explain how it is possible that he, as first minister in this cabinet, has a statement from a former Solicitor General, made on Wednesday of last week -- the Premier knew perfectly well not only that he would be asked questions by many members of the press, but also that the House would be coming into session this week. Can he explain, on a matter as fundamental as this, what the government knew, when it knew it, how it knew it and what bullets were being used?

On a matter as fundamental as this, why is the Premier not prepared in terms of answering questions in this House that will tell us clearly and categorically what the government knew, when it knew it, what bullets were being used and are being used? Why is he really so negligent in coming before the House and not having any answers to what surely must be seen as very basic questions about the administration of justice in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my friend, I think the government’s position is extremely clear on this. As the member stood up and said --

Mr. B. Rae: No, it isn’t.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, I am not aware of any study.

Mr. B. Rae: You have got somebody saying there was a study. Was there a study done or not? Did you ask Ken Keyes? Did you call him up on the phone?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Solicitor General has put forward, in very clear and direct terms, what the regulations are under the Police Act. If there are some people not following them, I am not aware of any of that. The member asked me that question.

Mr. B. Rae: Ken Keyes said he was.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well then, the member is welcome to ask him the question and welcome to ask the Solicitor General the question. If there are any deviations from that, then very clearly the Solicitor General wants to get to the root of it.

Mr. B. Rae: If the Premier was interested in getting to the root of it, he would have asked Ken Keyes that question last week.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, and to which minister?

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I have another question to the Premier. We have all heard the news this morning that a citizen of this province was scheduled for open-heart surgery and that the surgery was delayed 11 times before he was finally operated on, and when he was operated on, he died on the operating table.

Doctors are telling us now that there is a greater risk to being on the waiting list than there is to being on the operating table. I would like to ask the Premier what specific steps he is taking now, as leader of this government, to see that this critical problem is finally resolved.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As my honourable friend will know, some months ago the ministry put into effect certain plans, at the expenditure of $21 million, to increase the number of cardiac units and opportunities for operations in this regard.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It hasn’t worked; not enough nurses.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member may argue that it is not enough, but it is a very substantial increase from what was there, and I think we are seeing the results of that across the province.

If my honourable friend is saying that there still is demand, yes, indeed there is; and with respect to this particular incident that I read about this morning, I am told that the ministry is looking into all details on that and the minister will share her information with my friend in the House as quickly as possible.

1350

Mr. B. Rae: This particular case of Mr. Coleman was raised in this House and there have been literally dozens of other cases that we have raised, cases of heart patients and of other patients who are in critical need of care. I can tell the Premier that he can do all the studies he wants; the reality is that the changes are not happening that will make sure that patients who are in critical need of care and attention and surgery get that surgery.

Can the Premier tell us what he is doing to ensure that the critical nursing shortage, which lies at the very foundation of this problem, is in fact being resolved by his government? I say to the Premier that unless he resolves that problem, he can announce all the capital construction he wants, the fact of the matter is that beds are being closed. Beds are not being opened, they are being closed; and they are being closed because the nurses simply are not there. What is the Premier doing to deal with that problem?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am the first one to admit, as my friend will, that there are a number of problems, and I think they are all being addressed by the ministry. The member talked about the shortage of cardiac beds around the province. There has been a major infusion in that area, and by and large we are on schedule in that regard.

There are problems with respect to nursing, and each situation, as the members knows, is different, but the minister has been meeting with the committee in that regard and I think has plans, with the nursing associations, to address those problems.

Mr. B. Rae: Can the Premier tell us whether there are more heart beds open today as a result of the government’s initiatives than there were six months ago? Can he answer that basic question? Does he know the answer to that question?

Can he name one specific initiative that has dealt with the problem of nursing? Name one. On shift pay, on differential pay, on pay for particularly difficult work, on any specific issue affecting nursing, name one example where the Premier has done anything to address this critical problem, which is affecting patients today as we speak and will affect patients until time immemorial unless this government is prepared to do something about it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot tell the member exactly how many beds are in place at the present time as compared to six months ago and relate that to the number of operations that are taking place versus six months ago. All I know is that there has been a major new program and we think it is going to go some way towards meeting those particular needs. As I said, the minister is working on those problems, all admittedly difficult, but I think the member will see a solution in the not-too-distant future.

POLICE SHOOTING

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Solicitor General. It is about the shooting of Wade Lawson that took place just about one month ago, on December 8.

Could the minister respond to a question with respect to this incident and indicate why there have not been at this point in time any charges laid with respect to this particular case and why the information relative to the circumstances surrounding this particular shooting have not been released by her office, or any information giving some clarification as to many of the questions, including the type of bullet that was used in the shooting of Mr. Lawson? Why has none of that in fact been clarified by her office to this point in time, after close to 30 days?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member well knows that police investigations can and often do take a certain length of time and the system is such that we cannot interfere with the police investigations. It is not the role of a politician to do so. The police will continue to investigate, and when they are prepared to report, they will report to the crown attorney, as the system requires. The Peel Regional Police Force called in the Ontario Provincial Police and it is in the hands of the OPP, at the request of the Peel police force, to do this investigation.

Mr. Brandt: The very fact that the Solicitor General is not clarifying the position of her ministry relative to this particular case is leaving a number of very serious and unanswered questions that I believe she has a responsibility to respond to. She is casting a shadow of some question against the policemen who were involved and the police force. There are questions being raised by the black community. There are questions being raised by the community of Mississauga.

Could the minister, at the very least, respond to the Globe and Mail article which I believe was printed on December 20; at least in the month of December? The article in the Globe and Mail indicated there was an illegal bullet used in this particular instance. The minister’s office either knows or does not know with respect to this question: What type of bullet was used? Could she indicate and clarify whether the innuendoes, the suggestions and the outright accusations are correct with respect to the use of that particular type of bullet?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It would be most improper for me, as Solicitor General, to try to get particular information that is in a police investigation and will be turned over to the crown attorney at the appropriate time. It is not in my hands or in the hands of my ministry.

Mr. Brandt: Going back to last week, the minister’s initial response on the whole question of the use of the hollow bullet was that it was beyond her jurisdiction and there was no reason to issue a directive in this particular matter because it was in the regulations. A day later, some 24 hours later, she changed her mind on this question as a result of the information that was released by the former Solicitor General, indicating that he had knowledge of the fact that this particular type of bullet was being used illegally and he did nothing to stop the use of that bullet in spite of the fact that it is very clearly outlined in the regulations of the Police Act in this province that that bullet is not to be used.

I understand full well that this type of weapon is used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and by other police forces.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: Does the minister in fact have specific knowledge of the use of the hollow-headed bullet in Ontario? Is that the reason she released her directive?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I think we have to stay very clear on particular cases versus the use of a bullet in a general way. In a very general way, the act, the regulations clearly say that hollow-headed bullets will not be used except in very particular circumstances. This is a matter in which I completely concur and gave very strong --

Mr. B. Rae: There are no circumstances. Look at the act and tell me the circumstances.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The only circumstance in which these can be used is at the direct order of either a police chief or the commissioner of the OPP, and it would be done only in cases of international terrorism.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), my question is to the Premier. It is with respect to a very serious situation that was raised by my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) with respect to Al Coleman.

As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) pointed out, Mr. Coleman attempted on some six occasions to get heart surgery in this province, and in all instances that surgery was postponed. When the question was raised with the Minister of Health regarding this specific case, the response was: “All is well. The health system in Ontario is working fine.” There were 11 attempts in total made by Mr. Coleman and his family to get heart surgery, and the information we have is that Mr. Coleman regrettably passed away on December 20. Is this an indication that the health system in Ontario is working well in the Premier’s view?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is a tragic incident. I read about it in the newspaper this morning, as did my honourable friend. I wish I could give my honourable friend the details around this tragic incident. The minister is looking into it and will share that with my honourable friend. I think we have to get to the bottom of this and certainly it is our intention to do so. If there is anything there we can correct, obviously we will try to do it.

My friend could easily stand up in this House and talk about the hundreds of cases of surgery that take place every day that all work very well. I am not saying there are not problems; there are problems from time to time, but my honourable friend can concentrate on the problems or he can look in a fair-minded way at a system that is considered by many to be one of the finest in the world.

1400

Mrs. Marland: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have the indulgence of your position in the House to give the Premier the details of Mr. Coleman’s death, but I realize I will not have that consideration. I should point out that I dealt with Mr. Coleman because Mr. Coleman called me. It is true he is not one of my constituents.

When the Premier says he is going to get to the bottom of this, I want to tell him that it is too late for Mr. Coleman. What the Premier has to get to the bottom of are the continuing waiting lists. Yes, he announced $18 million last June, but six months later we do not see the results, and what is $18 million? I would like to tell him that it is 0.14 per cent of a $13-billion Health budget. If it takes $70 million, $80 million or $100 million to eliminate the waiting lists for these kinds of patients, then he could go and face the Coleman family today who are without their 63-year-old father --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Marland: -- who happens to have been a Second World War paratrooper who risked his life for his country.

When the Premier says we are seeing the results of his announcement of $18 million, which may in fact be a very paltry sum for a solution, can he tell me where the results of that announcement are? Can he show me what waiting lists are now shorter for this life-saving surgery?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend puts this in terms of money. Her view is it does not matter what the situation is with respect to money. The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) tells me we are putting an additional $1.2 billion into health care this year. This is in addition to the already existing cardiac units across the province.

I recognize, as my honourable friend does, that there is a real demand on the system, that the incidence of cardiac surgery is increasing, with higher age expectancies and with more and more people having access to the surgery, and that is all a good thing. I think the member will see we are committing resources in this regard.

I say to my honourable friend as well that when she stands up and says, “What is $50 million or $75 million?” it is her friends who run around saying we are spending too much in this province. In a way, I think she would have to look at the system and say -- I am not denying there are problems. In a system this large, there are problems and there always will be problems. We do not pretend to be perfect in that regard, but I think she would have to say that on balance it is meeting the needs fairly well.

Mrs. Marland: There are millions of dollars spent on heart research. When we now have a surgical remedy for a heart disease patient and that patient does not receive it simply because of a lack of funding of the facility, there is something wrong with the priorities of this government. When he says he is going to get more to the bottom of this, it is the other patients I am concerned about. I can name him three right now who are scheduled for March. I dare not even tell them how long ahead Mr. Coleman was scheduled, and even for him it was too late.

When he says that we as a Progressive Conservative caucus are always asking that he spend money, I want to tell him that every one of the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Marland: -- will stand on a public platform and defend spending money on saving lives over reducing class size.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Marland: My question for the Premier is this: He is allocating money this year to reduce class size in grades 1 and 2 across this province. Is that a greater priority for him than saving the lives of the grandparents of those children?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend raises an interesting question. I guess what she is saying is we should get rid of the educational budget and put it all into health care, or someone else will stand up and say the environment is more important. We have a multiplicity of needs that we have to meet. We are responsible for building roads, education and health care, and we are doing that as best we possibly can.

My honourable friend is introducing a bill to use some of the lottery moneys in order to assist in health care, in health care research and other things, and she is against that. In a way our problem, frankly, as I understand her priorities, is that she would not spend money on education even though her colleagues get up every day and say we are not spending enough on education. Her other colleagues will have a different point of view. There is not a consistency of purpose or message coming from her caucus in that regard. Frankly, I do not think she is in a position to speak for them any more than anyone else who takes a different position than her could speak for her caucus.

I think we are funding these things at a relatively good level. I am not denying there are problems in the educational system and the health care system. We have to meet the needs of a large population of 9.5 million people for health, education and a wide variety of other areas, and I think most people would say our priorities are pretty good.

HOME CARE

Mr. Allen: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: On December 5, the Red Cross commissioner, Douglas G. Franklin, wrote a letter to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), in which he stated that unless the government makes clear its 1989 funding commitments with respect to the Red Cross, the homemaker service would begin closing as of January 20 and would be withdrawn totally by the end of June.

I wonder, since the minister now has had a month and the government has had a month to review this situation, whether the minister has a statement for us today in which he can tell us how he plans to cope with this emerging crisis and to avoid the tragic situation which will surely follow for many elderly and disabled if the Red Cross homemaking service in fact begins to close as of January 20.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not have a statement as the honourable member has requested. I can tell him that homemaker services will continue to be offered in the province. What I cannot tell him is who will be offering them.

He will be well aware of the fact that in many communities the Red Cross does not offer homemaker services, but other agencies and organizations and community groups in fact do offer them. So the Red Cross is not the only one available.

I can also tell him that we are certainly reviewing the Red Cross request, but I cannot give him a commitment as to what the answer to it will be.

Mr. Allen: It certainly is true that the Red Cross is not the only service, but the Visiting Homemakers Association of Toronto indicated on December 21 that unless its deficit of over $200,000 is met, it too would be closing, but as of an April date. The minister obviously is standing by while the nonprofit homemaking services around the province are collapsing, and he will be out of business with respect to them very shortly.

Perhaps it is fair then to ask the minister: Is the government in fact prepared to see all of the services in Ontario for homemaking offered by the for-profit sector? If so, is he prepared to envisage the cost in terms of extent of service, costs of service, spirit of service, if the whole community-based homemaking service in fact collapses around him in the course of the coming months?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In most communities in Ontario there is a mix of commercial and nonprofit services available, and that would appear to be the desire of those particular communities because they could have gone totally one way or the other if they chose to do so. That seems to work reasonably well, and it certainly would be what I would support.

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is also for the Minister of Community and Social Services, and it also relates to the Red Cross homemaker program. This last month, as my colleague, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) has already stated, has been one of considerable concern and uncertainty for some 180,000 people who rely on Red Cross homemakers in order to stay in their own homes. Many of them are seniors. We recently had a letter from the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens’ Organizations indicating they were very disturbed with the lack of support by the minister responsible for senior citizens’ affairs and also by the Minister of Community and Social Services.

My question is this: In the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, where the Red Cross is the only provider of homemaker services, what is the minister going to do with regard to the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Red Cross homemaker services, since they are the only providers in that community and have been since the history of this service in the province?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that this ministry and the Ministry of Health and the government have been requested to put more money into increasing the wages of the homemakers themselves. I must tell the honourable member that has been our priority: to find the money to increase those direct wages. The particular request of the Red Cross has not been to meet that particular need, but rather to meet its own internal administrative deficit.

As I think I answered once before, it is a difficult choice for me as a minister, for the Treasurer, for the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), for the government, to direct funds into the administration costs when obviously they are needed in the direct application of the workers’ salaries themselves. That is what we have got to weigh in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the same as we do in every other part of the province.

1410

Mrs. Cunningham: The Red Cross is not simply asking to be bailed out around this $1 million. They want the recommendations outlined in this report the minister has just referred to, on visiting homemaker services, implemented across this province.

This report was commissioned two years ago and this government made a promise just over a year ago, during the election, that this was one of the services that in fact it would be supporting:

“We will support integrated homemaker services so citizens who are ill can stay in their homes.” This is the whole premise of health care services, the minister is telling us, in this province; this is the one that matters.

Mr. Speaker: And the question.

Mrs. Cunningham: Will the minister make a commitment in the House today to implement the recommendations obtained in this report?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In her preliminary remarks, the honourable member is certainly correct when she indicates that the current request from the Red Cross is not just for a $1-million bailout this year. That happens to be the first part of the request.

The second part of the request is for us to recognize that they will have a potential deficit for the subsequent fiscal year of in excess of $3 million. That is why the issue is difficult to deal with. It is not just $1 million this year; it is $3 million next year as well, and we have no way of knowing what it will be in subsequent years.

With respect to the particular report, I have indicated in the House that we generally find that the Ministry of Health and ourselves -- as the honourable member knows, the Ministry of Health is responsible for about two thirds of the homemaker services and my ministry for approximately one third -- are generally in favour of the recommendations in the report for increased wages for the direct workers, for increased training for those workers because the number of people staying at home have greater needs than they used to have in the past, and finally, to deal more specifically with the needs of the various agencies supplying those services. Yes, there is general support for that document.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Attorney General. The Peterborough Against Impaired Driving group has made a new year’s resolution to be even more active in 1989. However, it has expressed concern that the province is de-emphasizing its alcohol reduction programs. Is this true?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member for the question and to confirm to him, as I confirmed to the group in his constituency which I spoke to, with him, not long ago, that in fact the commitment of the government of Ontario to this program is not only being maintained, it is being expanded as a result of the commitments made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in the last election campaign.

I want to tell the honourable member that I believe this kind of community organization in which he is so vigorously engaged plays a very useful part in the general battle against impaired driving in the province.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me a supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If you do not not wish it, I will recognize another member.

Mr. Adams: My supplementary is this: Is the Attorney General in a position to comment on the effectiveness of the anti-alcohol programs over the holiday season?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am able to say that the program conducted over the last few years has had very significant effects, as far as we can judge, in reducing the incidence of impaired-driving-related accidents in Ontario and from that we conclude it has reduced the rate of impaired driving which does not produce accidents as well.

It is not possible for us to assess the experience this Christmas as yet, although we hope to have those figures soon. Our preliminary estimate is that there will have been another marginal but significant reduction in impaired-driving-related accidents.

