Journal des débats 1984-juin-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to rise to pay tribute to two of Ontario's outstanding athletes, swimmers Victor Davis from Guelph and Alex Baumann from Sudbury, Ontario. In the past week, these two swimmers have cut through the water faster than the Ontario Provincial Police cruiser taking the Premier (Mr. Davis) across the Detroit River.

Last night Victor Davis broke his own world record in the 200-metre breast stroke. Similarly, his good friend and rival Alex Baumann set a world record for the 400-metre individual medley by chopping two seconds off the previous record set by an East German swimmer. These are both outstanding achievements, and both these athletes deserve recognition by this Legislature.

Alex Baumann has swum with constant pain for the last several years. In fact, he dropped out of swimming for a year. When it was determined that swimming would not actually harm his shoulder, although it is constantly painful, he resumed his career with outstanding results.

Similarly, Victor Davis for the past year has had to overcome a serious bout of mononucleosis and has been battling sciatica, so much so that six weeks ago he could barely walk. Last night he beat that sciatica and set a world record.

The success of these two young men symbolizes the strength of Canada's swim team. There are many other Canadian and Ontario swimmers, both men and women, such as Jane Kerr, Mike West and Reena Abdo, who are putting in outstanding performances this week at the Olympic trials in Etobicoke by setting Commonwealth and Canadian records and personal best times.

No other sport demands the discipline, the training time and the dedication that swimming does. The success of Alex Baumann and Victor Davis, the fast and the furious of Canadian swimming, speaks well for Canada's chances at the Olympics this summer. I might add that their record-setting performances prove their medals will not be debased by the unfortunate boycott.

A special word of tribute should go to their respective coaches, Cliff Barry of the Region of Waterloo Swim Club and Dr. Jeno Tihanyi of Laurentian University Swim Club. I am sure all members would like to join me in paying tribute to these two outstanding athletes in particular and to wish them and all their teammates well in their pursuit of gold this summer at Los Angeles.

Mr. O'Neil: Let us adjourn the House until we have some ministers here. This is ridiculous.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Before I get into that, I cannot help but wonder why the government would schedule the event it has, important as it is, at two o'clock when the House should be in session.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The House does not normally sit on Wednesdays.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Rainy River on a point of order.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I had a point I wanted to make in terms of Hansard; a mistake, unfortunately, in Hansard on page 1308, May 8, 1984.

In a question to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), it shows up in Hansard on page 1308 as, "Newsprint prices are still what they were in the spring of 1981. Studs are $2.49 per thousand; they were $3.11 per thousand one year ago."

Those figures should be $249 per thousand and $311 per thousand. That was not my mistake, I might add.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that very few members are in the House, particularly on the government side, where most of those on the Treasury benches are gone -- I would like to say all the heavyweights are out, but looking across, I see they are not -- I think at this point we should adjourn the House until the government can bring in some of its members.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a clarification and a point of privilege of my own. I wish to raise with you and the House once again the abuse of the privileges of myself and other members of this caucus by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) in his remarks in this Legislature on June 5, 1984, and partly addressed by the member on June 12, 1984.

When a member of this Legislature puts information on the record as to another member's voting record and is then informed that such information is incorrect, according to the recording in Votes and Proceedings, I believe it is imperative that the member should stand in his place and ask that the record be corrected.

The member for Windsor-Riverside has failed to do this. Unless the member corrects the record, which is what I am sure any honourable member would want to do, I will have no alternative but to put a motion before this House to have the member censured.

Mr. Speaker: My recollection of this incident, subject to correction, was that there were two statements attributed to the member. He did rise and withdraw one and then he said he would take the other under consideration.

Mr. Renwick: I think he said he would do the second one seven years from now.

Mr. Speaker: No, he did not say that at all. However, he is not in the House today.

Mr. Kerrio: We cannot even trust him to do that.

Mr. Wrye: He did not even withdraw the first one correctly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt it will be drawn to his attention.

Did the member for Essex North have another point? If not, the member for Quinte.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, could we not have a motion to adjourn the House until some of the government members are in?

Interjections.

2:10 p.m.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Speaker: I rise at my peril and I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the annual report of the Ombudsman of Ontario for 1983-84.

Statements by the ministry.

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Whoever is responsible on the government side should know that in the normal course of events in the morning we ask which ministers will be present and which will be away. We have been working on that assumption and understanding for a substantial period of time. It was our clear understanding that there were a number of ministers who were going to be here but who do not appear to be here.

I have no objection, but we would like to be attending the event downstairs. I would like to be able to participate in celebrating the people there. Why do we not break for half an hour and when the event is over downstairs, we can all come back and start asking questions properly?

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, speaking to that, the ministers will be up for question period. We have some statements to be made on this side and they will proceed in the normal order of business. The ministers will be here by the time the members are ready to ask questions.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made an interesting comment. He is quite right. In about half or three quarters of an hour when the celebration downstairs is over, the ministers will arrive back up and will ask the members of this Legislature for unanimous consent to revert to statements, and I have to tell them they will not get that today.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: They are here.

Mr. Nixon: They have been called for. He called statements and there was a lengthy, pregnant pause.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: There was a pause because one of the members from that side --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I sense disorder.

Mr. Speaker: Not quite.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, this Legislature traditionally sits on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. We are sitting on Wednesday this week because we are trying to get the business of the House completed as quickly as possible. Today, the government very much insulted this Legislature by taking most of its members downstairs for another session which happened to start about the same time as this House was going to start, at two o'clock.

That is an insult to this Legislature, and you, as the person in the chair, should have us recess for about half an hour, so we will come back when the front-benchers of the government are ready to come back and answer some questions. In the meantime, they are not very interested in doing the business of the House, otherwise they would be here. We cannot ask questions of those people we want because they are not here to answer.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to that point of order.

Mr. O'Neil: Why did you schedule it for today?

Hon. Mr. Eaton: The ceremony that is taking place downstairs was planned some months ago. The ministers are arriving. As yet, not one of the orders of business has been interrupted by their not being here. Statements are next, and we have two ministers to make statements.