I would like to bring to the honourable member’s attention that in fact the most serious period for impaired-driving-related accidents is the summer months, the vacation period. A large part of our budget traditionally expended for advertising at Christmas has been reallocated to that period of time so we can begin a major attack, as we did last year, on that part of the problem in this province.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Kormos: I have a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions. In April 1987, the ministry promised the creation of a consumer insurance bureau headed by an insurance advocate. It is stated in the release that promised the bureau that the advocate would have the authority to appear before the rate review board, the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board. Now, there is no advocate. That promise was not kept. There is no intervener funding for persons wishing to appear before the board. Just how is the public interest going to be represented at these hearings?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I wish to thank the honourable member for the question and indicate, first of all, that there are several ways in which the public interest is being protected, one of them, of course, being the appearance before the board of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, with the support of some money being provided to assist it in retaining people who are experts in the area to carry out an analysis of the report put before the board.

I can also tell the member that he and his leader, along with the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), have also appeared, voicing, I presume. public issues as opposed to partisan issues with respect to their appearances. In fact, the board has provided time for people who wish to put the case on behalf of the public; in fact, to put their own cases with respect to their opinions on auto insurance premiums in front of the board as well.

I can also tell the honourable member that the board’s mandate is to inquire into the rates to be established on the basis that they be fair and adequate. Certainly, that is a public interest requirement that is put squarely on the shoulders of the board. It is in the process of doing that in a very public and open hearing in which there are very long and strenuous cross-examinations of the technical reports and the advice received from the people who are appearing in front of the board itself.

Mr. Kormos: I was concerned about the promise of an insurance advocate that was not met, but the minister speaks of the Consumers’ Association of Canada. He also speaks of the highly technical evidence that has been offered to date, which gives rise to this question, because on the last day of its hearings in December, a consultant retained by the consumers’ association testified, and when there was an effort by the press to interview him outside the hearing room, the interview was halted at the instruction of the chairman of the board. Subsequently, the chairman of the board in the hearing room admonished and chastised the press and witnesses, indicating that it is not normal practice that witnesses should be making statements to the press.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Kormos: Whose normal practice? The industry has had its spokesmen there, day after day, making statements and providing prepared statements to the press.

Is this an example of this government’s openness and fairness, that the press should not be permitted to interview people and that people should not be permitted to speak to the press?

Hon. Mr. Elston: First of all, can I say that the honourable gentleman knows the issue is being widely discussed and debated in a very broad public forum. Another forum in which it is being discussed is this one. I cannot say there are people who are unaware of the auto insurance rate question, as it affects the people of Ontario right now.

There is, in my opinion, a very thorough analysis of the hearings that are being undertaken in a very open forum at the board’s offices even now. In fact, the witnesses’ testimony is available. Transcripts are available for anyone to examine fully. I am sure the member is doing that. I am sure the public is being benefited very widely by the thorough analysis that is being provided by the members of the media who are seeing the interviews in the hearing rooms.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that there will be more hearings as we go on. The people will be free to participate in listening to those hearings as they proceed. The detail and the information that is available will come out of those hearings. I am sure he will want to tell the people of Ontario, as I do, that in fact there will be a very thorough analysis of the entire process. That is happening and it is very clear that the people are being well served by that process.

1420

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Carleton is waiting patiently to ask a question.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: New haircut; this is it.

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Dianne made her opening gambit. Now let’s hear yours.

Mr. Brandt: Yes, and he is going to get taller, too.

Mr. Sterling: Thanks for the support, Andy.

Mr. Speaker: Question for the Premier?

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Mr. Sterling: The Premier will recall that last November 22, he said in response to a question concerning the Ontario government’s failure to implement the free trade agreement’s transition assistance programs that “it is the federal government that is responsible for those people who have been laid off or lose their jobs as a result of this trade agreement; just as, if we passed legislation in this province that affected someone else, surely we would have the responsibility.”

Given that Ontario’s refusal to comply with the terms of the Canada-European Community agreement on wine pricing would expose all Canadians and workers to approximately $150 million in trade penalties, can the Premier tell us if it is his intention to have his government compensate other provinces for any job or trade losses incurred by them as a result of his policies?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, may I say to my honourable friend on behalf of the Liberal caucus, happy haircut. The member does not know how handsome he looks today with his new haircut.

Let me just say to my honourable friend that he is in a very interesting position. What he is doing is standing up in this House and saying to the government, “Sacrifice jobs in Ontario to protect some unspecified jobs in some other province.” That is what he is saying. He is in a very bizarre situation, let me tell him.

I have followed these negotiations very closely. We have watched the federal government advancing the Canadian position. I can say to him, and I have said it before, that we do not feel they have really advanced the position of the grape growers here and in other provinces with the kind of dexterity and commitment to Canadian jobs they should have. I am very worried about that situation.

The process is still being discussed, I should say to my honourable friend. It has not gone to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade panel. That will be some time in the future. But I find it very curious that he and his colleagues are prepared to stand up and write off an important Canadian industry.

I want to make one other point to my honourable friend, Miss Carney, when she was the minister during the softwood lumber discussion, established the principle that the province with the major industry, British Columbia in that case, would have the major say with respect to those international negotiations. That means, in translating it with this case, that Ontario, with the major industry, should have the major say.

We do not believe the federal negotiators carried our case with particular judgement or commitment. There was, shall we say, a hidden motive of shoving us back along the terms of the free trade agreement, which is very punitive. So what I am surprised about is that the member, as an Ontario representative, an Ontario politician, would not stand up and fight for jobs in this province the way this government is doing.

Mr. Sterling: I think the Premier is the last guy who should be commenting about haircuts. He must remember I have a picture of him five years ago.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Sterling: Obviously, with the degree of levity on this issue --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I will ask another person if you do not place your supplementary.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For two years, the Premier has engaged in the worst type of doubletalk on these trade issues. We now see the Premier’s commitment to the General Agreement and Tariffs and Trade is about the same as it was for the free trade agreement. He has as much substance on his trade veto as his famous bottom-line deal on the free trade agreement.

Can the Premier tell us why he seems to be more interested in provoking a constitutional battle with Ottawa than developing a coherent trade policy? Why is it that other provinces seem to be able to develop coherent, co-operative and reasonable trade policies with our federal government, and the Premier, representing one province, seems to be standing alone?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect, I do not accept that. I recognize that Tory research in Ottawa writes their questions over there. He should be embarrassed to stand up and read the questions --

Mr. Brandt: That is nonsense. Prove that allegation. Go ahead and prove it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have provoked the member for Sarnia.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is right. He rose like a trout.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We can see he just rose from his sea of guilt. I am trying to do the honourable member a favour. He does not want to stand up and take credit for the questions he is asking in this House. Blame somebody else. Blame the federal party. At least it will not be his fault.

Let me say to my honourable friend, I want to just take this tack because this is an issue we have been very close to. My honourable friend will be aware that we went through a tough set of negotiations with the federal government on the softwood lumber matter. He will remember, as we remember, that we stood alone.

Mr. Harris: You caved and accepted the deal.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It just shows how completely inconsistent they are. They say we caved in to the feds, while the member says we did not cave in to the feds. They do not have a clear view of the situation. We stood alone on that matter.

Mr. Harris: You caved.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: How does he mean, “You caved”? If you could assist me, Mr. Speaker, there is a fight developing between the two members opposite because they have completely different views on this matter and I might be able, with your assistance, to explain what in fact happened.

The federal government made a deal on softwood lumber. We are now seeing the effects of that in this province and other provinces. We said it was wrong. We said we should not be getting into any part of that deal and they did not renegotiate their way out of it through the free trade agreement. We stood alone, and I say with confidence and with the hindsight of history, that we were right, the federal government was wrong and the people he is defending were wrong. Why should we stand by and see Canadian interests sold out for the sake of political expediency? That is what we saw --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

PARALEGALS

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Attorney General. Some lawyers have expressed concern that a number of independent paralegals are presently and unlawfully performing legal work in Ontario. In fact, at a recent Law Society of Upper Canada meeting some lawyers indicated that many of these people lack formal legal training or knowledge.

Can the Attorney General advise this Legislature what he has done to respond to this problem?

Hon. Mr. Scott: After the matter of paralegals was dealt with by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the POINTTS case, we asked Dr. lanni, president of the University of Windsor, if he would meet with the various paralegal groups, the law society and other groups in order precisely to look at the question to determine what should be done in the public interest.

1430

There is much to be said for the provision of some nonlegal, paralegal service, which hopefully would be available to serve people on a more economic basis than is presently the case among some members of the bar. On the other hand, there is the public interest in ensuring that the service provided is a sensible one, a prudent one and is in the best interests of the recipient.

We hope to have Dr. Ianni’s report available in the next couple of months.

Mr. Faubert: Many Ontario lawyers present at that Law Society of Upper Canada meeting expressed their concern that it would be against the public interest to allow independent paralegals to play a greater role in the Ontario judicial system. Indeed, the members passed a resolution that this provincial task force looking at the issue reject any further expansion of the role of paralegals. Can the Attorney General advise this House what his response would be to that?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Having practised law for 28 years, I am well aware that occasionally the members of my profession express their view that something is against the public interest, and quite often it is, but on occasion it is not.

The members of the bar who were quoted in those reports are, of course, reflecting their own view that the public will not be well served by paralegals. That is a highly disputed question. There is much that paralegals can do that can be done safely in the interests of the public and in the interests of the consumer, and it was to try to find the dividing line between what should be permissible for paralegals and what should not that we asked Dr. lanni to do his report.

ACID RAIN

Mrs. Grier: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Under the Countdown Acid Rain program, the minister has now received reports from three of the major polluters and will have one from Ontario Hydro by the end of this month, outlining how they plan to meet the acid rain emissions and in fact that they intend to expend considerable sums of money on meeting those levels. Can the minister tell us how and when he intends to respond to those reports?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, I was pleased with the initial look at the information which was put forward to us by the various polluters in acid rain. The member may recall that there were those who in 1985 were doubting Thomases, who said that this would never happen. On one side they were saying, “It is much too strict; they will never meet it.” On the other side they were saying, “You shouldn’t trust the fact that these companies are going to meet this.”

In fact, the programs have been put forward. Inco says it is spending $494 million and will drastically change its operation. Falconbridge and, similarly, Algoma say they will meet it -- and Hydro.

Our staff will evaluate those reports as they come in, to look at the validity of them, to look at the technology that they are suggesting and to look at the cost figures. But I must say initially, if you compare our situation to other jurisdictions, I am pleased with the initial reports that have come in, and after detailed discussion within the ministry, detailed analysis of it, we will be in a better position to be able to pronounce on the validity of the contentions within the reports.

Mrs. Grier: Evaluation of those reports within the ministry is exactly what I was hoping I would not hear from the minister. I want to remind the minister that during the life of’ the select committee on the environment, when the Countdown Acid Rain program was examined, it was found that there was a major loophole: for example, Ontario Hydro’s banking privileges, which were subsequently eliminated.

What I hope the minister will do is refer the reports he has received and the one he is about to receive from Ontario Hydro to the select committee on the environment. Can the minister give this House any commitment that this committee will be reconvened -- it has not met since the last election -- and that the very crucial report on how the Countdown Acid Rain program is to be implemented will be referred to that committee and subject to the most wide and public scrutiny possible?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The comment I would make first of all, if I read this note: The reports are available at this time, as the member would know, for anyone in Ontario to analyse. I know there are a number of people within the environmental movement, those within industry and those within government who will be delighted to have the opportunity to analyse it. I know the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore would in fact be prepared to do the same.

In terms of committees of the House, as the member would know, the House leader of each party makes a determination, based on the recommendation of each caucus, on which committees will be established and when they will be established and the committee itself then decides what it is going to deal with. I know that others across the country have looked upon this with a great deal of interest because in other jurisdictions governments had to provide the lion’s share of the money to effect proposed reductions. In Ontario, I have seen no recommendations within these reports that one cent should be spent by Ontario.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Premier regarding automobile insurance. It is a question he has been able to dance around by referring to the minister. I see him glancing down that way. I am going to ask him a very specific question: Did he or did he not, in September 1987, leading up to the provincial election, publicly state that he had a very specific plan to lower automobile insurance rates?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister can handle that.

Mr. Brandt: That was on September 7.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not remember the word “lower” being used.

Mr. Harris: I would recommend to give a little listening.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been referred to the Minister of Financial Institutions.

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: That is what I was about to say.

If the member has a point of order, I will certainly listen to it. I have always done that.

Mr. Runciman: I think the Premier is treating this whole opportunity in terms of question period with complete disdain. I have asked him about a very specific quote attributed to him, not to the Minister of Financial Institutions, and I think it is incumbent upon the Premier to respond to the question.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the question and it is up to the minister or the Premier, to whom the question was directed, to decide whether to answer it or whether to request another minister to answer.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to thank the honourable gentleman for his question and the reference to me for an answer. I want to indicate to the public, obviously, that the importance of the issue of auto insurance is not underestimated in any regard and that is, in fact, the reason why there is a very important and thorough analysis of the auto industry, the type of analysis that is required to ensure that, in fact, the rates and premiums which are charged are fair and reasonable and we are getting value for the money which is being charged. That is the important part of the issue of auto insurance.

Mr. Brandt: That was not the question. The question was: Was it the plan to lower auto insurance rates or not?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The underlying question which every person in the province has on his or her mind is: Do we get value for the money we are being charged for auto insurance premiums? The analysis which has been undertaken in a very public and visible forum in this province will go a long way to answering those questions and in fact has been very good and thorough.

1440

Mr. Runciman: Out of respect, that is a shameful and embarrassing response and the consumers of the province are not going to be misled by that kind of response to a very specific question.

There is a growing suspicion in this province that the so-called very specific plan was really a plan for short-term political gain and long-term consumer pain. We have called on the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board to subpoena the Premier to appear before the board and explain just what his plan is. He has been unwilling to do it in this House. The minister is unwilling to respond on his behalf. The consumers of this province deserve a response.

Will the minister tell us right now, instead of being jocular about a very serious situation, does he or does he not have a very specific plan to lower automobile insurance rates in this province? He should tell us about it.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The interesting thing that we should all take into consideration is the fact that we must all understand the issue in its entirety, something the member has not been able to explain to the public as he addresses his questions in this House. He has refused, or in any event he has refrained from, the discussion of the insurance industry in a very thorough, logical and analytical way.

What the board is doing is bringing forward for the consumers of this province in a very public way the entire manner in which rates for auto insurance are established in this province. It is something that group never did. It is something we have done so that consumers in Ontario will, for the first time, be armed with the real information about how rates are set. In fact, they are going to be assured that there will be fairness in those rates.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Premier. The archdiocese of Toronto made a very significant gesture to help address the needs of affordable housing in our province. They demonstrated not only their compassion and concern; they demonstrated a willingness to co-operate in finding a solution.

When the archdiocese of Toronto joins with all the other denominations and requests this government to refrain from pressing forward with its Sunday work legislation, surely this government, aware that the churches reflect the majority opinion of Ontarians on this issue, could demonstrate a similar willingness and a similar attitude of co-operation. Will this government heed the pleas of the churches of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure my honourable friend shares my view and believes in the separation of church and state. We are having a discussion about that in this House. I hope my honourable friend will bring his views to bear, as will others, on this particular matter and then this Legislature will pass judgement.

Mr. Farnan: The Premier will agree that the churches of Ontario have made an extraordinary contribution to our province, not only in the development of the moral fibre that strengthens our society but in a vast variety of fields of service to the aged, the ill and the disabled.

Given that church groups of every denomination appearing before the standing committee on administration of justice have appealed to the Premier and his government to reconsider their position with regard to Bill 113 and Bill 114, will he listen to the voice of the religious leaders representing millions of Ontarians? The answer is yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I take their views very seriously, as I take my honourable friend’s views seriously, and indeed those of thousands of other people across the province. If the member is asking me whether we should turn the government over to the collective churches, I think the answer to my friend is no.

My honourable friend will recall that on a number of issues the church agrees with the government and vice versa; on some other issues, there are differences of opinion. But the member is elected to govern, as am I, and we have to discharge our responsibilities in that regard. My question to my honourable friend is, why does he not get on with these matters and make sure that they are debated in the House and that we get on in a forthright manner rather than just wasting a lot of time?

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Eves: “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.

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

It is dated December 15, 1988. It is signed by 97 teachers from the East Parry Sound Board of Education. I have affixed thereto.

Mr. Speaker: If I could have the attention of the members, I have called for petitions and I know that all members would like to be heard.

OPTOMETRISTS’ FEES

Mr. Owen: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“Professor Wesley Rayner, dean of law, University of Western Ontario, acted as chairman, mediator and fact-finder for the negotiations between the Ontario Association of Optometry and the Ontario Ministry of Health.

“In his fact-finder report, Professor Rayner said, ‘l am of the view that the appropriate global revision (of OHIP fees for optometrists) should be the revision received by ophthalmology, (6.35 per cent) for the same time period ... April 1, 1987, to March 31, 1988.’