Mr. Renwick: Statements are over. They have been called.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) did not deign to give his ministerial statement to the Legislature but is instead going to be giving it downstairs in the Legislative Building, surely it makes sense simply for you to adjourn the House so all of us can go down and hear the Premier's statement in the lobby of this Legislature.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the acting government House leader indicated that statements were the next order of business. Statements have already been called and an intervening item took place when the Speaker tabled the Ombudsman's report. It would require the unanimous consent of this House to revert to statements.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: With all due respect, somebody was standing in front of the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I may refresh the honourable member's mind, I did table the report from the Ombudsman and then I called for statements. Somebody then rose on a point of order and I recognized it. I am still calling for statements and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) has indicated he has a statement. Would he rise and give that statement.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, copies of this statement have been delivered to my critics, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes).

The statement will be of interest to all the people of northern Ontario. I hope people from southern Ontario will show an equal interest, concern and compassion. It is a very important statement that will reflect on the economy of northern Ontario for years to come.

In the recent budget brought down by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), he mentioned a new three-year, $10-million economic development program for northern Ontario. It is my pleasure today to announce details of that program to the members and the northern Ontario public.

The northern Ontario regional economic development program, or Nordev as it will be known, will reach into the heart of the northern Ontario small- and medium-sized business sector to provide incentive funding for a variety of economic activities. The Ministry of Northern Affairs will be making funds available in four different programs.

First and foremost is an employment incentive program. This program is intended to offer assistance to establish, expand or modernize small business operations to promote economic development in northern Ontario. Assistance for this program will be in the form of interest-free forgivable performance demand loans up to a maximum of $100,000.

Second is the industrial infrastructure program, the purpose of which is to assist in removing specific physical restraints to the development of identified small-scale private sector projects. Assistance may include mapping, power and water supply, waste disposal, access and other public services. Under this program, funding for the private sector will also take the form of interest-free forgivable loans up to a maximum of $100,000. Projects in the public sector will be in the form of grants not to exceed $200,000.

The third program is in the area of resource diversification and development. This program is intended to encourage the undertaking of investment and pre-investment studies, and demonstration projects for small-scale commercial activities with identified potential that will expand or diversify the use of natural resources. Assistance will be in the form of financial contributions of up to 75 per cent of the approved project cost, to a maximum of $75,000.

The fourth program is tourism development and is really two programs in one. This program will provide assistance for feasibility and planning studies to stimulate investment in the development or expansion of tourism projects of potentially regional significance.

Furthermore, it is designed to assist tourist operators to develop or expand their market programs, to create additional employment opportunities and to stimulate related economic activities. For the tourist operator undertaking marketing studies, grant contributions will be available up to a maximum of $50,000.

We know that well over half of all the new jobs created in Canada each year are in the small- and medium-sized business sector, in companies employing fewer than 20 people. That sector also happens to represent the area of greatest opportunity for economic development and diversification in northern Ontario. That is why we are announcing this program today.

The Nordev program continues the most successful elements of the federal-provincial northern Ontario rural development agreement that has now expired. Nordev and AgriNorth, the companion program for northern agriculture, which I and my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) announced two weeks ago in Dryden, will put $20 million into the northern Ontario economy over the next few years.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You put $45 million into Minaki --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is right.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- and you are putting $20 million into the whole of northern Ontario. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was $20 million into Minaki. The member knows that is correct. He does not know what he is talking about. It was $20 million.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How much? Only $43 million?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member's brother supported it 100 per cent. He supported Minaki right to the hilt and the member knows it. The member's brother supported it, as did all the other people in northern Ontario. The member is the only one. It is just for his political gain. That is all he is doing.

Mr. Foulds: What would you expect? He is a Liberal.

Interjections.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You should remember what happened to Stephen Lewis. It is going to happen to you too. Do not take your leader up there because it will happen to him as it happened to Stephen Lewis. You know it.

Mr. Speaker: I presume you do have a statement.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Where was I, Mr. Speaker?

We are assisting the adjustment of the northern economy from one based solely on primary resources to one that is more diversified and more broadly based.

The brochures and application forms are now being prepared and will be available in approximately two weeks at all Ministry of Northern Affairs offices as well as at Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, Northern Ontario Development Corp. and Ministry of Natural Resources offices, all of which are co-operating in the administration of this program.

I know there is enthusiasm on all sides of the House for this very exciting program for northern Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am sure all members of the House would want to join me in recognizing a true servant of northern Ontario who is sitting today in the public gallery because it is easier to be recognized there, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren).

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order and a point of explanation. Before I get to that, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) spilled $20 million more around Minaki than he is spending on these new programs.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I think I have the floor, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: We are listening to a point of order being developed by the member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in the House on June 13, 1984, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), who seems to be avoiding the Legislature these days, about the spraying program for spruce budworm in northwestern Ontario, which I am sure will be of concern to my friend the Minister of Northern Affairs.

At that time the minister replied to me: "I felt there was no indication of the value of timber that was at imminent risk. A spray program had not been conducted in the area since 1968. There was no detailed information on what other values were to be protected," and he went on.

My point is that I cannot say in this House that the minister has misled the House; that is not allowed.

Mr. Speaker: Right.

Mr. T. P. Reid.: But unless he was ignorant or incompetent, the minister had to know that in 1982 a joint production of his ministry and Environment Canada entitled The Spruce Budworm Problem in Ontario: Real or Imaginary? was printed. He had to know that the Canadian Forestry Service in 1982 had a very full report that indicated that spruce budworm was on the rise in northwestern Ontario.

He has to know that he has had correspondence from one of the pulp and paper companies in the area, which says in a letter written on May 23, 1984:

"The consequences of cancelling the program include:

"1. Loss of timber close to Thunder Bay mills; the area proposed for spraying contains approximately 100,000 cunits of susceptible species;

"2. Increasing operating costs as the volume per acre is reduced or eliminated;

"3. Secondary infestation by other insects, especially the sawyer beetles, which will attack pine as well as spruce and balsam fir;

"4. An increased fire hazard from dead and dying trees, which will threaten unaffected timber as well as the population of the cottage area on Shebandowan Lake" --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- where there was a fire two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Thank you.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am sorry, I was not finished.

Mr. Speaker: I think you were.

WINTARIO CAPITAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today a further extension of the Wintario capital grants program for recreational, sports and fitness facilities.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: There is good news for everybody here; if members will just listen, there may be some good news for them.

Mr. Rae: Is that pork I smell, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, our critic does not yet have a copy of the statement.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as all members of the House appreciate, the Wintario capital grants program since its inception in 1975 has provided a vital stimulus to the development of Ontario's recreational and sports facilities and programs.

Virtually every community, large and small, urban and rural, has been a recipient of Wintario capital grants. Smaller centres, and those in more remote areas with a limited tax base, have found the Wintario capital grants program especially valuable.

Almost $350 million in Wintario capital funds has been expended. Because of the matching formula, it is estimated that about $1 billion has been generated, resulting in the people of Ontario enjoying one of the finest constellations of community recreational and sports facilities in the world.

The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is currently disbursing funds amounting to $15 million, which will meet all prior commitments to municipalities and community groups. We are therefore in a position to undertake new commitments.

In response to current applications filed in the latest round of the program, I am pleased to announce that the ministry will allocate an additional $25 million in new money to approximately 300 projects. Once again, these projects cover every region of the province and, I am sure, will be welcomed by the community and all members of this House.

The tremendous volume of applications and their high calibre have made our funding decisions very difficult. We are gratified, however, that we have been able to approve the vast majority of applications now on file. Letters of approval will be going out to all applicants within the next 48 hours. All members will find copies of those approvals in their mailboxes this afternoon.

With respect to all members of the House, it is indeed true that "With Wintario we all win!" -- and so do our constituent communities across the province.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: The members may recall that last year there was quite a kerfuffle in this House between the minister and myself as to the announcement of these grants.

We have had several grants that have been pending from the riding of Quinte. The minister says the notification on these grants will be going out within 48 hours. Can the minister clarify for me whether he has made any of these announcements or has given out any of this information to any parties prior to today's announcement? I believe as a --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That might better be asked during the next order of business.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I am going to do the same as I did last year on this thing, because it is a matter pertaining to my privileges as a member. I was told today that the person the Conservatives are trying to talk into being the next Conservative candidate against me in the riding made this announcement in the city of Trenton at noon today.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Neil: I deserve and the other members deserve to know whether any other announcements --

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member please resume his seat.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order: I bring to your attention the fact that I brought to the minister's attention at least three times in this Legislature, and by correspondence several times, the requirement of a Wintario capital grant for Fourway Public School. I want an assurance from the minister that the announcement will not be going out through either a Tory candidate or another Tory member in northwestern Ontario but that either he will make the announcement or he will inform me thereof.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, as I was forced to do last year, unless I receive clarification of this from the minister today, I will have to say the minister has misinformed this House by the statement he has just made.

Mr. Speaker: I am going to have to ask the member for Quinte to withdraw that remark.

Mr. O'Neil: If the minister will clarify the situation, I will be very pleased to withdraw it. I want him to give me some sort of clarification on this because, as I say, that grant was announced in Trenton today around noon hour.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to point out that, in keeping with the standing orders, the member is making it very difficult for the Speaker. We are in ministerial statements. There is no provision to question those statements until oral question time. I ask the member to reconsider his last remark.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest since ministerial statements are not yet completed, I will withdraw my remark at this point and hope the minister will get up and give some sort of clarification before ministerial statements are over.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, there is no provision for the minister, or anybody else, during ministerial statements to address that. You might better ask the question during the next order of business.

Mr. Wrye: Maybe the minister would like to get up and clarify.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, to clarify once again, when I heard this announcement had been made by this particular person -- it was called in to me -- I did call the minister's office to try to reach him about 1:30 p.m. to get clarification on this.

I have been in contact with his office on many occasions to find out about this grant, which is a large one that we are quite pleased to have approved and which a lot of people have worked on, including myself. If this has actually happened, I do not believe it should have happened that way, especially since the minister has just said the announcements will be going out within the next 48 hours.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I point out to all members that it may be a matter of courtesy rather than privilege. I suggest we carry on with ministerial statements.

Mr. Boudria: We will never accuse them of being courteous.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. Order. Let us keep everything within the proper sequence of business.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boudria: That should not stop him from making a further statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WINTARIO CAPITAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Could he please clarify, as I asked a few minutes ago, whether he or any of the people from his ministry or from his party made certain people in my riding knowledgeable about a grant that was approved? Could he also indicate to me at the same time whether he has released any other information to any other party in this province before he announced it in the House today? I would also like to know if he has notified any members.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my very brief statement, the official announcements that relate to individual projects are now in the process of going out in letters. In regard to the announcement of the approval letter going to Trenton for the arena the member is so concerned about, as he has indicated, the mayor, Neil Robertson, who is very concerned about the Trenton arena and has been concerned for many months about it, was anxious to get it.

I know the member is concerned about him. Bill Cosby says, "Don't look over your shoulder because somebody may be catching up to you," and I know that is why the member is worried. The fact is that the mayor of Trenton did not get an official letter of approval and a copy of the letter will be in the member's box this afternoon. That is what I said before and I stick to that.

Mr. O'Neil: In a riding like mine I always have to keep an eye over my shoulder, but I intend to win the riding again. I will work very hard for it and I do hope the people in my riding will re-elect me.

Might I say that the minister is playing with words again. I would say he has misinformed the House, because --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. O'Neil: Either the minister has misinformed the House or he is playing with such words as --

Some hon. members: Question.

Mr. O'Neil: Okay, my question is --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, you have made a suggestion that all is not well. I ask you to withdraw the remark and put your supplementary question.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the remark, but I would like to rephrase it.

Mr. Mancini: Somebody is lying.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Neil: The minister has assured us he does not play politics with Wintario; now he is playing with the words "official notice." I would like to ask the minister, did he, somebody from his ministry, some other official working for him or some party member unofficially call somebody and notify him about this? If not, how did they find out? Where did this information come from?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I think the honourable member fully understands the process in the weeks and months leading up to a final decision on approval of individual projects. I and my staff talk to a lot of people who are very deeply concerned about whether a major project such as the one in Trenton is going to be successful or not. Being an eternal optimist, I sometimes convey the idea that we have to be optimistic about it. I would simply go back to my previous statement and say if the honourable member will go downstairs and look in his mailbox, he will probably find the official letter of approval that has gone to Trenton. I can say no more.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Jeff just went down and checked the box and there is nothing in the box.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, these decisions have been sitting on his desk and final approval has now been given. When tabling this vague statement, why could he not table the complete list of approved projects with this statement today? Why could he not do that and give the House full information? Can he tell me whether or not the Fourway Public School got its grant for $200,000?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I deliberately did not table and have not made public a long list of more than 300 individual projects that are now being approved because I have enough respect for the members in this House on all sides that I think they should have that information in person. I do not know what the honourable member is quibbling about. The member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) may be at home and maybe he knows. I do not know.