“Professor Rayner justified his recommendation by pointing out, ‘The concept of equal pay for equal work has much to commend it. Indeed, it is my understanding that it is a fundamental policy of the government. More importantly, the concept has an inherent appeal in terms of simple fairness.’

“In view of these facts, and as a matter of principle, the government of Ontario must recognize the justice of providing OHIP fee parity as prescribed by Professor Rayner to the province’s optometrists vis-à-vis the ophthalmologists.”

It is signed by 16 optometrists in my area and it has been submitted by myself under my signature.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Harris: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

This petition is signed by over 700 active and retired teachers. It was gathered up by Mrs. Mary Saad before Christmas. I intentionally held it until after Christmas so that we could keep this momentum going with these petitions. I know she is watching today and wants to know why it was not brought in before Christmas.

MADAWASKA HIGHLANDS REGIONAL TRUST PARK

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition.

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

“We wish to oppose the Madawaska Highlands regional trust proposal. We want the Legislature of Ontario to have a full debate in the Legislature on this matter and hearings to be held in the communities affected.”

It is signed by 20 concerned citizens and I have affixed my signature to this petition.

HOME CARE

Mr. Villeneuve: My petition touches on a series of questions that came up today in the Legislature. It is signed by 2,395 constituents in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, in Cornwall and in Prescott and Russell. It 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:

“Whereas the Red Cross Society has incurred a deficit because the government of Ontario has failed to fulfil its promise to adequately fund home care services and therefore the Red Cross may be forced to withdraw their home care services, we petition the Treasurer of Ontario to adequately fund the Red Cross services so that more than 170,000 citizens of Ontario are not forced to seek more expensive care in an institutional setting.”

I fully agree with this petition and I have signed this petition as well.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

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

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

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

This petition is signed by 125 members of the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario, district 40, and accompanied by a letter of transmittal from Orland Harrison, president of district 40, who took up the petition.

1450

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a similar petition to that just read. It 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:

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

This petition is signed by 141 residents in the riding of Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville and the riding of Cornwall. I have also affixed my signature to it.

MOTION

Hon. Mr. Conway: I had two motions, but I will be doing just one because we have a late change, I gather, with the estimates in the standing committee on social development.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mr. Pelissero and Mr. Reycraft exchange places in the order of precedence for private members’ public business and that, notwithstanding standing order 7 1(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 53 and 56.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET (CONTINUED)

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, may I request permission for the assistant deputy and deputy ministers to take positions at the table and may I also move to seat 8?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: If I remember well, Mr. Philip was asking questions when we last sat.

Mr. Philip: As I indicated to the minister, I want to deal in some depth with the pension program of the Ontario public servants.

I regret that we have only an hour and 20 minutes left, because there are so many other issues that I want to deal with as well. I recognize that I had asked for additional time and that we got an extra hour for these estimates, but I think perhaps in another year we can have considerably more time. I think these estimates warrant that, particularly if we are going to be in the House, which adds to a kind of more rigid format rather than a give and take.

As a way of introduction, I would like to just read into the record one of the many letters I have received from constituents. This particular person, who lives in my riding, says: “I have been an employee of the Ontario government for” -- and then he or she mentions a number of years. “The Ontario government is threatening to take an additional two per cent of my pay in extra pension contributions.

“Our pensions have never been negotiable, we have never had any say in either contribution levels or benefit levels and our pension fund is not invested. If it was, the government would not need extra contributions either from us or the taxpayer.

“Through our union, we are trying to negotiate a new pension deal with the government. Please help us in your caucus and in the Legislature to get fair treatment.”

The union which represents this particular constituent turned out a statement in September 1988 to all MPPs, and it deals with a number of issues. I want to question the minister on a number of the statements made in that particular piece of information supplied to MPPs.

On the matter raised by my constituent in this letter, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union says under point 4, in case the minister has a copy of the OPSEU brief, on investment of the funds:

“Our people are angry that the Ontario government treats their pension fund as a cash cow to milk as it sees fit. There are assets of $4 billion in the fund, yet we face the prospect of increased contributions from both employees and the taxpayers because the adjustment fund can’t meet its commitments.

“This occurs at a time when other contributory funds are concerned with massive surpluses. Even the Rowan report, also commissioned by the government, recommends that the public service superannuation fund be invested.

“We believe that with proper investment this fund too would generate sufficient surplus revenue not only to cover existing commitments but to fund improved benefits. That is important, because we want improved benefits.”

I ask the minister if he agrees with the statement that notwithstanding the assets of $4 billion, if this were an invested fund there would be more money and there would not be a requirement to ask public servants to contribute more from their pockets; in other words, in one way or another, to take a pay reduction in order to top up the fund.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to thank the honourable gentleman for his opening remarks on the windup of our estimates. The issue of pensions has been ongoing for some time, but I want to be very clear that the member understands exactly what takes place with respect to the pension plans.

There are in fact two parts to the pension plan as it applies to the public service. One is the actual plan itself; the other is the adjustment fund which came about as a result of legislation in 1975 and for which there was another plan established to provide for the adjustments required under it.

I am not absolutely sure that the statement of $4 billion as outlined in the OPSEU brief is fully accurate. I am not disputing it in any event, but the whole issue that surrounds the payment for any unfunded liability which has been highlighted in the reports has dwelt on the adjustment fund and not on the other part of the pension plan itself at all. So with respect to their contention that if we had invested things more wisely there would be more money, I disagree.

In fact, the one thing I must say about the OPSEU brief is that it fails to indicate clearly to the public that it has been invited to participate in looking at what happens in that plan for some time, but it has chosen not to because of the issue of negotiability as it applies to the overall plan of remuneration in the public service.

They have taken a particular stand and that is their prerogative, but there have been invitations extended from time to time for them to talk to us about the plan and to be involved with respect to administration for a long time. In fact, we undertook a series of discussions not that long ago, just before we broke at Christmas. There were continuing discussions about what we might or might not do with respect to pensions, and OPSEU was invited to be a participant at the table with us on those.

From my point of view, as far as it goes it perhaps is okay, but it does not go quite far enough to explain exactly what has been the history of the activity between the government of Ontario and OPSEU as it applies to these plans, and it certainly should be made very much more clear that there are two parts to the plan -- the main public sector plan and then the adjustment plan. Bearing in mind that this is the case, I cannot agree fully with the part that the member read into the record.

1500

Mr. Philip: Perhaps because of the background noise, the minister did not hear what I said. I think I was fairly clear in what I did say. I referred to both plans in my question I referred to the $4 billion as being the adjustment fund, but when I asked about the superannuation fund, I was talking about the superannuation fund being invested. Rowan clearly made that as a proposal. Is the minister saying that he is disagreeing with the Rowan commission recommendation, which is backed by OPSEU and indeed is the report of his own government?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to be very, very clear that I think when the member talks about the support of OPSEU for the Rowan report, he would probably also want to make sure that OPSEU is saying, if we go into a more aggressive or risk-oriented investment portfolio, that at the same time Rowan recommended that if there were higher risks being taken, there ought not to be any guarantees given on the part of government for the performance of the portfolio.

Rowan was very clear that if you want to aggressively pursue risk-type investment, the rewards of that risk-taking should go to the fund, but that at the same time, if you make a conscious decision to move to a risk-taking mode, you ought not to be requiring a guarantee to that risk by, in this case, the Ontario government. I do not know that OPSEU would fully go along with that part of it.

I have heard, at least indirectly, that they would say, “Be more risky in investment in some ways, at least higher-performance investment,” which I guess is the way you would term it, but I would suspect that they also want it to be backed up by the government of Ontario. I do not think that in fact you can have it both ways in that sense.

Mr. Pouliot: I guess the minister over the years has had it not both ways but several ways. What he is looking at here in terms of superannuation, and he will please correct me if I am wrong, is one of the best-funded plans not only in Ontario, in Canada, but indeed in North America. Projections will attest that for, let’s say, 50 years, maybe until the year 2040, yes, the plan is indeed funded; that the government will be able, with the $11 billion or an amount surpassing or exceeding $10 billion, to meet its responsibility.

The government has responsibilities, but concerns as well. The minister will recall that, as late as last year and for decades, the government was only too pleased to use the funds of the superannuation plan and was compelled to do so in their entirety.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have to use it.

Mr. Pouliot: They have to use it, but now what they are saying is that the fund has become so rich by virtue of times being good times that their needs are really not the same. In fact, they could get money -- maybe not in the past couple of months because of interest rates, but before that -- at a cheaper rate. All they have to do is go to the people they try to blame now and then or, let’s say, their portion of the Canada pension plan, and they could do quite well.

But for a number of years, and this is their responsibility as well, they paid less than what the market dictated for superannuation. The minister will tell me, and rightly so, “Yes, but we did make an equal contribution,” and I guess he is right there. I think the government’s problem is what my learned and very distinguished colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) is saying: that we have two subject matters being addressed here. One is the superannuation plan as we know it, and then there is the relatively recent subject matter of indexation.

Then, of course, the government has some problem -- we are talking about one per cent of contribution. I will not be meticulous in terms of the recommendation but I think it has been suggested that after the year 2008 it go to, and please do not quote me, something in excess of 2.3 per cent. Our constituents are saying is that there is enough money in the main fund that the government does not have to go to a supplementary levy regarding indexing.

In fact, they would do very well, in terms of superannuation, to look at the most lucrative three instead of the most lucrative five. They could well afford to go to a factor 85 when they look at the years of teaching in this case and also at the age of the contributor, and they could afford to do both. They could afford to go out and say, “Just a factor 85, relatively short-term.” They could also afford to take the most lucrative three instead of the most lucrative five, and the funding would still be okay because, again, they have more than the $11 billion, I trust, in the fund.

I would like to hear the minister’s comments. I realize that lately he has been under siege. We have not had answers this afternoon during question period -- that is neither here nor there, of course -- regarding specific plans to lower insurance premiums. So it would be much easier now and he should feel much more comfortable. He does not have to defend anyone. It is not a trick question; it is not a trap question. We are saying, “Why don’t you adhere to some of the concerns of our citizens?” and they also spell out the alternative.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman has given me adequate leeway to respond to a number of parts to his interjections here. I would have to say, first of all, that he was not listening very carefully during question period because the answers there were very full; in fact, so full that the Speaker then in the chair thought that I should save some of the information for another answer.

I can tell the honourable gentleman with respect to the public issue of auto insurance, which he raised, that there will be another set of estimates in which we can discuss that issue. In fact I will be very pleased to tell him, along the very same lines as I told the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Kormos), that the very public nature of the inquiry into the basis of setting rates for the auto insurance industry will arm consumers with the type of information that they need to make an informed decision and choice about how they place their insurance and the amount that they pay for that insurance. In fact, they will be able to compare the products that are on the market, not only in Ontario but also right across Canada and then into the other North American jurisdictions -- California, New York and all the others.

I just wanted to make it very clear that I did not wish to get into the insurance issue because I had, in my opening remarks, in reply to a couple of people who talked about insurance, said, “That’s another area.”

But let us get back to the pension issue, because what my honourable friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) has done inadvertently is combine or lump together the teachers’ superannuation plan, the public sector superannuation fund and the adjustment funds. It seems to me his analysis -- because he was talking about teachers, as he had indicated very clearly to me -- had said it was suggested that the teaching part would pay for all of the indexation that was at question in the context of the letters that he and his, to quote, very wise and distinguished colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale had brought up.

We must be clear that the mandate of the minister responsible for Management Board, and as a result for pensions for public servants, is responsible only for that portion that deals with the public service and is not responsible for the part of the pensions that deals with teachers. That is, of course, the mandate of the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), and with respect to that part of the honourable member’s information, which he so kindly provided to us today, he should be directing that inquiry to the Minister of Education.

1510

But let me say again, so that I can be very clear, the honourable member should know that there have been invitations from time to time to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union representatives to hear about and see what is going on with their pension investments and otherwise. In fact, they did not want to come to observe what was happening or to be informed. They decided they wished to retain any participation in the plan until they could come to grips with what is a very long-standing issue for them, and I understand their position, that of including it as a negotiable item with respect to their entire remuneration.

That being the case, they made a decision. Now they are trying to say that if there had been more wise decisions, there could be more money available.

I cannot agree with the whole premise they are putting forward in their material, and that is the reply I gave to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale; i.e., there was not quite a full enough explanation of all the background history so that I could agree with the premise set out in that piece of information for us.

That being the case, we are always interested as a government in talking to the OPSEU representatives so that we can work in a very full and fair fashion with those people who represent the employees of the province of Ontario. We have indicated our willingness to discuss and we have continued to discuss the pension issue, along with a whole series of other issues, so that we can come up with the best result that best exemplifies the model employer we are committed to being in the Ontario jurisdiction.

Mr. Pouliot: I want to thank the minister for recognizing a certain degree of validity in drawing a parallel or an analogy with the superannuation fund. The reason I wondered is that there are many funds that model employer has access to and draws from. To say that when someone is saying on the one hand that there is a contribution for what is a basic pension plan, and then on the other hand that there is a supplementary or a separate fund for what is an adjustment to the main pension or recognition of the inflation factor, invites adversity.

I dare the minister or anyone else in the government to go and tell an employee or suggest to an employee who is paying as high as 6.9 per cent of his base rate in some cases, when he sees the performance of those contributions: “Now you are going to pay a supplementary, not one per cent but an additional 1.4, 1.5 or 1.6 to the one per cent you are already paying. Forget about the main fund doing so well.”

I think it is very legitimate for someone to mention to the minister, “Look, I am paying such a percentage of my income for my pension plan, and if that fund is doing very well, I want you to recognize, as a normal reaction, very logical -- why should you refuse to look, and yes, why should you refuse to negotiate, while you are at it, in the spirit of collective bargaining? Why should you refuse to look at the main plan in order to satisfy that there is a surplus if it is doing extra well?”

That is a normal reaction. The minister should not be the least bit surprised or upset or look at people as if they were adversarial in their argument. I think it is a very good argument. It is a logical question. We have absolutely no quarrel, but we have reservations about the fact it is not negotiable.

In the private sector, he would have a great deal of difficulty getting away with that, for the funding of pensions and the base for pensions represent a very important, in some cases the most important, component of the collective agreement. Yet when it comes to the public sector and what the minister refers to as the “model employer” -- maybe he is talking about himself, but I guess it can begin at home at any time. When he was there, those people used to say the same thing, so please, no platitudes.

The thing is, it can be made better by having it as a normal part of bargaining and arriving at an agreement regarding pensions, because when he asks the people who are working with, or for the government in this case, he will have to look long and hard to find a subject, when we are talking about salary and benefits, more important in the minds of many than the pension. In fact, that kind of philosophy can spread to his colleagues. It is not very important with our people, with the New Democratic Party. We are more concerned about putting more into the system than we take.

I have been listening on the subject of pensions, and some of the people who associate with the minister are very well versed. They know a lot about pensions. In fact, it is appalling and shocking how quickly they can relate to the indexation portion the most lucrative three, the most lucrative five, and so on. I think the minister has an opportunity to do what is right for the civil servants of Ontario and to put his proposal front and centre as part of the collective bargaining process.

I think he owes it to them. Those people are not faceless bureaucrats, but the people who more often, time and time again, are working very hard at a salary that is not always commensurate with the work and dedication they put forth. They do not have all that recognition there, so maybe over a number of years, in terms of deferred wages, the minister could begin to do justice.

The report does not address that meticulously, but there is a process whereby you can read between the lines and arrive at what is really a conclusion. The minister can afford to do it; he is doing it with people’s money. It is a matter of rearranging the formula.

But first and foremost, let’s say tomorrow will be brighter than today. “I am very proud to be a civil servant, for at least I get to bargain and discuss my pension plan at the negotiating table.” I think the minister could make that commitment right now.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member is very helpful in his interjection, but shows, of course, that he has not been able to keep pace with all the discussions that have been ongoing with respect to people in the human resources secretariat who have been at the forefront of trying to encourage broader participation and co-operation as it applies to a number of issues in the workplace, including remuneration and the types of programs that are available for people to share work and other things.

We have been discussing for some time, for a long time before the member came up with this question here today, the issues of a co-operative approach to managing in the workplace. I want to commend my deputy minister and assistant deputy minister who have been in charge of that, because they have gone a long way to analysing where it is that strides can be taken and advances made.

But we are not always met with the degree of encouragement, should we say, from the other side that is required. There is sometimes competition, the need for which is not always as clear to me as it obviously is clear to the people with whom we discuss these issues. That does not mean I am not willing to explore ways of producing a more modern workplace. I am quite prepared to talk at any time with anybody who has genuinely good ideas. That means they must be things that can be implemented, and that can be manageable as well, in the best fashion possible to produce good results for both the employer and the employee.

1520

I have no problems with considering those types of opportunities, and in fact we have been exploring a number of places where strides can be taken, but as I said, if there are more areas the member would like us to explore, I am certainly open to those.