Mr. Foulds: Maybe he knows, but how does he know?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, mindful of the difficulties we have had with this kind of situation on previous occasions, and accepting that the minister's statement states, "Letters of approval will be going out to all applicants within the next 48 hours," and given the fact that my colleague the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) has indicated that the mayor of Trenton, the putative Progressive Conservative candidate for that riding in the next general election has --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: -- already made an announcement in the city of Trenton to the effect that this grant has been approved, I want to ask --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This Reuben sandwich is getting a little high.

Mr. Rae: The whiff of the Reuben is beginning to come over here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Conway: -- the pride of the Lutheran Church, the Rev. Dr. Baetz, whether he was telling the truth to this Legislature. Is it the truth and the whole truth on page 2 of his statement today, read here moments ago, that when he made the announcement in the House today he was telling the province for the first time, officially or otherwise, that these funds would now flow and that we were not the second, third or fourth people in the province, in Quinte or elsewhere, to find out?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how often I can repeat this, but the fact is that the official letter has gone out, and the honourable member has a copy of it. I suppose there are all kinds of conjecture about who will have a successful project and who will not have one. I can tell the House, however, that the mayor of Trenton, as the future will illustrate, was conjecturing correctly that the arena was approved. I am not playing games here about the particular nonletter to the mayor of Trenton.

Mr. O'Neil: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Since I may not know for 48 hours, can the minister tell me whether it has been approved?

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary. New question.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister care to inform the House how he thinks the member for Fort William might get some information about some of these grants?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Maybe that could be the member's second question. Will he resume his seat.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment will recall that a week or so ago we were discussing exemptions from the Environmental Assessment Act, particularly of the forest management agreements that have been signed.

Now there is an application by the minister's colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) for one blanket hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act with respect to those FMAs, many of which have already been exempted.

Is the minister going to allow that to happen, or is he going to use his good offices to make sure we look very carefully within the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act to fully assess the impact of those various FMAs, environmentally and socially, on wildlife and all the other areas the minister is empowered to look after under his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the Leader of the Opposition a week or so ago about that whole area of my ministry's responsibilities, the decision will be made by the end of this month; so it will be made very shortly. We are reviewing a request for an extension to an existing exemption. That matter is under review.

I cannot give the honourable member an unequivocal undertaking at this time that either one or the other will happen, whether an extension to an exemption will again be given to the Ministry of Natural Resources or whether it will be brought under complete environmental assessment.

We do look at these matters very carefully. We take into account such things as the real, rather than imagined, environmental concerns that surround some of these issues. As I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware, I also have a review committee that looks at these types of matters and gives me its opinion with respect to the propriety of proceeding to a complete environmental assessment of a given situation.

I will certainly take all that into account before coming to a definitive decision on the matter. I will be pleased to share that at the appropriate time. I assure the member that I am as concerned as he is about the environmental impact of forest management agreements, and I will look into it in a detailed fashion at that time.

Mr. Peterson: The minister does not follow the advice of the committee he struck to advise him. Let us not leave any misapprehensions in this House.

Is the minister aware of a devastating report prepared by the northwest regional office of the Ministry of Environment, his own ministry, that addresses the questions he and I have been talking about today as well as a week or so ago? It says:

"It is doubtful that the class environmental assessment as written will be able to help resolve any of the issues." It goes on to list the issues and continues: "The requirements are grossly lacking because they do not contain a detailed description of the environmental effect." It goes on to say: "The use of a class environmental assessment for the purpose of carrying out forest management activities on crown land is actually the best justification we have seen for requiring individual assessment."

These are the minister's own officials condemning the approach of his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources.

Is the minister aware that the report goes on to say, "The use of class environmental assessment applies only to small-scale projects," not big-scale projects, such as this one, that affect virtually all of northern Ontario? It goes on to say further, "As presently worded, it is an embarrassment to the Ministry of the Environment." Is the minister embarrassed?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: No.

Mr. Peterson: Why is the minister not embarrassed? Why is he not following the advice of his own officials who live there, who know the area well and who know about the real impact? Why is he ignoring their advice?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Quite frankly, the reason I am not embarrassed is the lack of quality of questions that come from that side of the House. However, I have to respond to the preamble by the Leader of the Opposition in which he indicated I was not taking the advice of my review committee. To use the very words he used in this House about a week ago, he indicated that seven matters were brought before the committee and that in five instances I accepted the advice of the committee and in two I did not. I think that is a pretty fair batting average.

With respect to the class environmental assessments, which I believe is the question he raised in the context of that whole preamble, the class environmental assessment is specifically applicable to like situations. The Leader of the Opposition knows, from all of the statements I have made publicly and certainly from the resource material I am sure he has read, that we are reviewing the entire process to see whether we can, on the one hand, stop the ludicrous situation where the Ministry of Natural Resources cannot even put a public washroom in a park without being required to go through an entire environmental assessment, and on the other hand, look at situations where an environmental impact review and assessment is legitimate, needed and in the public interest.

We are quite prepared to take a look at something that is sensible in between. That is why this whole matter is under very active review by my ministry. Again I tell the Leader of the Opposition, we are looking at the situation very carefully.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment whether he recalls making a statement in connection with an inquiry that I and my colleagues made about the Obonga Lake road. When the minister was asked whether he was satisfied with that whole process, he said he did not think that all concerned were well served but a decision had already been taken and it was too late to take a different course of action.

In the light of what he has said about that, and in view of the perception in northern Ontario that the minister exempts all these very important FMAs while subjecting something like an auditorium to an environmental assessment, will he lend some balance to the whole process and make sure he knows that any undertakings like FMAs are environmentally acceptable before the fact and not after the fact?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, as a direct result of the interventions on the part of the honourable member with respect to the Obonga Lake road, I required the Minister of Natural Resources and his staff to conduct more complete and more thorough communications with the people in that area.

Mr. Laughren: Nonsense. They were laughing at you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That was absolutely required, and a number of meetings were held with respect to an explanation for what was being done in that area on the part of the Ministry of Natural Resources. That was one of the criteria under which the exemption was granted.

I appreciate the question, because I think it was sincerely asked. However, I want to say that in a number of situations with respect to some of these FMAs, the issue singularly comes down to, not an environmental problem but the question of the allocation of timber cutting rights. That is not an environmental question and can be dealt with quite easily by the Minister of Natural Resources. His ministry is quite competent, quite able and probably in a more informed position to make decisions with respect to timber allocations.

Mr. Stokes: But there are sensitive situations like the Obonga Lake road.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That is right. As I say, I appreciate the question, and I can tell the member that there were results, albeit perhaps not to everyone's satisfaction, because of the questions that were raised.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: I can understand the minister's not appreciating my question, because obviously he does not understand it or the advice he is getting from his own ministry. He may choose in his jocular way to trivialize and talk about washrooms, but let me quote from his own report. It says:

"The use of the class environmental assessment applies to projects which are relatively small in scale" -- washrooms, if one will -- "recur frequently and have a generally predictable range of effects which, though significant enough to require environmental assessment, are likely to cause relatively minor effects in most cases. Forest management on crown land is not consistent with this definition."

The minister should not trivialize it. Why is he ignoring the advice of his own senior officials?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I simply have not acted on the findings and the comments made in that report at this time. The member is making a decision with respect to the direction in which I am apparently supposed to be going long before I have made a decision on it. I can only suggest to him that the matter is under review.

He will remember that in the throne speech there was a comment with respect to review of the whole environmental assessment process. We intend doing that, and I will take into account some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition; but we have not made a decision on it at this time, I have not ignored the advice of my staff.

CHAIRMAN OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO COUNCIL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I would like to ask the minister a question about the Metropolitan Toronto council and the future chairman of Metro council. I would like to ask the government House leader this question, if he will answer it, because it is a fundamental question of policy affecting the government of Ontario.

How does the government justify the fact that under the law of Ontario today the person who is chosen does not have to be a member of that council, does not have to be elected by anybody to anything, does not ever have to have been elected by anybody to anything and, after he is appointed, never has to face the public in an election? Why has the government taken so long to face up to the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the appointment of the Metro chairman as it is now carried out under the law of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend that all those who study municipal government around the world look to Metropolitan Toronto as one of the shining examples of a municipal federation that works. The honourable member should look at the people who have attained the job of chairman of Metropolitan Toronto under the legislation of this province. Who can argue with success?

Mr. Rae: The answer to that question is John Robarts. John Robarts argued with that because when John Robarts carried out his study he said two things, and the minister is fully aware of them. He said Metro councillors should be directly elected by people living in Metro Toronto. He also said anybody who was the Metro chairman should have to be a member of that council and should have to be elected and re-elected as a member of that council.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Why does the minister disagree with the recommendations that former Premier Robarts made just seven years ago?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I recall some of the recommendations of the Robarts report. One of them was that the community I live in and some of the community represented by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), about 50,000 people in Scarborough, should be put into other municipalities, a recommendation that was rightly rejected. With no disrespect to the former Premier, we could not agree with the recommendations he brought forward in his review.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, does the minister recall that one of his colleagues, whose name slips my mind -- it may have been the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) -- brought forward a motion in this Legislature within the last year, calling for the Metro chairman to be directly elected? As I recall, most of the minister's colleagues voted for that. Is the minister going to take any action in this way, or are we going to remain in the same way?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have been happy to answer these questions because, as a Metro resident, a long-time member here and a former minister of municipal affairs, I am interested in this, but those questions really should be directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister answered the first two.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the honourable member wants to know the answer to his question, it is that the procedure we have had here has succeeded. We have had excellent people succeed to the job by being elected by council, and I do not see any particular reason to change that at this time.

Mr. Rae: Is the chairman of Metro council to be a top bureaucrat, or is he to be a politician who should be responsible to the people either directly or indirectly? That is the fundamental question. Does the minister view the job of Metro chairman as an administrative position, a bureaucratic position, or does he not recognize it as one of the most politically powerful jobs in all Canada, let alone Ontario?

Does he not think that politically powerful job is one that should be accountable to the people of Metro Toronto? Does he not think that is a fundamental right of the people of Metro Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Wells: All I can say is that I have not heard any great dissatisfaction with the way it is operating at present. Metropolitan Toronto is a very successful federation. One cannot separate parts of the total organization. If one is looking at electing the chairman, one will also have to look at whether Metropolitan council itself should be directly elected.

If that is the member's position, then he is welcome to put it forward. He cannot isolate that from the election of the chairman. My personal view is that direct election of Metropolitan Toronto council would be imposing a further layer of government on the people that would not be necessary.

Mr. Speaker: New question, please.

Mr. Rae: The minister is confused. It is not a further layer of government. It is a further layer of bureaucracy which is now being imposed.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: What we are saying is that democracy should replace the bureaucracy that is there now.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier which follows on the question I raised yesterday with the Premier (Mr. Davis). I would like to ask him whether he could please explain to the House how Bill 141, which now stands in the government's name, could possibly help those tens of thousands of grocery clerks who have been systematically discriminated against in the province.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it would be unwise to attempt to take a specific example without having all the facts against the four particular methods of measurement. Under the circumstances, this does provide an opportunity to remind the leader of the third party that with the passage of Bill 141 we will have equal pay for work of equal value in substantially similar jobs in the province.

This is not to avoid the question as to which particular methods could be used for evaluation in obviously dissimilar jobs. To the extent that we get rid of the rigid four-step approach and introduce the composite approach to any situation in any place of employment in the province, then we perhaps fall short of accomplishing that goal, which is why the amendments are being introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).

With all due respect, I do not know why the honourable member's party is standing in the way of at least allowing this next step to be taken on equal pay, together with the pregnancy leave benefits and the benefits for adoptive parents, which are being denied by his party's withholding approval with respect to this bill. As far as equal pay sections are concerned, it is equal pay for work of equal value in substantially similar jobs.

Mr. Rae: The government members are the ones who are holding up the matter. They are the ones refusing to deal with an amendment and to respond in real terms to an amendment that puts all the malarkey and bamboozlement aside and says, "We are going to provide equal pay for work of equal value along the lines of the federal statute and along the lines of the way it has been done in Quebec."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: There is no reason it cannot be done in Ontario. If the Deputy Premier cannot show in this instance, where there are literally tens of thousands of women who are not receiving equal pay for work of equal value -- or at least where it could be argued that it is of equal value -- where he is denying them a chance to appear before any tribunal and shutting the door on all those women, if he is not helping those women, how many women will he be helping and how many leaving outside with the fatuous piece of legislation the government has brought forward?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I remind the leader of the third party that this bill was out in committee for two days. That was part of the agreement, as he knows; there were two days of full hearings with respect to this. This House has had the benefit of a very detailed debate on the resolution with respect to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Indeed, we talked then about some of the next steps that should well be taken to consider the application of that principle to dissimilar jobs.