I just want to say one thing, though, about the honourable member’s suggestion that his colleagues alone are inoculated in some fashion against some deep-seated interest in pensions, whereas the rest of us here are interested in taking more out of the system than he is. I took offence at that, because I can tell the honourable member for Lake Nipigon that he ought to understand that he and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party also participate in the pension plan that is made available to all of us.

Mr. Philip: Yes, we have a say in it.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I just thought the member was suggesting in some way that only his caucus -- because those were his words: “We in the NDP,” he said, “are only interested in putting more into the system than we take out.”

I can tell him that I took offence at the way that was presented. He may want to clarify it, because I am displeased with that presentation. It is not the way in which I thought I was regarded by the member for Lake Nipigon. I think all the members who serve here are putting forward a very clearly public-oriented effort that is designed to put more into the system. We are designing legislation and measures that will assist in the development of a society we believe will be much better for our participation.

I want the member to be quite clear that he was not suggesting that the members of the third party and the members of the government caucus were somehow not as dedicated to the public service as the New Democrats.

Mr. Laughren: A bit defensive, are you not?

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, I am not being defensive. The member for Nickel Belt says I am being defensive. I am telling the honourable member that --

Mr. Philip: Just wasting time.

Hon. Mr. Elston: No. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale says I am wasting time. I am not wasting time. I tell him this: Every time those guys get up and start talking about how dedicated they are and suggest that the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague), the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman), the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) or the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) are not interested in the public interest, I have to stand up and put the counter argument, because these people serve just as hard as the member does. I do not think he really meant to say the things he said, although he said them. He can have a chance now to clarify that.

Mr. Pouliot: The minister could be right. I guess he will have the opportunity, with Hansard, to perhaps quote verbatim what has been said. The proverbial social conscience of our party has never been in question here. But the minister is right that much more important than perhaps vanity or egocentricity, if it serves his purpose as convenience, is the convenience and necessity of the people; this is the main issue here.

What is important here is not what he thinks or what I think. What is important is the people taking money out of their salary, putting it into a pension plan so they can look to the future with confidence, reaching the bargaining table and discussing what they are funding. That is much more important than to say, “Well, I am more sincere than you are,” and this and that. That is not important.

What is important is people. Every hour they work, so many cents, sometimes so many dollars, come out of their pockets in deferred wages so that when they work for 20, 25, 30 or 35 years, they will not have to join the bread line. Yet when it is time to bargain that benefit, they do not have a chance to do so in real terms. The minister knows very well what I am saying.

That is the focus; that is the issue being discussed. I want to remind the minister that dancing all over the House inviting consultation will not do it, because it is not important. What is important here is the bargaining process of the employees who are putting their money into a pension fund.

Mr. Philip: I wonder if I can get back to the question the minister did not answer in his long string of platitudes. He perhaps should be called the Chairman of Platitude Board rather than the Chairman of Management Board.

He seemed to suggest that somehow it was OPSEU and the New Democratic Party that were suggesting we should approach the investment of these pension plans in a businesslike way. Does the minister not agree that it is his own commission’s study, the Rowan commission’s report, which says:

“The assets of the public sector pension funds should be invested in market investments.

“The investment policy for public sector pension funds should be determined by the fund governors, in the context of the pension deal and the nature of the liabilities”?

OPSEU is asking fairly clearly that the public service superannuation fund be invested. Why is the minister so much in disagreement with a report that was commissioned by his government, which it paid for and which it seems to be ignoring along with a number of other proposals in this report? Does the minister agree with the report or does he disagree with it? If he disagrees with it, why? Let him give us the evidence.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has not listened to the things I have been talking to him about; that is, the series of meetings we have had to talk about the issue with the employees’ representative, OPSEU. We have discussed a series of initiatives that might be of interest to the employees in the province, but those discussions have not borne fruit at the present time, at least to my knowledge.

I can tell the honourable member that it certainly would not be in my vocabulary to accuse the New Democratic Party of being businesslike, nor would I even dare it to become businesslike in its management. I would not dare to do that at all.

I would tell the honourable member that I am committed to talking to OPSEU, to anybody who has ways in which we can become a more modern employer if he does not think we are modern enough now. If there are new ideas about how we can structure pension plans; if there are more interest rates the gentleman wants to talk about as they apply to the return on investment for these; if there is a whole series of ways we can improve upon that process, I am willing to discuss them. But I am not at this point looking at moving away from the practice without being able to discuss the manner in which what might be described by some as a partnership in this process could be put together. It has to bear, in my mind, the result of a meeting of the minds of employer and employee. It seems to me we should have an understanding of what we are getting into.

The gentleman who made the inquiry of me about the Rowan report in particular has to understand that if there are changes to be made, I want to be able to try to come to an agreement, as employer, with the employees about how we attack these interesting issues. I am not going to declare here in the Legislative Assembly today, in the absence of that coming together of employer and employees, changes or a modification in the way in which the plan works. That is not my way.

Right now, I think the superannuation adjustment fund is the subject matter of the question, although the member has been trying to take what he declares to be a surplus out of the public sector superannuation fund and apply it to a whole series of issues. Basically, the issue is whether or not money is raised to come to grips with what has been reported to be a deficiency, right? I think that is fair.

1530

From my point of view, there are all kinds of things that can be done if there is a willingness to come to an agreement. All I have said to the member is that I am prepared to speak and to try to arrange that agreement between the two of us. That does not reflect on the Rowan report or otherwise.

I said to him, though, with respect to the Rowan report, that if there are investments made which are more revenue generating than the current arrangement, then I would expect, as a reasonable person, that I would be free to remove any guarantee of performance, because if you invest the funds in a riskier sort of portfolio, why should the taxpayers of Ontario be required to underwrite that investment?

I say that cannot happen. It seems to me that I would be very neglectful of my role in managing the taxpayers’ dollars to underwrite a riskier portfolio.

Mr. Philip: You commissioned a report. The report was tabled in November 1987, and now the minister seems to have the response that he wants to discuss still further on into the next century or whatever.

It is not by accident that nearly every report that I read in the newspapers over the New Year in assessing this government said it was a government that studies things rather than solves problems, and a government that breaks promises rather than meets its commitments. Now the minister wants to study them still further.

I ask this minister then: This report was tabled in 1987. Is he prepared to table in this House his position, as Chairman of Management Board, on each of the recommendations, so that we at least know where he stands on every one of the recommendations that Rowan has made? Is he prepared to do that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the honourable gentleman will know that the report itself was commissioned through the auspices of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). A response will be made, I presume, by the Treasurer in that role.

I was not there when this thing was first commissioned. I do not think it came out of the Human Resources Secretariat. In fact, the investment policy for the superannuation fund, or at least the overall pension issue itself, is handled through the Treasurer’s auspices. So from my point of view, that is --

Mr. Philip: The Treasurer was the Chairman of Management Board at the time. He was wearing both hats. This minister is responsible for the public service. This deals with it. The Treasurer has not tabled a report or his response to the report yet.

This minister is supposed to be responsible for efficient management. The government has one report after another and then it has reports to study reports. One has to ask at some time, when is this government going to take a report that has cost the taxpayers so much money and when is the minister going to tell us what his position is, as the minister responsible for implementing this report, or does lie plan on just having one more report to study the report?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will want to know, and in fact will want the people of the province to know, that the Treasurer commissioned the report as the Treasurer. The Treasurer has carriage of that part of the pension policy, because it affects not only the public service pensions but it also affects the teachers’ pensions. The overall management of that issue is the Treasurer’s and his response will be forthcoming and reasonable, as it usually is.

From that point of view, the ragings of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale ought to be understood by the people of the province as an indication that he is -- perhaps I want to consider my words carefully -- at least just straying away from the issues that affect the public sector pension plan; that in fact that issue, the Rowan issue, is one which the Treasurer will provide his answers to.

I just want to be very clear, though, to the people of the province that if a decision is made that we invest pension plan funds in a market which is riskier than the required investment of those funds now in the government -- I guess that is the way we would have to say it; by legislation, I think we have to pay a designated percentage on this as a return -- if that is the ultimate outcome of this, then as a guardian of taxpayers’ money, I would want to make sure that I am not going to be underwriting the performance of that. In fact, the people in the province should not be asked to guarantee that. If you want to invest in riskier portfolios, by all means make that decision, but do not also drag the taxpayers in to underwrite any problems which are the result of the investment of those funds in a higher-yielding portfolio.

Mr. Philip: I am sure the taxpayers of this province are shivering in their boots now to know what we are proposing and what OPSEU is proposing and what Rowan was proposing, which is that the minister might actually go out and risk money by investing in such things as Treasury bonds, those terribly speculative types of things, first mortgages that might actually allow a person to get into a home by getting a mortgage through an investment by the government. I am sure they are shivering in their shoes, worrying that their tax money is going to be frittered away.

Let me get around to another issue. Sure, the minister says he is prepared to talk. He has been talking for a long time. He does not say very much other than platitudes, but he talks. Is he prepared, as 50 per cent of the funds are the funds of the employees, to have the employees sitting on that board which makes those decisions of where that investment is going?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have tried to say before, and I will repeat it for the honourable member, that there has been an invitation to have employee representatives viewing the performance of the operation of this plan for some time. They have chosen not to because they have another issue they wish to have addressed before they become formal participants. That is, in fact, okay. They made the decision, but it seems to me that the member cannot then stand up in here and say we have never extended the invitation.

I also want to repeat, so the member will hear it and might possibly understand, that there were talks held throughout the fall which were designed to create a new forum, a new way of dealing with the issue, but those discussions have not met with success to this point. I can tell the honourable member that it has not been for want of trying. The fact that we have not succeeded at this stage does not mean we will not continue to discuss the items of how we deal with pension investment and other things.

Mr. Philip: The minister seems to think that somehow OPSEU should accept his offer of tokenism. It is the equivalent of the two of us entering into a partnership in which he owns 50 per cent of the shares and I own 50 per cent of the shares, and he thinks he is giving me something by saying: “You can sit in at the board of governors’ meeting and view what’s going on as I make those decisions about how your money is going to be managed and invested.” I say to the minister that OPSEU has said he has not offered it a partnership in investing. Let him show us where he has offered them an equal partnership, as it is their money and their pensions that decisions are being made about.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I will have to repeat that we have discussed a whole series of possibilities with OPSEU. It is not easy for the honourable gentleman to understand, I guess, that we have been prepared to talk about a whole series of initiatives. He has refused to acknowledge that is what has happened. When we talk to our employee representatives, we talk about a whole series of possibilities and we will continue to do that.

What he is suggesting, and I think it is in error -- I know it is in error -- is that we are unwilling to consider new ways of managing the pension plan. I can tell the honourable gentleman that in fact we are willing to do that. We have to discuss the ways in which it can be done, in just the same way that we are willing, as an employer, to discuss ways in which we can improve the workplace for people, the manner in which people are able to work in the public service of the government of Ontario. We are willing to discuss those, and we are willing to reach reasonable agreements with our employees and will continue to strive to do that. I just have to be sure that the member understands that those discussions have been ongoing for some time, and although they have not borne the fruit I would have liked by now, there is no reason why new suggestions cannot be made that would be of assistance to us.

But before you can have a meeting of the minds, you obviously have to clearly understand each other’s positions and then work towards some kind of way of reaching consensus. That is not always possible in each situation, but I am not prepared, in that sense, to stand up here today and publicly say to the member what the government of Ontario has talked about or not talked about with the employees with whom collective bargaining is a very important issue. It is important for me; I like to protect the integrity of the collective bargaining process. I will talk about, in general terms, the types of initiatives that we hope to discuss, but I am not going to be doing detailed discussions in public of our talks with OPSEU.

1540

Mr. Pouliot: It is nice to see that the minister is at least committed to improving the chemistry to the point where he will at least listen. There is such a thing here as collective bargaining. What we are talking about is somewhat simple. The government, as an employer, pays 50 per cent, half of the contribution. That sum is matched evenly by the employee. Yet the government pays 50 per cent of the cost and makes 100 per cent of the decision.

The minister is really appalled when we talk about liability. I really do not blame him. He is not going to go into “the open market,” since the government is paying 50 per cent, it has responsibility as an employer, and covered liability. Yet I have a very vivid and recent parallel here, the SkyDome, where the government is underwriting 100 per cent of a possible $150 million in liabilities, but it is not nearly as appalled and shocked or reluctant when it comes to that one. That is a partnership for disaster for corporations. There are two kinds -- one is the consortium and the other one is the taxpayers possibly left holding the bag -- but that is okay.

We would like to see the government move a little quicker, make a more serious commitment. It is not going out on a limb and somebody else is cutting the tree; the government can take that chance. Normally, if you pay 50 per cent of the cost of the program, is it not normal to have discussions about it, to have 50 per cent of the say in the decision-making process?

To me, that is very plain, simple and straightforward. But the minister seems to have, with the Napoleonic syndrome that seems to overtake him from time to time, difficulty with that kind of democratic approach. I would like him to make the commitment, I can assure him he will have the acquiescence, the respect of everyone in this House, inside the walls and outside the walls as well, because he will do what is right.

I pay 50 per cent of the premium, I should have 50 per cent of the say. What does the minister say to that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman persists in saying nice things, kind things and speaks about democracy and another series of other things which are conveniently sort of juxtaposed against the current situation. I guess it is with respect to the management of the pension plan.

I can tell the honourable gentleman the same as I said to his honourable and learned colleague, that in fact we are willing to discuss a series of things. We always have been and we will always try to deal with those. But he really wants me to negotiate with him as OPSEU’s representative, and I am not prepared to do that, because I do not believe he has a mandate to do that.

I will, through my people, speak to OPSEU’s elected representatives, which is a democratic situation, as the member knows, and I am committed to a democratic process. Representatives of OPSEU are elected at meetings. I presume there will even be an annual meeting coming up shortly where they will probably elect a new executive or reaffirm the existing one. I will continue to work with those democratically elected people and the people who are designated to speak to the employer about issues of mutual concern, one of which, of course, is pensions, a very important one; also other working conditions and a whole series of new things we could explore together as employee-employer in a co-operative relationship.

But in light of my support for the democratic process, I am not willing to bargain with a person who is not an elected representative of the OPSEU people in this forum.

Mr. Philip: I disagree with my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon. I do not think the Chairman of Management Board has a Napoleonic complex. Napoleon actually did something and we have not seen any action from this minister.

Mr. McCague: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: It may be a point of privilege. I would hope you would listen to it, Mr. Chairman. We are now closing in on 80 minutes of estimates today and the opposition party has had all but 27 minutes of that 80 minutes. I just wonder if there is an opportunity for the third party to ask a question or two.

Mr. Philip: May I just ask one last question on this?

Mr. Chairman: One last question.

Mr. Philip: The minister says he cannot comment on the Rowan report because it is the Treasurer who is going to come down with the final decision as to where he stands on Rowan. Then he says, “But I am willing to talk to OPSEU about some of the things they’re asking for.” But OPSEU is asking for some of the recommendations of the Rowan report. I ask the minister how he can be negotiating when he has not ascertained what the Treasurer’s position is on the very issues on which OPSEU is trying to get some kind of response from the government. How can he pass it off to the Treasurer and then say he is negotiating in good faith with his employees on the very issue which he says is the Treasurer’s responsibility, not his?

This is the Tweedledum-Tweedledee kind of response. Et tu, Alphonse? But it does not amount to bargaining in good faith. It is just game-playing.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman does not have all the information, I guess, although he should know that the Treasurer is actually co-ordinating discussions which have been held with respect to, in the broadest sense, the whole pension issues that face the Ontario government vis-a-vis the teachers’ superannuation fund, the superannuation adjustment fund and the public service superannuation fund. He is quarterbacking that series of discussions in which we are all involved.

The member asked me if I would table, point for point, my response to a report which I commissioned. I had to correct him by saying it was in fact the Treasurer who commissioned it. Whether he was also, at that point, acting Chairman of Management Board is really of very little interest.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: What I said was that his government commissioned. I said “you commissioned,” meaning his government commissioned. I think he can check the record.

Mr. Chairman: It is a point of clarification, Mr. McCague: As the Chairman of Management Board will recall, there were various questions raised in our discussions in the earlier part of his estimates. I just wonder if he is going to answer those questions before somebody is prompted to ask him what it really is he does, because we really have not got any answers from him yet.

Hon. Mr. Elston: In the light of the new sense of co-operation that obviously the new year has ushered in, I would first want to wish my honourable colleague the member for Simcoe West a happy new year and indicate to him that I was remiss in not wishing the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale a happy new year as well.

But I would also want to indicate that I would not want to be in the position he was in, and having reported in Hansard, that he was not sure what he did as Chairman of Management Board. I will tell him, and I provide a whole series of answers to questions. I have, and have been prepared, I thought, to give some general observations about some of the questions which were left with us before we broke at the last sitting of these estimates. I have, in fact, a sheet of staffing levels which will be made available to the members as well.

1550

l can tell the members, with respect to a couple of questions -- one in particular about staffing levels, which I presume they are quite interested in getting more information about -- that as of November 30, as it applies to ministers’ offices, the complement of people is 311, which includes four classified people. This compares to the November 1, 1984, number of 309, which I think the members have in the form of a response they received from the Treasurer some time in 1986, when he was also then acting Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet.