In the meantime, I would point out to the honourable member once again that progress will be made in removing what many people thought was too rigid an approach -- having to make these measurements or evaluations exactly on each of these four particular points or criteria -- and we have the composite test.

I cannot tell him what further improvements there will be or how many more people will be accommodated by this, but I remind the leader of the third party and this Legislature that Bill 141 is a very significant step on the road to this whole question of equal pay for work of equal value because it ensures it for substantially similar jobs.

While the member is carrying on this particular debate, he is denying the workers of this province the other benefits of the bill with respect to improvements in pregnancy leave and benefits to adopting parents. I think it is about time we got on, took these steps and passed that bill before the summer recess.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier knows enough about the equal value concept to know full well that the composite test is not a significant step forward.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: Given the fact the Deputy Premier knows full well that over on this side there is no acceptance of this timid step forward, will he advise and recommend to his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) that the government simply withdraw the section of the bill that speaks of equal value and let us go ahead, at least pass into law the pregnancy and adoption provisions, which we on this side applaud, and stop fooling around with the phoney sham of bringing in equal value?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, why would my friend deny the working women of this province at least this next step, the introduction of the composite test as recommended by Professor Gunderson in his report? What has he got against equal pay for work of equal value in substantially similar jobs?

The leader of the third party starts throwing up all sorts of examples -- not specific, by the way -- with respect to Quebec. I invite him to show me a true equal pay for work of equal value decision in Quebec dealing with substantially dissimilar jobs. Let him just produce one; that is all I ask him to do. Indeed, it invites this whole question of taking some further steps to see what the methods of objective evaluation are.

In the meantime, why would the honourable member want this government to withdraw this benefit from the working women of Ontario? I think it is preposterous.

Mr. Rae: The crocodiles are positively falling on the floor on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: If the government's bill is so wonderful, why has it been rejected with regard to the fundamentally inadequate approach it takes --

Hon. Mr. Welch: By whom?

Mr. Mackenzie: Every women's group that appeared.

Mr. Rae: -- by virtually every single women's group in Ontario except Sally Barnes. We will give him that exception, and he can take that exception and run it in Frontenac-Addington or wherever he wants to run it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: If the bill is so wonderful, why was the chorus of rejection so strong?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it is very simple. There were very dedicated and committed people who felt the bill should go further. We talk about equal pay for work of equal value in dissimilar jobs; that is not to be interpreted to mean they did not at least approve the step to introduce the composite test and go through it.

It is one thing to talk about having a very positive view of a further extension of the principle; I do not think the member is entitled to interpret that as opposition to the bill.

The difficulty with people such as the member's own group, who simply act as delegates and not as responsible representatives, is that they have their whole position dictated by a very small minority, and I suggest to him that we get on with this bill.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Deputy Premier has just said something that I think he has to withdraw, and I think he knows he has to withdraw it. He not only implied, he said, and it was a cheap remark and unworthy of him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Look who is talking.

Mr. Rae: No, I am serious. Keep your mouth shut. Treasurer; I am speaking directly to the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are the expert. You are the last guy who should complain.

Mr. Rae: No, I have had it from you. No, he cannot get away with that stuff.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I just asked the Deputy Premier to withdraw the remark where he suggested that any member here is less independent, less a follower of his or her conscience and less responsible to his entire electorate than anybody else. He should withdraw that remark because it is unworthy and he knows it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it takes a pretty wide interpretation. Anyone who knows me personally would know I would never question a personal commitment on matters of conscience. I am telling the member that the official position, and I have dealt with representatives of the member's party, is that dictated by a small group of people within a certain organization. All I am pointing out is that the fact that I do not think --

Mr. Rae: That is what you said.

Mr. Cooke: We knew what you were saying.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What did you mean?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Let me speak.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask you to intervene. As representatives of the province of Ontario, the members of our party are as responsible to our electorate in our constituencies as is the minister. It is not a question of whether I resent it, I just think what he has said is a fundamentally unparliamentary thing. He is implying that people here --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Deny it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Of course we deny it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not what he said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South has taken exception to a statement that was made by the Deputy Premier.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We are not dictators.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again you are putting the Speaker in a very difficult position of judging --

Mr. Rae: That is your job.

Mr. Speaker: I know it is. The Deputy Premier got up and explained his position.

Mr. Rae: He repeated what he said the first time.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. Would the Deputy Premier like to reconsider those remarks?

Order. Please do not take advice. Let us just hear it in your words.

Mr. Wrye: You are going to get him into more trouble, Bette.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was talking to the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am a consultative person and I do take advice. Certainly I am a bit taken aback with respect to the interpretation that has been placed on all of this by the leader of the third party. It seems to me that with a great deal of frequency they have no hesitation in labelling this group as the servants of big business and the multinationals. I hear these jibes all the time and I --

Mr. Breaugh: There is a certain amount of grace lacking in this.

Mr. Rae: Whatever happened to a graceful withdrawal?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: We are not entering into a debate.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If there is some concern in connection with this, then I would think the easiest way to show some independence and to work on behalf of the benefit of the people of the province is to pass Bill 141.

Mr. Rae: Do you call that a withdrawal?

Mr. Breaugh: We now know how to withdraw remarks in the Legislature. We have just been given a lesson.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: With great respect, if some other member stands in his place and says we are delegates dictated to by a small group of people whom he has not named, do you not think any member of the Legislature specifically accused of that does not have a basic privilege? There is an assumption as to what it means to be a member of the Legislature. Do you find that to be a point of privilege or not? I think it is a legitimate question.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: At no time did I make any suggestion with respect to the lack of independence of any member of this House, particularly the leader of the third party. If there is any implication to be taken out of that, I apologize and withdraw any such implication.

All I am pointing out is that it still does not rest with the member to suggest that --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) but I see he has slipped out for a moment. I will defer to the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), if l may.

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General and it concerns his reply to my recent question in Orders and Notices regarding appointments to municipal boards of commissioners of police. In his response, the minister stated the political affiliation of candidates for these positions was "not a consideration in selection if known." On April 16 when I questioned him in the House on the same subject he replied, "I do not know the political backgrounds of the people who are appointed to these positions."

If it is as the Solicitor General stated, an extraordinary coincidence has occurred without his knowledge. From the list of 94 appointees the minister sent me, I surveyed my Liberal colleagues for their knowledge of persons appointed in their ridings, and what a coincidence, of the 45 appointments checked, three quarters were well-known Tories. We have pages of them here. We have all the titles they have held, a fact that becomes even more impressive when one considers these appointments were in Liberal ridings.