I would say this about the complement: although there is only a variation of some two -- that is, there are two more people now employed in ministers’ offices than there were then -- there are, as I understand it, more contract people now -- that is, unclassified people -- than there were in 1984. That is one difference.

Let us see, I am trying to look for my numbers here: 307 are unclassified or contract people as of November 30, four are classified civil servants; in 1984 there were 309, of which 230 were unclassified and 79 were classified civil servants,

That at least talks about that part of the issue. I can give him better information with respect to the numbers by sending that sheet as I had indicated to both him and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, in terms of all the numbers I read out in December 1988 when we last dealt with the estimates.

If he wished to get into some of the other areas, perhaps I can be more precise with respect to some of his other follow-up questions if he wishes.

Mr. McCague: I would have thought the minister would have taken the questions that were asked of him previously and come down with a short statement which answers all those that were asked. As I recall, I did not specifically ask the minister the last time we met about the number of civil servants in the ministers’ offices, but the number of civil servants in the government as a whole.

I was referring to the fact that I thought that at one time there was a list of the total number of civil servants in all ministries across government, I may be wrong in that and I said at that time that I could be wrong, but I thought it used to be present. Obviously, as I have found out, members never get too much information from this government, especially 20 minutes before the estimates discussion is to conclude. The minister is still hanging on to it; probably in 23 minutes I will get it and there will be an opportunity to ask a question at some later date.

I would have thought the minister would have wanted to make some statement about the accountability in the transfer payment area which has been highlighted by the Provincial Auditor and for which I understand he is preparing a plan. Would the minister like to comment on that at this point?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have two comments: One is, the information which I am providing for the member, which is just being given to him now, is no different from what I read out to him at the last sitting. It shows the numbers, totals and changes in those totals as I read them, so it is not as if he has been prevented from getting that information. I apologize for not having written it down for him earlier, but that information was all made available and in fact should appear in the Hansard report of committee of supply as well, because I quickly read through it and gave some voice-over explanation, as I understand it, with respect to that; so the information is readily available.

I thought that I had actually given a series of replies to some of the member’s questions, particularly about transfer payment accountability, inasmuch as I believe also the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale had raised the same question and I had made some replies about that because he had spent some considerable amount of time talking about internal audit and I know the member recognizes the importance of that as well.

I felt I had provided enough of an overview of that that the member might be inspired to other questions, but I can repeat for him at this point the fact that we are in complete agreement that the accountability for transfer payment agencies must always be scrutinized very thoroughly. I think he will find that, even since the days when he was Chairman of Management Board, there has been a tightening or of an awakening of the realization that more accountability procedures must be put in place and that from time to time you review and look at what can be done to ensure that the taxpayers’ dollars are being spent reasonably.

The directives and guidelines which we make from time to time are sent out. In this case, in May the directive and guideline dealing with this accountability was sent out by Management Board. I can tell the honourable member that we are as committed as any ever have been at Management Board to ensuring that there has been a continued emphasis on accountability for the expenditure of the dollars.

The auditor’s report, from my point of view, has always been interesting. They come up in some cases with recommendations which have already been dealt with, already been implemented, in some eases have already been suggested during the consultations that they have with some of the ministries that are in fact involved with the transfer payment agencies. In some cases, they obviously make recommendations on how we can improve. When that occurs, we are always quite pleased to try to accommodate those suggestions.

Again, I do not know what more we can do than to indicate to the public that we are prepared to be, and remain, quite diligent in our undertaking to ensure accountable expenditure, that the accountability of expenditure of public dollars is well monitored and that in fact it is reported to the public. For any transfer payment agency, obviously, that has got to be a very important understanding when it files its annual report and statement to know that the auditor is going to be concerned with it, as is the Chairman of Management Board, as are the taxpayers of the province.

Mr. McCague: I have the figures of government-wide staffing levels that I just received from the minister. I have just done it quickly, but I do not see that in the document that we were given, Management Board of Cabinet 1988-89 estimates briefing. Furthermore, I think the record will show that I asked, ministry by ministry, the staffing levels. Again I will say to the minister that my recollection is that this material used to be in the information that was passed on to the opposition parties, and I stand to be corrected on that.

The minister’s answers have all been very, very vague. I had the pleasure of being the Chairman of Management Board, as he knows, for quite an extended period of time, and many of the programs that he takes great delight in are programs that were initiated back in those days.

The point I want to make with him, though, is that I know how good the staff are at both the Management Board secretariat and the Human Resources Secretariat, even though it was called a different name at that time, and I know that they give the minister all the information he needs to properly answer a question and I know that he picks and chooses what he wants to say about the answers that they give him. I am quite aware of the capabilities of the staff, but I am also quite aware of the problems of getting an answer out of the minister on some issues.

1600

During the discussion earlier, I asked the minister how he was going to balance transfer payment accountability and local autonomy. He may have answered that question, but he might just find it in his heart to respond, not now but in writing, following the consideration of these estimates.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is obviously interesting to note for the member for Simcoe West that each estimates talks specifically, ministry by ministry, about the numbers of people employed. I do not want to belabour the point, but the information is available when he looks at the ministry reports. Management Board can, I guess, provide for him, if he wishes, a ministry-by-ministry breakdown. We will undertake to do that, so that he can have it. He can also get it by going to various other ministry estimates, if he wishes. The fact that the member wants us to do it is fine by me; we will do it for him.

The interesting thing for the honourable member to note is that I did talk about the issue of local autonomy and the accountability of transfer payment agencies. From what I had heard earlier, I thought that, at least during that day, I had taken too much time in my response. I had to deal quickly with a whole series of important issues raised by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and also by the member for Simcoe West. But that particular issue which the member has just raised is extremely important to us, because there is a fine line with respect to accountability and local autonomy.

People who are involved in making decisions locally as board representatives, whether they are at the municipal council level or are on school boards or are representatives of public boards that receive funds from the province, need a certain leeway with respect to the application of those funds, so that they can meet the local needs of their area. For sure, though, the taxpayers of the province are going to want to know that there is value being received for that money and that in fact it is being applied in a manner which is, first of all, consistent with the determinations of the ministry’s own programs -- that is, that the criteria are being adhered to -- and that the money is being spent by the board in places where it authorizes it to be spent.

I do not think there is any contradiction in that accountability function. If, for instance, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has a program for the spending of money -- let’s say something like the program for renewal, improvement, development and economic revitalization, let’s take that as a program -- where there are a number of requirements put in place and there is a plan filed by the local representatives, I think it is incumbent upon us and the accountability test which is applied to see that the funds are being expended in compliance with the program which was brought forward for the funding.

I do not see that as a basic problem, but I see it as a requirement that we be thorough in pursuing that application of funds. I bring that as only one example off the top of my head, but I think it could equally apply to any type of government program which has criteria surrounding the expenditure made on decisions by local boards, and I think that those certainly can be helped.

I do see some problems, I guess, if the money is not being spent in a manner which is contemplated by the program construction, but as long as the expenditure meets the criteria outlined, I do not see a problem with us pursuing the accountability that is so important to the taxpayers.

Mr. Philip: On the subject of unanswered questions, I brought to the minister a specific case of a request by the Ombudsman for ex gratia payments in the case of one individual. I suggested to the minister that one line inserted into either these estimates or the next estimates could get that case off the books until such time as legislation could be brought in, perhaps to the Ombudsman Act or to a series of acts, to allow for ex gratia payments.

I am wondering if the minister is now prepared to accept that an injustice has been done, that it is a very small amount of money and that the Ombudsman has made a recommendation? Does he intend to fulfil the wishes of the standing committee on the Ombudsman, on which his members are in a majority position and are concerned about this individual case? What does he intend to do about this injustice brought to the attention of the Ombudsman committee by the Ombudsman?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I was prepared at the outset to speak a little bit about the case, which received the recommendations of the Ombudsman committee, but we were taken into a discussion of the pension issues, which was the prerogative of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, and I did not want to break away from that discussion. I just did not want it to appear that I was not going to address the question, because that was the way in which he premised his few remarks.

I want to say that I think the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale would want to be sure that the public knows well the context in which we are going about these discussions. I know the interest the honourable member has in pursuing an expanded set of estimates perhaps at another time, and I would certainly welcome that expansion so that we could deal with the series of issues he wants.

Back to the issue, and that is of the payment by the government with respect to some $2,300 or thereabouts, plus interest from 1967: I have gone back and requested reviews. I have talked to various people in my department about the suggestion the member made and that took me into a discussion of some of the merits of the case and I am currently reviewing it.

I can say that there is a feeling, at least on the part of some people who have dealt with this issue, that there was not the type of problem associated with career change direction that was laid out in the report. I do not know, in my own mind, why that type of information did not come forward during the discussions with the Ombudsman or even with the committee as the replies to the questions were being made, but it is my understanding now that the suggestion has been made that, in fact, the issue of the type of credits -- I think what I will do is try to find my notes just so I can be very clear and very sure about what is being suggested. I will just paraphrase what I have, if I may, and leave it with the member so that he can understand the questions that I am exploring with respect to whether the payment be made in line with the recommendation.

First, I will have to advise that it cannot be in these estimates because I have not made my decision yet and we are getting quickly to the end of these discussions; but it is said by some that while the Ombudsman considered the advice that the person received to be incomplete, the position of some of the government staff is that they acted correctly and answered the questions which were put to them, and that other items, which later arose as a result of decisions made ultimately --

1610

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It is the rule of the standing committee on the Ombudsman when it hears a case that the government has an opportunity to present its case, the Ombudsman has the right to present his case and neither side introduces new information on a particular case. Now the minister is saying he wants to get another kick at the can because he has some information that somehow was not available to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman’s committee; therefore, he wants to fudge on whether or not this person was paid.

The minister had his opportunity. His officials made their presentation to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman ruled against them and in favour of the claimant. They then appeared before the Ombudsman’s committee. The Ombudsman’s committee, consisting of members of all parties, came to a decision that the claimant should be paid. The officials had an opportunity to present all the information before the committee at that time. Now the minister is saying there are other considerations that somehow his public servants have known about. How many times does he have to have something go to trial before he does not want another retrial?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to thank the honourable member for his interjection, but I clearly said to him that I could not understand why the material was not presented. That is what I am looking into. I do not know how else to keep him on track. I do not even know what his point of order was, to be quite honest. His point of order, Mr. Chairman, just to assist you in understanding what he is about, is that he is not happy. He wishes it was 1988 or something, rather than 1989.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: It is a fairly clear procedure that you do not introduce new information after a decision and after the evidence has been presented. The evidence has been presented twice: first, to the Ombudsman and second, to the Ombudsman’s committee, and a decision was made. Now, the minister is saying, “My officials goofed up and did not present the right information.” I say this is not the place then to retry that particular case. The issue is, now that both the committee and the Ombudsman have decided in favour of this man, is the minister prepared to pay the man?

The Deputy Chairman: Could I just interject a moment? There has not been a point of order raised. The member has interjected and the minister may respond. Inasmuch as there is only one minute remaining, could the minister please respond?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Basically, because of the information that is in my hands, I am considering the matter, as I told the honourable gentleman I would.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the --

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is time --

Mr. Philip: I was recognized, so I trust that I can ask my question.

Hon. Mr. Elston: There is no more time left. If the member would like to write me a letter, I will respond to his letter.

The Deputy Chairman: There is part of a minute remaining, until the clock flashes.

Mr. Philip: Thank you. My question to the minister is this: He has stated that he is in favour of open government; he has stated that he wants public service accountability and that he is trying to develop procedures. How does he account for the fact that while this is going on, his public servants are using the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to refuse to supply information to the Ombudsman on at least five cases that are now before him? Can the minister tell us why public servants of Ontario, in different ministries, are using the freedom-of-information act to refuse to grant an open inquiry by the Ombudsman of Ontario?

The Deputy Chairman: If I may interject at this point, the time allotted for the consideration of estimates of the Management Board has expired. It is now my duty, in accordance with the standing order, to put the questions.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, might I ask the consent of the people present for me to respond at least very briefly and then give a more detailed response later on by letter or whatever?

Interjection.

The Deputy Chairman: I hear that there is not unanimous consent on that.

Mr. Pouliot: Yes.

Mr. Philip: I agree to consent.

The Deputy Chairman: Your fellow member did not agree.

Mr. Laughren: Well, we will agree.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that you were able to bring them to their co-operative senses.

Just let me say that with respect to the Ombudsman’s concern about the freedom-of-information act, I do not know the five issues about which the member speaks, but I can tell the honourable gentleman that if there is a problem, it may surround questions of the nature of privacy, because as he knows, freedom of information is also coupled with privacy requirements in the legislation.

If there is a real problem, then obviously the Ombudsman can take that on, as can any other inquirer, to get a ruling from the freedom of information commissioner if he wishes so to do. I think that the process, by the way, has worked relatively well. A more detailed response will be available as I have more detail to deal with it.

The Deputy Chairman: It is now time to put the questions and I would therefore ask that the committee of supply consider first vote 2401.

Vote 2401 agreed to.

Vote 2402:

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that vote 2402 carry?

I hear a negative, so could all those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote 2402 agreed to.

Vote 2403:

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that vote 2403 carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote 2403 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of

the House that vote 2404 carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote 2404 agreed to.

Vote 2405:

The Deputy Chairman: Finally, vote 2405:

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote 2405 agreed to.

Estimates ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of supply reported a certain resolution.

REPORT, STANDING COMMIITEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the report on accidents and fatalities in Ontario mines of the standing committee on resources development.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Nickel Belt adjourned the debate previously.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

I am pleased that the House has seen fit to schedule a debate on our unanimous report. I did want to start out by expressing my appreciation to a number of people who made the report possible.

First of all, I must say that I was very impressed with the work of the members of the committee. Many of them had never been underground in a mine before; some had never even been in northern Ontario, I think. But they undertook the task with a great deal of enthusiasm and commitment and, as a result, we did finish up with a unanimous report; a report, I might add, that was made unanimous not because it was easy to do so, but because all members sacrificed a little bit of what they thought should be in the report in order to have it as a unanimous report. I hope that the government understands that it is a unanimous report because everybody compromised a bit to make it so.

1620

I did want to name the members of the committee, because of the very hard work that was done by them: the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), the vice-chairman of the committee; the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown); the member for Wentworth East (Ms. Collins); the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier); the member for Downsview (Mr. Leone); the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland); the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan); the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller); the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash), and the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman).

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: Of course, we were joined at one point by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot); as a matter of fact, he hosted our committee in beautiful downtown Manitouwadge for a tour there.

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: It was nice; it was very nice.

Of course, members will recall that the reason that the standing committee on resources development was assigned the task was because of the unacceptable number of deaths and injuries in Ontario mines. The only industry in which there is a higher rate of deaths in Ontario is the forest industry.

As a result of being asked to do so by the assembly, the committee held 21 days of hearings and visited, as I recall, 10 different mine sites in order to come up with our recommendations. There was a great deal of co-operation from the Ontario Mining Association and its member companies which helped us arrange the tours. The various government ministries also played a very helpful role.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the role played by previous commissions, the Ham commission, the Burkett commission and the Stevenson inquiry, and the work that they did. They were the true experts in the field, and we followed along behind them and tried to give a legislative sense to their recommendations and to have members of the assembly have an appreciation for much of the work that they had already done.

The committee looked at the causes of accidents. I must say that many of us, when our tour of all the various mine sites was over, wondered why there were not more accidents underground, given the nature of the beast, if you will. In our first paragraph under “Accident Causes and Contributing Factors” we say the following:

“Underground mining is an extremely hazardous occupation. The mine environment is harsh and unforgiving because of poor lighting, open holes, the presence of heavy equipment, the use of explosives, falls of loose rock from the ceilings or walls, and rockbursts -- explosive failures of rock caused by high rock stress. These conditions increase the risk of injury and death.”

Given the nature of the environment underground, I have often wondered how there are as few accidents as there are, even though there are an unacceptable number of them. We know what the leading causes of accidents and fatalities underground are. I thought I would break them down briefly, because it is important to know that it is possible to identify them; and once you can identify them, then surely you have a focus or a goal to which you can direct your energies to prevent them.

The leading causes were mobile vehicles, 24 per cent of the accidents; falls of ground, which are rock falls, 22 per cent; fall of persons themselves, 12 per cent; fall of material, 13 per cent, and then just general machinery accidents, 11 per cent. Roughly 86 or 87 per cent of all the accidents can be identified in those categories, which means that there is a manageable number of causes to which management and labour can address themselves in order to prevent recurrences. At least there is that aspect of accidents underground.

The mining industry has the highest severity of accidents of any industry in Ontario, and the average length of time on compensation is slightly in excess of 17 weeks, so that when people get hurt in the mines they tend to get hurt badly, which is another cause for concern.

The cost of mining accidents is truly unacceptable as well. The mining industry, the Ontario Mining Association, recognizes this and it is one of the motivations for attempting to clean up. Through the Workers’ Compensation Board, all the costs are paid by management, by the industry. The cost to the mining industry per $100 of payroll varies from $4.88 in mixed mines up to $29.22 for the contract miners.