In the light of this information, I must once again ask the Solicitor General, what are the policy considerations of this government in making these appointments? May we have a clear, specific statement of policy?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on this matter, the honourable member had asked me those questions. In answer, I gave him a list of appointments made by my recommendation and those of my colleagues in cabinet. I do not know what research he did to find out, but he says they happen to be prominent Tories. I do not know how he labels that, but I am pleased we did find some very capable people to fill those positions.

As I indicated to him earlier, some of those people are members of the judiciary, some are prominent citizens and they all want to serve. I can inform the member for Quinte I would not be asking them the question he asked me, "Have these people ever served or ever been a member of any particular party?" That is not our style on this side.

I remember a politician having asked those questions in history and I will not be party to that type of interrogation.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on the style on that side of the House. Can the Solicitor General indicate whether he has discontinued a practice in these matters pursued by his ministry on at least two occasions in my constituency wherein, very properly, the ministry requested from municipal governments in Renfrew county in the electoral district of Renfrew North to submit possible candidates for the position of police commissioner, only then to disregard the advice, to make no overture whatever and to appoint in one case a gentleman not known to anyone of stature in the community, apparently on the advice only of the defeated Progressive Conservative candidate in the riding, the hapless patronage dispenser in that part of the world?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the individual mentioned, since the member for Renfrew North gives no names and I am not aware of that situation. We receive many requests for people to serve and sometimes I do ask local municipalities if they have any suggestions. Sometimes those suggestions are accepted and the recommendations made.

We receive them from many areas -- members of the Legislature, organizations, interest groups, municipal people, police chiefs and police organizations, for example -- so there are many sources from which we receive the names of people who want to serve their communities on behalf of the police commission.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, leaving aside the alleged political affiliation of the appointees, can the Solicitor General tell the House what he is doing to increase the pathetic number of women on the police commissions in Ontario? What is that figure? What percentage of the people on police commissions in Ontario is female?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has spoken to me on this subject previously. Indeed, I believe I saw a letter to the editor from his wife concerning the same subject. There have been a number of increases. I will admit, as would many other people around here, that the proportion is not the same as that for males.

However, I can point to my colleague the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), who has females on his police commission. There are two and a newly appointed chairman. In the area of the member for Quinte, I believe a female was appointed to the commission. I guess it is one of those he objects to; I do not know. We have appointed them from time to time. I would be pleased to receive any recommendations of qualified individuals, male or female, to serve on police commissions.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The Solicitor General may be known as the three per cent solution pretty soon from what I understand.

Mr. Speaker: New question, please.

INSTITUTIONAL DISCHARGE ALLOWANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. It is in regard to the institutional discharge allowance that was expanded this spring. We all welcomed it when it took place, because now up to $350 is available as a one-time amount for people eligible for welfare when they come out of institutions or are long-term residents in hostels, etc.

I have been hearing, and I wonder if the minister has been hearing, of some discrepancies taking place in the administration of this allowance from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Certain women's hostels, for instance, are having no difficulty getting this money, while others are having difficulty.

Is this a mandatory program or is it discretionary? Can he tell us about the differences between men's and women's hostels in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of anything specific. I have asked my director of income maintenance to make sure the municipalities, in terms of their general welfare assistance operations, are made fully aware of the institutional discharge allowances within their spheres, as well as family benefits.

If the member has anything specific, I would appreciate his bringing it to my attention.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I was about to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If he was going to, why did he not say it up front instead of making that silly statement?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Was that a question to me that I should answer? We have our rules a little mixed up.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will say it very up front to the minister today. Could the minister look into the question of the way long-term male hostel residents are being discriminated against by not being made eligible for this amount?

I have a case of two people at Seaton House, both of whom have been residents of Seaton House for more than a month. They had a residence they were able to go to. They seemed to meet all the qualifications, but they were turned down because they were supposedly not receiving counselling. In fact, one was told the only way he would get the assistance was if he was a drunk or a drug addict, and that otherwise he would not be eligible.

Is this designed for men who are victims of social violence in terms of economic downturn, or is it just being used to help women in the women's hostel system who are going through the social violence of wife battering? Why are men not being given access to this program in the hostel system in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is not very specific to ask a general question. I think the member could have inquired of Metropolitan Toronto, just as I am going to inquire. The member is going to have to give me the names because that is quite an accusation he spirited through here, that some social worker, employed not by this government but by Metropolitan Toronto, said that to somebody.

The member knows, and I know, exactly what the extension of that allowance was.

GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the minister of culture and citizenship.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Citizenship and Culture.

Mr. Bradley: Citizenship and Culture; the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) corrects me.

Mr. Speaker: Right.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Somebody has to.

An hon. member: That is her job.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: Just for that, I will bring her into this question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Tell her she should not be chewing gum in class.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: The member for Rainy River says she should not be chewing gum in class.

The government has not paid its $266,000 grant to the St. Catharines library board after almost half a year and, as a result, the municipality has had to foot the bill. This is similar to what the Minister of Education does with education grants; she holds them back in January, February and March and does not pay them out at the rate she should.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Bradley: In view of that, is the minister prepared to give an undertaking in the House this afternoon that she will ensure that all municipalities in Ontario at least get the parsimonious per capita grant she is supposed to be providing to them at a date before half a year is up?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member raises a couple of points. He will be aware that the fiscal years do differ. Many of our library boards are on the municipal fiscal year, which begins January 1, whereas our payment schedules are based upon the provincial fiscal year, which starts April 1.

That point aside, it is my understanding that interim payments have gone out within the last two weeks, if I am not mistaken, to public library boards across the province.

Mr. Bradley: As of Monday night, Alderman Kenneth Atkinson in St. Catharines said such was not the case.

Anyway, the government has refused to increase its per capita grants to libraries in this province on a yearly basis and has forced municipalities either to insist upon a cutback in services or to increase the local property tax. As an example, in St. Catharines the province's share of the public library board has decreased from 22.6 per cent of its total budget in 1974 to a projected 9.6 per cent in 1984. The Minister of Education will know that sounds familiar.

Will the Minister of Citizenship and Culture give her assurance that she will announce in this House before the end of this session that the government will increase its per capita grant to local libraries in order that municipalities that have already been held back by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) will not be forced either to slash services to pieces or to increase the local property tax, which is the most regressive form of taxation?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Again, there are two points in the question. The first was the matter of St. Catharines and the payment. I will be pleased to take that specific matter under advisement and reply about the particular date of mailing on that payment, but I reiterate my understanding is that it did go out two weeks ago.