I want to put that in perspective. What that means is that for every $100 worth of payroll, for the contract miners the employers have to pay $29 to the Workers’ Compensation Board as their assessment because of the high rate and cost of accidents in that industry. While the industry complains about the high cost, the costs are high because of the number of accidents and the severity of accidents and we must never, ever forget that.

We know that because of that, the record of the mining industry is not good enough. It never has been good enough and it is not going to be good enough in the future if changes are not made. It was with that in mind that the committee set about its task.

In our deliberations, we did try very hard to come up with a set of recommendations that were within the capacity of the industry to accept. We were not interested in coming out with recommendations that we thought were unacceptable or just simply could not be implemented, given the reality of the technological and economic world out there. We worked very hard to do that.

The very first decision and one of the most important, if not the most important decision we made was to support the internal responsibility system, as a committee. For members who are not familiar with that, what it really means is that we decided that the best way for accident prevention and for health and safety in the mines was that it should be a joint effort between management and labour in the mines.

That is a controversial position for some people, because some people feel that as long as you have the existing situation where the responsibility is shared, then it is difficult to blame anybody for accidents or failure to clean up the act. We felt, however, that if management and labour could not resolve the problem, the alternative was an army of inspectors who would swarm throughout the mines in Ontario in order to make sure that everything was done properly. We did not think that was the appropriate way to prevent accidents and to clean up mine sites. We felt that the internal responsibility system, which is a shared responsibility, was the way in which it should be continued in Ontario mines.

However, and I will not speak for all members in this regard, I do not believe that the internal responsibility system is functioning as effectively as it could be. I believe that the internal responsibility system needs more legislative support by this government, and that includes things such as tougher enforcement and higher fines. It needs stronger support by the chief executive officers of the various mining companies and it needs improved training of workers and supervisors.

If the internal responsibility system is going to work, I believe -- and I think I speak for most of the committee members, not all of them -- that has to be strengthened. It will not come easily. Unless that is done, then the internal responsibility system will not achieve its potential.

To be specific in that regard, the chief executive officer simply must review all serious accidents and fatalities personally and affirm annually, in writing, that that has been done. There must be more comprehensive training for first-line supervision. There must be refresher courses. There must be improved training for members of the joint health and safety committees in the mines, and mine management must respond to all recommendations that are made by the joint health and safety committees. The recommendations must not be allowed to sit and simply gather dust for a year.

There is a role for government to legislate some of the changes that are recommended in our report. It is not enough, in my view, for the government simply to respond by saying, “Well, we’re going to refer this to the mining fatalities committee; we’re going to refer this to the legislative review committee,” which is a joint committee in the mining industry. There are some areas where the government must take more leadership and move and introduce legislation.

I will be specific about that. For example, our committee report recommends that it be legislated that at all mine sites where there are 250 or more workers, there be proportionately a full-time worker safety representative: full-time, legislated.

1630

That is not legislated now. There are these full-time worker inspectors where it is negotiated between the company and its union, but it is not there in legislation. There is an opportunity for government to move in that regard. The response of the Ministry of Labour, I think, was sad indeed. I believe it is a blow to the internal responsibility system itself for the government not to understand that has to be legislated.

For one thing, you could quite easily have a mine site that had 250 workers and no union. Then you are not going to get the full-time safety rep who has the right to go in and shut down an unsafe workplace. We believe that fines and penalties should be increased and that the government has responded in a very tentative way. It indicated, in its response to our report, that “consideration will be given in future amendments to the act to an increase in the penalties and fines for contravening the legislation.”

That is a bit weak. I hope the government sees that is a very important signal it would be sending out. It is not as though there is going to be much revenue flowing in. It is a case of sending out the right signal that the government is getting serious about infractions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Another recommendation we made was that there be what is called fall-on protection on all machinery underground. At the present, you could have machines underground with no protection above the person who is operating the machine. As a matter of fact, there is legislation or regulations that say for all new mines there must be fall-on protection unless the ceiling in the mine has been made safe by bolting and so forth.

I do not think that is good enough. I think that regardless of whether there is bolting in the roof of the mine and in the walls, there simply must be fall-on protection on all underground equipment in our mines. I think it is ludicrous that we have workers underground driving scoop trams with nothing above their heads to protect them from rock falling on them. It is obviously not going to solve the problem of a major rockburst or collapse of a mine, of an entire stope, for example, but at least it could prevent accidents when there are smaller rockfalls. There is no reason that could not be done and it could be legislated by the government, as well.

Another area which surprised me that it was not already in place, quite frankly, is that open holes underground should be fenced off with proper flashing lighting at the site. At the present, that is not a requirement, as I understand it, and the government response says it wishes to refer it to the tripartite Mining Legislative Review Committee.

I think that is one of those areas where the government should take some leadership and say that all open holes underground must be roped off and there must be flashing lights there to indicate that is a dangerous area.

I believe legislation should be in place that requires mine management to provide refuge stations and lunchrooms in all underground mine sites -- that is not the regulation now -- and also that workers have it as a legal right to go there to have their lunch. That is not a legal right underground now.

Finally, one of the major ones in my mind was the whole question of auxiliary lighting. At the present, in this day and age, it is still quite legal at a mine site, a working area, a development area which is at the very end of the mine, to have the only light there the light from the miner’s lamp. I think that is a throwback to another century and we should not accept that any longer. There should be auxiliary lighting on all underground work sites.

There are requirements for the kind of lighting on the miner’s cap and it has improved. But I really believe it is fundamentally wrong in a work site to have as the only light that small light from the miner’s lamp. I think that is totally outdated and that we should require that there be auxiliary lighting that lights up the workplace properly.

It is not just a case of being able to see the rock face so that you can drill the hole properly, it is a case of having proper light all around you so that you can see the machinery better, your fellow workers better, and equipment on the ground better, and until that happens I think we are still living, if the members will pardon the expression, in the Dark Ages. So we simply must improve our lighting underground.

I was pleased that the government actually did give us a response to our report, but I would hope that it would understand that just referring matters to tripartite committees is not enough. There is in the mining industry an organization called the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Ontario -- MAPAO. That organization, our committee believes, should become truly tripartite. It should be one third labour, one third management and one third public. Until that happens, that committee, quite frankly, is suspect in the minds of many people. Labour has refused to serve on that committee, and I believe even to this point it has refused to serve on that committee.

That committee gets its money from the Workers’ Compensation Board assessment, and unless that is a truly tripartite committee and has legitimacy in the eyes of labour in this province, it should not be getting money from the Workers’ Compensation Board. That money could be better spent on injured workers. I feel very strongly that this government has to move and ensure -- I am using the MAPAO as an example because we are dealing with the mining industry -- that all of the safety associations which get a substantial amount of money through the WCB are truly tripartite committees; otherwise they have no legitimacy.

Here they are, trying to work on improving health and safety in the workplace and they do not have the respect or the sense of legitimacy from the very workers they are trying to protect. I think that makes no sense whatsoever and the government should move to make sure that happens. Do not leave it up to them to make that determination. They have tried and they have not done it. Everyone in the industry sees it as an industry committee, and we have simply got to get beyond that.

I wanted to make a brief comment about the question of the bonus system, because we politicians are often accused of backing away and not wanting to deal with the bonus system because it is very controversial and a lot of workers in the mines get very angry when they think that we are going to take the bonus system away from them. I must say that the bonus system makes me very nervous because of its emphasis on production.

When the committee started, there was no question that I felt that the bonus system was not a very good thing and that we should look at ways of maintaining workers’ incomes but with something different than the bonus system, although it would be ridiculous to say to workers who are working in such an environment that their income would be reduced because we did not have a bonus system. That would be absolutely stupid; but perhaps there was some other way of compensating workers so their income did not drop and there was not that emphasis on production which made us fearful about safety in the mines.

We were unable to find any evidence that the bonus system did in a bad way affect safety underground. But there is a study being done and the tripartite Mining Legislative Review Committee is studying it and has made certain recommendations and we support those recommendations. I will not read them because of lack of time, but I think it is important that we continue to study the whole question of the bonus system to see whether some safety incentives can be built into that bonus system so that workers’ incomes are not cut down. That would be really, as I say, stupid. But safety can be built into the bonus system, because it would be ridiculous to make workers pay twice: once with having to work in a dangerous environment and secondly with a reduction in income.

In our final recommendation we stated the following: “The government should continue to study the occupational illness and disease concerns of miners with the assistance of competent professionals in order to establish appropriate diagnostic and intervention strategies designed to prevent a recurrence of past problems.”

That was the last of our 50 recommendations.

1640

I must say I was disappointed with the terms of reference of the committee, to begin with, that they did not include illnesses underground, because as members will know, there are more workers who die from illnesses contracted underground than from injuries that occur underground, so it makes no sense for government to make a big show of concern about the mining accidents and not deal with the question of illnesses. We feel very strongly that there should be a continuing look at that.

To give some examples, in 1987 there were 1,253 occupational disease claims versus 1,176 injury claims in the mining industry. Between 1982 and 1987, there were 75 fatal injuries underground and 128 deaths due to illnesses that can be associated with mining, so illness fatalities outnumber injury fatalities underground. We surely cannot pretend that they are not a more serious problem.

The number of industrial disease claims in the mining industry is almost double the total number of industrial claims in other industries. Our fears are most profound in this regard, and we have reason to suspect the industry. The history of industry stonewalling on cancer claims from the uranium and gold mines, the sordid history of the asbestos mines, the mills and the smelters in Sudbury and elsewhere are an indication to us that we must forever be vigilant and not accept the claims of industry that there is no relationship between particular illnesses and deaths in our mines.

I understand very well the class-based discrimination of the Workers’ Compensation Board, of the industry and of the previous government, I might add, but it must stop. We must treat the question of illnesses in our mines more seriously because, as I say, they outnumber deaths due to injuries.

If I could be so ideological for a moment, there is no better evidence of the relative power of capital versus labour than issues surrounding the compensation of injured workers in this province. Before industrial diseases can be recognized by the WCB as compensable, an agonizing amount of evidence must be assembled in order to remove any hint of doubt that a relationship exists between the worker’s employment and his or her disease. It would be nice to live and work in a civilized jurisdiction where the health and safety of working people always came before the return on investment, arguments that capital always makes.

The final recommendation of our report calls on the government to study further occupational illnesses and diseases of miners. That can and should be done. The minister’s response in that regard was defensive and noncommittal. The biggest step forward would be the announcement of this government that Ontario is going to implement a universal sickness and accident compensation scheme for all Ontario residents. How can we know, when a gold miner, a uranium miner, a smelter worker or an asbestos worker dies of cancer, what caused that cancer? How do we know that? Other people die from cancer as well, but because they work in those industries, then we assume that was the cause of it.

People who have never set foot in a polluted workplace die of the same kinds of cancer. Only when the evidence is overwhelming -- and that means that the body count becomes socially unacceptable -- only then is that disease recognized as compensable for the purpose of disability pensions and survivors’ benefits.

We must move to a system in which all citizens are compensated for illness and disability, regardless of the cause of that disability or where it occurred. Employers, of course, would still pay their fair share, but they would not be the ones who decided what their fair share was. Right now, the WCB, which is, let’s face it, the hit organization for the industry, decides who gets compensation. That is who decides. It is hardly in its interest to be generous. What we are saying is that under a comprehensive system, the system itself would decide what was fair, not the people who have to pay out the bucks. We can hardly expect fairness under that system.

What conceivable logical argument could there be for providing two dramatically different levels of compensation for people with two identical disabilities? You could have one person in a wheelchair because of multiple sclerosis and another person in a wheelchair because he got injured in the mine and they get totally different incomes. What logic is there, what morality is there to that? I put to members that there is none. It is just because that is the way the system has evolved. It does not make it right, and it is time for us to move to a new concept of disability insurance. We must end this illogical, antiquated, discriminatory and cruel distinction in how we compensate people who are injured and ill.

In conclusion, I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) to show some leadership and to get on with implementing the recommendations of our report, a report unanimously supported by all members representing all three political parties, to return a sense of unity or utility to the committee system here at Queen’s Park, accept our recommendations and take the necessary legislative action to implement them.

Mrs. Marland: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset take this opportunity to wish you and the members of the Legislature the best for 1989, in terms of health and happiness personally with their families.

In rising to speak in this debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the Report on Accidents and Fatalities in Ontario Mines of the standing committee on resources development, I would like to say that this was one of the most interesting committees, as we dealt with this very complex, serious and earnest subject, that I have had the privilege of serving on in my four years as a member of this Legislature. I also would like to say that I feel that there should be a very strong commendation of the chairman, the member for Nickel Belt.

I think that all the members of the committee would agree that the reason this committee worked so well and was so successful in producing this very comprehensive and extensive report was that we did work together as a team. We were committed to the task before us. Certainly, I think it is fair to say that none of us was a mining specialist. I think it is also fair to say that perhaps the majority of us had never been down a mine prior to serving on this committee.

The experiences were very educational. We did not attempt to become instant experts. We listened very carefully to the deputations that came before the committee here at Queen’s Park before we hit the highways and byways of this province and visited, I think, some 17 mines. Certainly, the cross-section of the types of mines we visited impressed even the Ontario Mining Association, because we were down every type of mining operation from uranium, iron and nickel to salt and gypsum. Some mines we walked into, some mines we went down 5,000 feet, a little scary experience the first time you do it.

The member for Wentworth East, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and! myself were made well aware by the oldtime miners that women did not used to be allowed in mines at all; there was quite a superstition about women being underground. I think we managed to reassure those oldtime miners that we were there out of a sincere commitment to learn as much as we could in the best interests of those people who work in those mines.

I have to tell members that every time I came back above ground, I said to my colleagues on the committee, “I don’t care what those miners are paid, they are not paid enough to work in that absolutely hostile, foreign environment.” To go underground and mine, you have to be a very special kind of individual whose psyche can cope with that. Quite frankly, I think all of us were always very relieved when we came above ground again and felt the assurance and the safety of being back in a normal environment and not one where at any time, it has to be realized, those workers underground are at risk. Because they are at risk, the mandate of this committee was to bring forth as many recommendations as it could at least to reduce the amount of risk that the 40,000-odd miners in this province face every day as part of their job.

1650

The report itself, as I have said, is very comprehensive, and my colleague the chairman, the member for Nickel Belt, has just addressed some of the areas from his perspective. I notice that his perspective is a little more partisan, shall I say, than it was during the hearings, which I also respect totally. I would not expect him to come in here and not serve his responsibility to the people he represents, and I must say that there are a lot more mines in the riding of Nickel Belt than there are in Mississauga South. Nevertheless, I think it speaks of the makeup of this committee that people without mines in their riding, without any knowledge of the mining industry, can go and spend several months, as we did, and come out doing a better job of representing the people for whom all of us share the responsibility in this Legislature of making recommendations; we do it far more effectively because we had the opportunity that we did have on this committee.

If I had to single out one really impressive item that had a tremendous impact on me, it was the very fact that miners in most of those mining operations work with minimal lighting. I know that this is a very strong recommendation of the committee report. The fact is that if you have such minimal lighting, other than the sound of listening to what is happening on those rock faces, you cannot even have the benefit of seeing what might be developing as a problem. When you walk to the end of those stopes at the end of the drifts -- we had a study in terminology during the course of the hearings as well -- quite often the only light, as was said a few moments ago, is the miner’s lamp on his hat; if a problem develops and the miner is actually then on the ground, that is where the light is.

There are some large pieces of equipment that do have large floodlights as part of them, but when these people are doing other procedures as part of their mining operation, whether it is in fact scaling and bolting or just simply moving through the mine itself, there are miles and miles that they walk every day to where they are going to be working and the only light is the light on their hats. That is one of the reasons we felt so strongly about the necessity for auxiliary lighting.

Those of us who stood underneath scaling operations and watched them chipping away at the loose scale and then bolting to secure the rock face that was above us certainly learned very quickly that any additional protection, such as the wire mesh, around those rock faces is something that just has to be mandatory and extended more than it is currently.

Yes, we did look at the bonus system. I think it would be fair to say that all of us on the committee going into those hearings, when we first started to discuss the bonus system, thought, “That is something that is going to have to go,” because obviously, if people are only working under pressure to produce, to earn more money, then the care with which they work has to be forfeited.

At the end of our review of this subject, we felt the internal responsibility system overrode some of the perils we thought might have been in the bonus system itself. Those miners know they work as a team, they know they are responsible for each other, and if they are well trained and refresher training is part of their ongoing program, then they do not develop a system where they are going to go through shortcuts in order to produce their volumes and earn their bonuses. In fact, I think the bonus system is only equitable for those people who do work extremely hard and, as I said at the outset, under very bad circumstances in terms of a foreign environment, a hostile environment.

One of the things that we looked at too was the level of illiteracy, whether people go into this occupation with minimal education and perhaps for them with a level of illiteracy they might not have had they gone further with their education. You think, “How does that affect this operation?” It does affect safety very keenly, because it affects their ability to read the training manuals and really comprehend in a meaningful way what those manuals are saying to them. Therefore, we felt some of the presentation of the training manuals should be more graphic and more simply expressed in terms of language so that if you had a grade 9 education, you would not have difficulty in understanding what it was the manual was telling you to do in order to be a safe miner.

One of the other very serious areas for all of us was the definition of an accident. It seems that when accidents occur, there is a whole gamut of ways of reporting. When do you write up this kind of accident versus that kind of accident? The fact that there really was not a clear definition of an accident which had to be reported in writing was something that astounded all of us. We felt there had to be a very clear definition in order to prove definitely that this categorizes an accident and therefore we would have consistent reporting.

The Ministry of Labour, in response to our recommendation on that, said it was prepared to “participate in the development of a standardized criteria for the reporting of accidents.” I would think “a standardized criteria” does mean definitions, so I do not quite know why the Ministry of Labour was shying away from wanting to have clearer definitions.

One of our recommendations too was that the chief executive officer should assume responsibility for the fail-safe concept in mine design, mining equipment and production procedures. The response of the ministry was that the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Ontario and the Ontario Mining Association are the appropriate organizations to jointly encourage CEOs to adopt the use of fail-safe designs at mines. Certainly that is part of it, but my feeling is that the Ministry of Labour has to have a role in this. After all, the Ministry of Labour is there to protect the miners.

Also, when we recommended that the guide to the Occupational Health and Safety Act should be more widely distributed among workers in the mining industry, we were amazed how these kinds of materials were not literally in everybody’s lunchpail; they were something the inspectors and the administration had, but we were not convinced they were something the man in the shaft actually working the mine had.

1700

The Ministry of Labour has said that it is an organization responsible for the distribution of information directly pertaining to health and safety legislation and the mining health and safety branch will make explanatory information on the act more available to workers by distributing these publications to the mining sector so that copies are posted and made available to workers on request. I think what this begs is, how many workers urgently request copies? Is this a method of quietly limiting the distribution? The point is that they have to be widely distributed. Everybody has to have one. I do not think it should be dealt with on a request basis.

We also discussed the common core program. The ministry said it is questionable whether the entire common core program should be covered before the worker is allowed to begin work. The common core program is the basic training program for that miner before he goes underground. We felt that should be a requirement. The decisions as to the frequency of refresher training should rest with the individual employer. This is what the mining health and safety branch is saying. What we are saying is no, it cannot rest with the individual employer; it has to be mandated. Refresher courses have to be mandated, just the same as the entire common core program, prior to going to begin work underground, must be mandated. I think we could have too much spinning off to the private sector.

One of our recommendations was that worker safety representatives who are adequately trained in the act and regulations should be empowered by statute to order a halt to any specific operation that they believe is unsafe and may put workers at risk. The response of the ministry to this recommendation was the there are mechanisms currently available to workers for protecting their safety in the event that the internal responsibility system fails to resolve their concerns; these include the right to refuse work.

One thing we certainly heard was that if the employer felt that an individual was crying wolf and that particular employee became a bit of a problem, here are ways fro the employer to dismiss a chronic complainer. We are not saying there are not some chronic complainers, but what we are saying is that if we are really going to protect those workers, they are the ones who are down there. They are the ones who see the condition in which they are working and only they are the ones who know whether that condition is unsafe. It may have become unsafe two minutes ago because of some condition in the ore body that surrounds them. Those are the people who have to address those concerns.

This is a tremendously interesting report. I recognize there are other people who wish to speak to it. I do have other points that I would like to have addressed, but with respect to my other colleagues in the House who want to speak on this important subject, I think I will close just by saying that the internal responsibility system has to be the basic pivot around which mining safety has to work, because those are the workers. Those are the people who are down there. They are the ones who are responsible for each other. It is fine to have a management system. It is fine to have a ministry. It is fine to have other people above ground who have all kinds of theories and systems. But the only system that works for those miners underground, when they are working in that hostile, unnatural environment, is the internal responsibility system, and that cannot be reinforced enough.

We are concerned about the number of inspectors and we are wondering how mining safety can be improved unless the ministry is seriously ready and willing to hire enough mining inspectors to deal with the kinds of realistic inspections that will result in safety. We also want to look very closely at remote sites such as the ones that are faced by the diamond drill operators.

In closing, I know that I have to tell members that when we talked about ergonomics -- and I am sure the member for Essex-Kent will address his concerns; he was continually asking excellent questions about ergonomics and the design of the equipment that these people use. I want to tell members that I had never seen a scooptram, and after I saw it and saw this awful little seat and the conditions under which that driver sits for six, seven or eight hours at a time, with his head ducked down because he has the top of the drift above his head, and he is driving this scooptram at very high speed with very heavy loads, it is a massive piece of equipment, and how he endures that particular ordeal is certainly beyond me.

I know we were all very impressed with the fact that there has got to be improved equipment for these people to use in order that they have something left of their bodies when they come to retire, because the shattering and the shaking and the vibration that those bodies go through while they are operating some of that equipment is tremendous.

Certainly the other question of occupational illness and disease as a result of mining underground is also a terribly critical area that has to be addressed.

We look forward to the recommendations of this report being adopted by the government and the government giving direction to its ministry in order that mining safety can be improved in this province and that those people who have to work underground, in order that the rest of us benefit from the ore that they mine and all the uses and the applications that we have and enjoy in the 20th century, are not put at risk while they are doing their job.

In closing, I do want again to thank my colleagues on that committee for a very positive and enjoyable experience while being most productive and educational.

Mr. McGuigan: I thank the member for Mississauga South for her kind remarks. Like all members, I found it a great experience to be on this committee. I would say that in my almost 12 years in this chamber, I look upon this particular committee as probably the most rewarding in terms of personal satisfaction in getting a job done. As has been mentioned by other members, throughout this there was very little partisanship that we all take as part of this chamber, because I think we all realized we were dealing with people’s lives, we were dealing with their health and with their safety and with their industry.

I commend the chairman of our committee, the member for Nickel Belt, for his sensitive handling of that, but I have to register that I do not quite agree with some of his remarks here this afternoon in that when we talked to the miners themselves and when we talked to the mill owners and people in the community -- and I must say I certainly got the feeling that these people were all talking freely in all respects; every one of them was forthright and free in his exchange of opinions -- we were not really getting that ideological split between socialism and capitalism that perhaps was a factor in times past and that was a factor in those disease situations.

1710

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Nickel Belt, good fellow though be is, is a hopeless captive of that ideology from which there is just no removing him.

Mr. McGuigan: Well, we are working on him and we have made quite a bit of progress, I would say. But I do not completely agree with some of his remarks here this afternoon, although I personally have a very high regard for that member.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I hear he is dangerously charming.

Mr. McGuigan: Yes. He is a very good chairman, too.

The member for Mississauga South mentioned my concern about agronomics. Throughout the whole exercise I, as a person from a farm community and being a farmer, related a lot of the things I saw to operations on the farm -- which, incidentally, on a per capita basis, is more dangerous than mining. But one of the things we have done in agriculture is that we have spent a lot of money and put a lot of effort into making these big machines more comfortable.

The trucking industry and the bus industry have done the same thing. Looking at the seats found in a modern highway transport truck or in a combine or tractor, one will find that those seats have been scientifically designed. They cost $2,000 and $3,000 apiece. They do not let money stand in the way of making comfortable seats that are going to have an effect upon a person’s health.

One thing one could not help but observe in the mining equipment is that it is very compact and the engineers would have difficulty if they required space; movable seats, adjustable seats and actually shock-absorbing seats do require quite a bit more space. But I am sure that with a bit of effort and some concern, that could be done.

One of the things we agreed upon -- and it is not surprising -- is the internal responsibility system. We recognize that it has some controversy about it. But I was quite pleased; before Christmas I attended the reception by the Ontario Mining Association here in Toronto.

I was told by a number of people there that the IRS has in recent weeks caught on among the miners and in the mining community. I might be a bit presumptuous, but I would like to think that it had something to do with this report because, as the chairman has mentioned, we put a lot of emphasis in this report -- and I claim some credit for this -- on putting responsibility on the chief executive officer; that it is not enough to have a vice-president or an official further down the line in charge of safety matters, because in any bureaucracy, whether it is government bureaucracy or the bureaucracy within a company, the middle managers are in a very difficult position because they find themselves at times having to make policy decisions not knowing whether the person at the top is going to back up that policy decision.

I think there is a built-in aversion for those who make bold decisions: they tend to be a bit conservative, in the nonpolitical sense, in making those decisions, whereas the person at the top has that authority and can make those decisions.

I think that through this report we took away that old stigma that may have been part of the past, part of that old ideological system that when an accident happened it was always the workers who were at fault. We took that away, and it seems to me that by doing so we may have assisted in clearing the atmosphere in that regard.

Also, another thing that I was impressed with, talking to the mining executives, was that none of them criticized our report, and this is a bold, far-reaching report. I believe it goes beyond anything that has been done in the past. It makes very strong, very bold recommendations. I would have thought the mining executives would have criticized us, and they did not.

We sensed in the deliberations that there is a recognition on all parts that safety pays. It pays in the pure economic sense and it pays in the social sense, in having a cohesive workforce, in encouraging people to stay within the industry, in encouraging new people to come into the industry and in having stability and a peaceful atmosphere within the community in which they work.

We all recognize that mining communities are unique. They are not as diverse in their occupations and in their outlooks as communities in southern Ontario. Wherever we went we had the feeling that the managers and the heads of the companies endorsed safety and were not holding back in trying to do everything they could to promote it. I make that observation, that this has not brought about a backlash.

As has been mentioned, in respect to the causes of mining accidents we found that the committee received considerable comment on accident statistics in the mining sector and compared these figures to those in other industries in Ontario.

I might just mention that I think when most of us came on to this committee, having had no or very little previous experience in mines, it probably conjured up in our minds one of those old Walter Pidgeon movies, How Green Was My Valley, and the coal mines in Great Britain or in eastern Canada and the frequency of cave-ins and explosions and so on that contributed to the deaths of the miners. -

But I found it rather interesting and surprising that the number of people who are killed by rockfalls was actually that low a percentage. You have to be very careful in talking about percentages and people, because it is individuals who are involved, but I was pleasantly surprised that rockfalls contribute to about only 22 per cent, whereas we commonly think of a mine as a place where there are constant cave-ins.

The rest of the wide list of reasons perhaps have to do with the hostile atmosphere of a mine, perhaps the less lighting that we have there and the conditions under which they work. But they are also situations that exist in forestry, in mining, in construction and even in agriculture.

We found that the lost-time accidents have declined over the last six years. The injury frequency rate, which is based on the number of lost-time accidents per 100 mining employees, has also decreased by approximately 20 per cent over the same period, giving mining the fourth-best ranking among the nine industry associations in Ontario.

However, the committee discovered that in terms of accident severity or average duration on compensation, the mining industry has the highest severity rate of any industry in the province. I think that is understandable when you look at the work they were doing. One of the ones I found the most baffling and the hardest to deal with was the question of the people who were working on scaling, getting the loose rock off the walls and the -- we would say “ceiling,” they call it the “back,” getting the rock off those.

In the soft-rock mining, in the salt, they have a big machine that sort of looks like a dinosaur with a huge beak. The operator is standing here and the beak is back up on the gallery someplace, scraping along the ceilings, so that the operator is a long distance from where the action is taken.

The problem hardrock mining is to have a machine that can actually operate with very hard, granite rock and can feel out the fissures and the cracks that are so necessary to pull that loose material down.

1720

On top of that, you can well imagine what it is like for the person working there with a scaling bar, which is the alternative to this dinosaur-looking piece of equipment. When he starts pulling on a piece of rock, I would think that he would exert a certain amount of energy and a certain amount of risk beyond which he could scarcely stop. The person prying on that rock is trying to make a mental decision of whether he is going to bring down the whole roof, or thousands of tons or hundreds of tons, or whether he is going to bring off a piece that is only 400 or 500 pounds. To a certain extent in my mind I could see these people sort of reaching a point of no return: Do you stop prying on this thing and make the decision that it is not going to fall, or do you put a little more effort into it and it will fall? And, of course, the chance is that it will fall upon the person.

These people have a tremendous responsibility because on them depends the safety of all the people who are travelling later on within those galleries in the mine. You have to take your hat off to and marvel at these wonderful people. I have to make that comment about all of the miners; they are such great, solid people. I sensed that because I have worked all of my life with working crews. I credit myself at least with having an eye for recognizing great people, and I would have to say that about all the miners that we met. Certainly your heart goes out to those people who are doing the scaling; it is sort of in the same range, I guess, in military terms as the person who walks through with a mine detector, clearing the way for the other people.

The fact that a person can only stand that type of work when he is young and muscular and can stand up to the physical rigours of the job certainly makes that a very difficult area to deal with. If we could have pulled out of a hat someplace, regardless of the money involved, some machine that would take over that person’s job, every one of us on the committee would have recommended it. In fact, we did recommend that all efforts be made towards mechanizing that job. But, as one person who has worked in a practical sense, I recognize that it may not be as easy as all that to solve.

Mr. Speaker, others want to speak on this question, and I could go on quite a bit longer, but I just want to finish by saying how dependent all of us are in Ontario on those people who work in mines, in forestry, in the construction industries and in farming where, in spite of everything that we do and in spite of all of our best intentions, things do happen. It is up to this committee and this government to adopt as many of these recommendations as we possibly can and to make our workplace in the mines much safer.

Just in conclusion, I have no hesitation whatsoever in standing personally behind every recommendation that we made in this extensive review. I hope over the next few months and years we will see most, if not all, of it adopted.

Mr. Wiseman: I would like to say a few words regarding our report on fatal accidents in the mining industry and to say that I enjoyed being on this committee, having never been down in a mine in my life. On the role that our chairman played in this, I think the member for Nickel Belt is to be congratulated, as everyone else prior to my speaking has said as well.

As I said, I never thought I would ever be down in a mine. I can relate and will always relate to the first trip we had down, and the last trip. On the first trip, we were in a gypsum mine. That goes into making Gyproc. When I saw the machine that we were to ride down in, being scared of being underground, if it had not been that we had three ladies on the trip with us and I did not want to show them and some of the other people who were there that I was afraid -- when we came up for lunch that day, I was not sure whether I could consume any lunch or not. As time went on, I guess my stomach and one thing and another adjusted to it.

If I had my druthers on the mines we visited, I think I would go for the salt mine. It had very much more clearance above us. As we rode down that track at the first, the gypsum mine, I kept putting my head down maybe further than I needed to, but I felt that the wall was going to hit me at some point.

Another comical little thing that happened that day, as committee members will remember, was that the bus driver walked out of his rubber boots right into that clay. The conditions were less than favourable back there in that particular mine.

I would like to thank and congratulate all the people who came out at the different mining sites to give us the tours and arrange for the tours. They were very good. I think they tried to honestly answer any questions that we had. Also, at the forums that came after we toured the mines and came above ground, whether they were in a hall later on that night or at some other point in the day, as was mentioned before, I thought everyone brought an honest and open discussion to the round table.

I will just mention this briefly and then I will go on to the report. At the last mine that I was in, the chap took a look at three of us -- the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, the member for Lake Nipigon and myself -- and he said, “You three fellows can come with me.” I am also scared of heights, and with that one little light that they mentioned that was on there, we climbed a ladder about 35 or 40 feet this way, crossed over and went another 35 or 40 feet this way and way up into a hole where this fellow was working all by himself. When he told me how high I had climbed in the dark, I said to him, “Is there another way down?” He said: “No. You have to go down the same way you came up.” Going down was worse, because I knew just how high it was. With the water dripping off the boots and the mud and everything, I was glad to be a politician and not a miner.

We did make a lot of recommendations in this report. As was said before, I hope that many of them are accepted by the government. I would like to mention that as we went around, some mines had a chief executive officer and some mines did not. I think we agreed that all mines should have one. Where they had them, they seemed to work quite well.

The lighting has been mentioned before. We saw examples, as some people said earlier, of where they just had their lamps. I think we all agreed that there would be less chance of accidents where it was illuminated properly.

Like my friend the member for Essex-Kent, I thought that much could be done with the machinery to improve it. There is the constant jar on the person’s back, or in some cases, as the member for Mississauga South mentioned, where they have to bend over for a long period of time; I think that was maybe in the gypsum mine. I do not know just how long a person’s body could take that. There are proper springs and proper seating and so on to help absorb some of that shock to the spine and the rest of the body.

1730

Like some others, I was concerned about the rock and rockbursts. I found, as others did, that some had engineers on rock mechanics. I think it is good where we have said in our report that the firm should send them back for further training along that line.

I was quite impressed with the system they have in the north of detecting rockbursts throughout the north. I believe it was in Timmins they had that; I am not sure, but I was impressed with the system they had that could monitor any rockbursts throughout the north at a couple of different locations.

If members recall, one mine we were in had a mechanical scaler where the people were well back from where the machine was scaling off the roof. It came down, and it was as big as about two or three times the size of the Clerk’s table. Had it hit anybody, he would have been a goner about eight to 10 inches deep. It showed, I suggest, as we have in our report here, that they all should have mechanical scalers.

One that I do not think has been mentioned to date is the refuge stations and lunchrooms. Some had those and some did not, but I think it just stands to reason that you should have a place down there with proper facilities in which to eat your lunch, or in case something goes wrong in the mine, so you have a chance to survive a few hours, hopefully, until you are rescued.

With respect to the diamond drillers -- I know others want to talk -- and the fact that people are isolated with maybe two people way out in the boondocks someplace, or maybe there are more than that such as five or six, with very little to do after work, we found that alcohol and sometimes drugs had become quite a problem. We are recommending in our report that there be some sort of recreation to help those people in their off hours so they do not get into alcohol and drugs, and also that they have an understanding and at least the common core training, that they have some idea, if they are isolated, with one or two on a rig waiting for a plane to come and get them, about the operation of a radio.

I know everybody is watching the clock because we all have just a few minutes here and we want to finish this debate this afternoon, but again, I think the recommendations that are here are good, sound recommendations.

We have had two or three other reports done, as our chairman has mentioned earlier. Some people have said, “Why another committee coming around asking us much the same questions?” I think we are maybe in a unique situation in that we are legislators, and hopefully, because of the fact we have a unanimous report, the government will listen to our recommendations and act upon them. For those people who said, “What do you people really know about mining?” we told them, “Nothing, but we are good listeners, and hopefully, fast learners, or at least learners, and something will be done if you tell us and explain what the situation is.” They told us that, we have it in the report and now it is up to the government to act upon it.

Mr. Miclash: I, too, would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed our tour across the province. As a lot of the members will realize, mining is one of the major activities in my riding. It was kind of nice to end up in the last mine in the riding of Kenora. I, too, would like to comment on the fine leadership shown by the chairman, the member for Nickel Belt, as he led us through many mines and many tours. It was quite an educational experience and a very interesting one.

As members will probably know, historically, serious accidents and fatalities have always been the realities in mining around the world, not necessarily just in Ontario but throughout the entire world. During our travel throughout the province, the committee received a great amount of information about accident statistics in the mining sector and we compared those to other industries in Ontario. As one of the previous speakers mentioned, we noticed that lost-time accidents have declined over the past six years, with a decrease of some 20 per cent in lost-time accidents per 100 employees.

As well, in terms of injury frequency rates, we found out that the mines ranked fourth-best among nine safety associations, behind the pulp and paper, health care and electrical utilities associations. We found them ranking fourth-best in terms of safety. However, we did find that the accident severity or average duration of compensation experience of the mining sector is the worst of all the other industrial sectors.

The committee believed that an overemphasis by the mining industry on reducing lost-time accidents may be distracting the industry from controlling and reducing medical aid injuries. The mining industry has a higher medical aid to lost-time ratio relative to the rest of the province.

The committee also recognized the nature of mining is such that when an accident occurs the consequences are usually more serious than in other industries in general. Some of the speakers have already talked about the various conditions you find down in a mine, some of the scaling operations. Very serious accidents can happen as a result of improper use of equipment and just freak accidents, as I would call them.

We have recommendations in the report for the industry to establish a working group to improve the basis for gathering and reporting accident statistics. An earlier speaker mentioned there was often a lack of definition of what an accident was, and we found this as we travelled throughout the province.

The Ministry of Labour will approach the safety association and request that it take a lead in establishing a working group to develop a system whereby the number and frequency of lost-time and medical aid injuries can be tracked in a consistent manner. It will allow for a more accurate determination of accident trends and result in companies being recognized for their good safety performance. We heard much about many of the mines establishing a good safety record, yet not being recognized for such performance.

In addition to these improvements, the ministry has had a key role in the establishment of a national database on mining accidents. A computerized database has been developed through the efforts of the Association of Chief Inspectors in Mines from the various provinces. Accidents from both Ontario and British Columbia have been inputted into this database and we have Quebec agreeing to modify its system so it can also take part in this database.

We see a tremendous amount of important work being done to identify the causes of serious injury in the mining sector and to determine how this can be prevented.

There is also an enormous concern about fatalities in the mining workplace. During the last two years, there have been 31 mining deaths in Ontario; 19 of them were last year with 12 in the previous year. We have a number of initiatives that have been taken to arrest this disturbing trend.

We take a look at labour, management and the safety association as working together with the ministry on four initiatives to combat the fatality problem.

First, the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Ontario has had its staff trained to be trainers in fail-safe analysis. Training sessions for employees from Ontario mines are presently under way. A research consultant analysed mining accidents that resulted in fatalities and found that workers transferred to a new job within 12 months and contractors have a disproportionate share of fatalities. As well, we see that steps are being taken to address these.

1740

At the present time, the ministry’s mining health and safety branch is developing a program to target more of the branch’s resources on these contractors, where we found a lot of the accidents were taking place. The branch has recently held an intensive two-day session with labour and industry to develop the internal responsibility system and evaluation package. A draft of this package should be ready for distribution later this month with a view to making the internal responsibility system more effective in preventing the accidents we talk about.

The final report of a pilot study to determine the effect of attitudes on accidents is nearing completion. The report suggests ways to make safety programs more effective within our mines.

As I mentioned earlier, Ontario has taken a lead role in the development of a national fatalities database with the chief inspectors of mines from across Canada. We are proud of the role the province has taken in this area. In addition, the branch has established an internal task force to develop strategies for improving the safety performance of our contractors.

As a result, four initiatives have been identified. They include targeting contractors for additional inspections, particularly when they are working from heights. We found this was a particular hazard in the mining area, as was mentioned earlier by a member. With the industry’s engineers we are looking for a better design of the work platforms, to improve their design criteria.

As well, we must look at the communication with the contractors I spoke about regarding their overall poor safety record and the high number of fatalities. Finally, there is a review of contractors’ training programs as part of the branch’s inspection activities.

At this time, the branch has a pilot project in Sudbury, at all the Sudbury mining operations, where orders are being issued to the specific contraveners, be they workers, supervisors or employers. The goal is to have all parties in the workplace knowledgeable as to their duties and accountabilities, in order to improve the internal responsibility system.

The reduction of the incidence of fatalities in the mining sector requires the ongoing efforts of all the stakeholders, in particular labour, industry and government. Several years will be required before improvement in fatal accident statistics becomes evident. In the interim, each specific fatality is investigated in order to determine the cause and any required preventive action.

In wrapping up, I would just like to say that I very much enjoyed our trip across the province and our meetings with management, labour and the Ontario Mining Association. Again, I found it a very educational and most worthwhile experience.

Mrs. Sullivan: I am pleased to take part in this debate today and to add my commendations to the standing committee for the fine work it has done on the mining safety question. As well, I would like to commend the work of the chairman, who has already been recognized by members who participated in the committee, for his leadership in his chair duties.

As we know, Ontario has had one of the world’s outstanding mining sectors for many decades. By international measure, our mining sector has been innovative, productive and competitive. Indeed, some of the technological innovations in Ontario’s mining industry, which have increased productivity and competitiveness, have also enhanced health and safety.

Nevertheless, Ontario has had its grim share of mining illness, injury and death. The province has responded to that difficult reality thoroughly and actively. This committee’s report, as has been pointed out by the chairman and other speakers, marks the fourth major look at mining health and safety since 1974. l am assured by the minister that the implementation of its recommendations will be determined and conscientious. In fact, that implementation is well under way.

Last November 24, the Minister of Labour tabled in this assembly the ministry’s response to the standing committee’s report. It describes how the ministry is promoting action by various responsible stakeholders in the mining sector. It also points to the action that is being taken and will be taken on the recommendations that are the responsibility of the ministry itself.

The report makes four recommendations about the ministry’s mining health and safety branch. First, it recommends that the branch have additional resources to maintain enough trained inspectors so there can be a sustained presence in the workplace, given the current levels of mining activity. Like other programs in the ministry, the resource requirements for the MHSB are under constant review and the committee’s recommendations will be taken into account in that review.

In some instances, existing resources can be better utilized by targeting issues specific to a client. The ministry is certainly aware of the pressures on the branch resulting from the increased mining activity and will take action to ensure there is proper coverage of the mining sector.

Second, the report recommends the ministry be more responsive to the concerns of the MHSB inspectors as they pertain to possible changes to the act and regulations and to ensure that the inspectors’ input is passed on to the Mining Legislative Review Committee for consideration. The MHSB encourages staff to propose improvements to the regulations.

In 1986, an internal regulation review committee was struck to review proposals for changes to regulations that were submitted from branch staff. The regulation review committee made recommendations to the chief engineers of the MHSB, who in turn presented them, where appropriate, to the Mining Legislative Review Committee. The branch’s regulation review committee is now being split into subcommittees reflecting the three disciplines of mining, electrical-mechanical and working environment. This restructuring, we believe, will provide for broader input from field staff and quicker action on proposed amendments.

Third, the standing committee’s report recommends that the MHSB, by streamlining internal procedures, shorten the period of time between the laying of charges and the commission of an offence. In addition, penalties and fines for contravention of the act and regulations should be increased.

The MHSB is quite sensitive to the time delays associated with prosecution decisions and is working to shorten the time period between the laying of charges and an offence. As one step, it has introduced a computerized prosecution tracking system, which will help overcome these delays. Also, in the past two years, it should be noted that the legal branch staff complement has been increased by nine people.

The act currently stipulates that a corporation convicted of an offence under the act is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000. Consideration is now being given to an increase in the penalties and fines for contravening the legislation.

In addition to recommending changes in the mining branch, the standing committee’s report also recommends regulatory changes in fall-on protection systems, mine lighting, underground communications, refuge stations, lunchrooms and first aid.

The ministry has referred all of these recommendations for legislative changes to the Mining Legislative Review Committee. The MLRC consists of eight appointees, four each from labour and management, and it advises the Minister of Labour on all changes to the mining regulations. It has already begun deliberations on amending the mining regulations.

As members know and several have mentioned today, the active interest and involvement of the chief executive officer of an organization can have a powerful impact on corporate health and safety performance. The standing committee has recommended that the CEO of each mining company in Ontario personally review reports of each accident and fatality and, once a year, affirm in writing that this review has been conducted. Copies of this statement should be made available to the joint health and safety committees of the company.

The appropriate body to take the lead role in encouraging company CEOs to review accident and fatality reports from their mines is the Ontario Mining Association. The Ontario Ministry of Labour will meet with the OMA and discuss this recommendation further with it.

The MHSB, I should point out, also believes the activities of CEOs personally monitoring the overall safety performance of their companies, by reviewing all reports of serious accidents and fatalities and communicating their personal assessment, is tremendously important. The branch itself currently monitors the safety performance of companies by analysing accident statistics and trends.

When a company shows substandard safety performances, a senior mining health and safety branch staff person, usually the director, arranges a meeting with the chief executive officer to suggest ways in which the safety performance of the company can be improved and to solicit the support and commitment of the CEO to initiate that improvement. In addition, the role of the CEO in safety in the workplace is being considered as amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that are now being developed.

1750

The standing committee has also recommended that the CEO should assume responsibility for the fail-safe concept in mine design, mining equipment and production procedures. MAPAO and the OMA are the appropriate organizations, we think, to jointly encourage CEOs to adopt the use of fail-safe designs at mines. In fact, MAPAO is the source for training workplace parties in the application of fail-safe principles in mine design, design of mining equipment and production procedures. MAPAO has had some of its staff trained to be fail-safe trainers and has begun the training process in Ontario. The MHSB will have its engineers trained in fail-safe principles. Mining companies are required to submit information about major alterations to branch engineers who will audit those for the application of fail-safe principles where deemed appropriate.

In another area, the standing committee has made a number of important recommendations on training and the internal responsibility system. To understand their rights and responsibilities under the legislation and to function properly as members of the internal responsibility system, it recommends that workers should receive more comprehensive training in the act and regulations within the first year of employment under the umbrella of a common core training and receive regular refresher courses.

The current legislation sets up the basis for the internal responsibility system. The minister has indicated that in the amendments to the act now under consideration, the thrust will be to improve the IRS by broadening the role of the joint health and safety committees and by enabling the Minister of Labour to prescribe occupational health and safety training programs, including training on the legislation.

It is important that workers be given comprehensive training in the act and regulations under the umbrella of the common core program. The MHSB believes that the tripartite Committee on Mining Training should consider incorporating or expanding training in the legislation into the common core program. Since the MHSB is represented on this committee, the branch will ensure that these recommendations are discussed by that group.

In connection with high-risk personnel such as diamond drillers and employees of mining contractors, the standing committee has recommended that new workers in these operations should receive safety training modelled on the common core before they begin their job and receive refresher courses at regular intervals. The diamond drill contractors are now working with the Committee on Mining Training to develop a common core program for surface and underground diamond drillers. Once developed, this training would be incorporated into section 10 of the regulations. Mining contractors are already required to take the basic common core program within the first year of employment.

Let me turn to the standing committee’s work on joint health and safety committees. In response to these recommendations which have been described at length earlier in this debate, it is the view of the ministry that mine management should take the responsibility for ensuring that there is proper action and response to the recommendations of the JHSC. A timely response from management to the recommendations of the JHSC is a necessary part of creating trust and open communication between the workplace parties. This is an integral component of a functioning IRS.

MHSB inspectors have, for many years, audited the minutes of the JHSC meetings as part of their regular inspection duties. They will continue to do so. In addition, before the start of all formal inspections, MHSB inspectors review outstanding concerns with the worker representative. Their recommendations and concerns are dealt with by the inspector as a part of the inspection. Consideration is now being given in future amendments to the act to include a provision requiring the employer to respond in writing to recommendations made by the JHSC.

In so far as worker safety representatives are concerned, the report makes four recommendations regarding mandatory full-time worker representatives having authority to stop unsafe work and having other responsibilities if developed in a tripartite manner.

The act now requires that a health and safety representative inspect the workplace not more than once a month. Consideration is being given to amending the act to broaden the power of worker safety representatives, to inspect the workplace and to increase the frequency of inspections by the worker safety representatives.

The matter of legislated worker inspectors was discussed during a meeting of the legislative review committee last September. The committee agreed to prepare draft regulations for the provision of worker safety representatives at mines.

The development of general guidelines respecting rules and responsibilities of worker safety representatives will be made by the Ministry of Labour following consultation with the mining legislative review committee.

With respect to MAPAO, the standing committee report makes four recommendations designed to strengthen MAPAO’s role and broaden the coverage of its training programs. The ministry understands that MAPAO is implementing the recommendations of the report to the Occupational Health and Safety Education Authority.

The mining branch will, as part of its ongoing program, identify poor performers and target activities to turn around contractors showing poor safety performance. In addition, the mining health and safety branch will refer employers to MAPAO when the resources provided by the association could assist that operation.

The standing committee has also looked at the question of production bonuses, and in that connection has made two recommendations. The MHSB, MAPAO and the tripartite mining fatalities committee have been proposed as the appropriate bodies to pursue four initiatives suggested by the MHSB in the report entitled Bonus Accidents: A Study. This report was prepared by the branch and was tabled with the mining fatalities committee at its meeting on May 20, 1988.

It should be noted that some Ontario mining operations are trying a bonus scheme which incorporates a safety component already. Their safety performance will be reviewed by the ministry after a suitable period of time with experience.

The MHSB will continue to analyse whether bonus was a causative factor as part of all fatal and critical investigations and will request MAPAO to periodically publish accident trend statistics for workers performing similar work under different bonus incentive schemes.

Upon completion of the Laval study into bonus systems, the MHSB will review the findings and will bring the results of the study, if appropriate, to the attention of the mining fatalities committee or the mining legislative review committee.

Finally, with respect to occupational illness and disease, the standing committee recommends that the government should continue to study the occupational illness and disease concerns of miners with the assistance of competent professionals, in order to establish appropriate diagnostic and intervention strategies designed to prevent a recurrence of past problems.

The government has carried out several studies into health-related matters in the mining sector. These studies have helped to ensure that Ontario miners are protected by appropriate workplace environmental standards.

The most recent has been the two-phased Muller study which resulted in substantial changes to workers’ compensation for gold miners and investigations to ascertain the causes. An extension of the Muller study is under way to determine any ongoing health problems being experienced by gold miners. The test group for this study will include gold miners employed in the mining sector during the period from 1977 to 1987.

To sum up, much is being done to implement the recommendations of the standing committee. I know that honourable members will join me in expressing our wish and confidence that the committee’s work and the initiatives flowing from it will indeed increase safety for workplace health in Ontario’s miners.

I know that many of the members of the committee were reviewing the mine safety issues for the first time in their lives, let alone in their legislative careers. They should be congratulated for an incisive, competent and complete report.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

January 3, 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

HEALTH SERVICES

JOSEPH DELBERT ADAMS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

KEN MCCANN

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE SHOOTING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

POLICE SHOOTING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOME CARE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

PARALEGALS

ACID RAIN

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

OPTOMETRISTS’ FEES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

MADAWASKA HIGHLANDS REGIONAL TRUST PARK

HOME CARE

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET (CONTINUED)

REPORT, STANDING COMMIITEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (CONTINUED)