With respect to per capita support and whether there should be a change in the level of per capita support, it would be my particular personal pleasure to make that statement in the House.

Mr. Conway: Fish for Metro chairman.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour can confirm that his ministry completed a complex 50-page report on occupational health hazards at Mack Canada in Oakville last Friday, which found ambient lead levels up to 11 times the short-term exposure levels and up to five and a half times the time-weighted averages, as well as very high chromium levels, and which ordered the company to carry out engineering controls in the small finishing paint booth, which the report says the company has agreed to comply with.

If the minister can confirm that, is he aware that at a meeting of the joint health and safety committee yesterday, Mack truck management representatives denied the company gave the ministry any commitment to redesign that particular paint booth?

Why does the ministry report now say engineering controls are required at Mack when all along the minister has maintained they are unnecessary or have been carried out? Why is the ministry report saying the company has agreed to comply with this commitment when that has not been done? Are we not seeing a continuing repetition of the obfuscation by the ministry that occurred at Westinghouse?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that a report has been issued. There were also some orders issued by the ministry last week, I believe on June 14.

There was an order for improved ventilation in the final spray booth to which the honourable member is referring. However, it must be borne in mind that this is not the contentious booth which was the subject of the controversy some weeks ago. This is a completely different booth.

Mr. Wildman: I have a supplementary to the minister's reply. Can he explain why, after this extensive study, the ministry has ordered ventilation controls at this small touch-up finishing paint booth where the exposure levels are smallest, but has not ordered similar engineering controls at the larger paint booths that have been the subject of controversy and where the exposures to lead are much higher? Why is the ministry still having these workers depend on medical monitoring and respirators rather than properly engineering out the lead problem at Mack?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is my understanding this has been the result of additional air sampling. It is important to bear in mind that, according to the scientific studies of our scientific personnel, no ventilation improvements are required in the exterior, interior or chassis spray areas. There is one booth where they feel some improvements should be made and the orders have been issued.

WHEELING POLICY

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to a question on Ontario Hydro's wheeling policy that was asked by the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne). Ontario Hydro and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority have been negotiating a contract for the use of power from the Fanshawe small hydro plant. It includes wheeling of some of the power to other sites under the conservation authority's jurisdiction.

I am pleased to advise the member that agreement has been reached on all aspects of the contract, including a rate for wheeling. The contract should be signed within the next few weeks. Ontario Hydro will be announcing a schedule of rates for wheeling and other wheeling policy later this summer.

I would also like to table the answer to a question posed to me by the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On May 26, 1983, our leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), asked that, pursuant to the report of the women's perspective advisory committee, things such as videotapes should come under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Board of Censors. The minister did introduce such a bill in this House, namely, Bill 82. We were led to believe until recently that bill was a priority bill for this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Boudria: We are extremely disappointed that it does not seem to be going ahead before the summer recess. Can the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations indicate to this House whether he would entertain that this bill should proceed immediately so we could have hearings over the summer on it? It is a very important issue.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, that bill remains a high priority for me and for this government. It is with a degree of regret I learned that one of the opposition parties did not wish it to proceed at this time. I am prepared to proceed with it at any time. I think this summer would be a good opportunity to have hearings over matters on which many people will have views with respect to the proposals in the bill.

Mr. Boudria: I am sure our party is willing to commit itself to a short debate on second reading of this bill in order to proceed to committee during the summer recess. Would it not be possible to convince everyone here that this is a very worthy and important bill and that we could proceed as soon as we adjourn? Then we could have hearings over the summer concerning community standards and get everyone's involvement and input to ensure that when the bill returns in the fall, it will have the support of as many people in the community as we hope it will.

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I remain not only willing, but also concerned and anxious that the bill does proceed. I will take part in any discussions that might lead to that. If it might facilitate the views of the third party, which, as I read in a letter to the editor in Saturday's Globe and Mail, has a certain perspective on these issues, I think a careful review of the case of Regina versus McNeil will make it clear to that party that the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly said the provinces do have jurisdiction with respect to this area.

I say it is facetious to suggest we should not proceed with the bill because the Supreme Court is looking at the issue of whether the terms under which films are reviewed are reasonable. I say that with respect and I wish that party would get off that position.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I do not really care whether the minister says it with respect or not. The minister knows as well as I do that the case to which he refers is a case originating in Nova Scotia. There is very open question about whether the Supreme Court of Canada in the Ontario case will in fact hold whether this province has any power to deal with matters related to censorship in the manner in which the minister has done it.

Second, the minister has had a serious decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario and of the Ontario Court of Appeal in even more emphatic terms castigating the government for the method by which it was pursuing the question of censorship in Ontario. Why will the minister not await the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Ontario case before proceeding on or urging us to proceed with that bill?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what we are saying here. The courts in Ontario have said that if a government is to proceed into the area of film review and eliminations of films in line with community standards, whatever it does must be done in terms that are reasonable, in line with the Charter of Rights. Let us be very clear about that. To do that, it has to enshrine in statute or in regulation what those terms of elimination or community standards are.

We have put those things into this bill. We know the McNeil case talks about provincial authority with respect to this area. I ask the member to let us proceed with this bill, to have committee hearings on it this summer and to get on with facing the issues that so many people in the public are concerned about at this time.

ACCIDENT AT FALCONBRIDGE

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if members of the assembly would allow the Minister of Labour to bring us up to date on what we think is a serious accident at the Falconbridge nickel mine today and the fate of at least four miners who are believed to be trapped underground?

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the consent of the House?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have some very worrisome news. A rock burst occurred at 10 o'clock this morning at the Falconbridge mine. It affected levels three and four of the mine. An undercut and fill stope just below the 4,000-foot level collapsed, trapping from one to four men.

Voice contact with one man indicated he is pinned against some equipment and unable to move. Rescue operations are under way. The internal underground hoist room at the 3,800-foot level, used to hoist men working below the 4,000-foot level, is unstable and showing signs of rock stress. Personnel have been removed from the hoist room.

Stench gas is a warning system. When it is used, miners head for refuge chambers when they smell it. Stench gas has been released in the mine and all workers, an estimated 250 miners below the 4,000-foot level, are in refuge stations awaiting further instructions. Alternative access is available through a nearby shaft if it is required.

Our people are on the site and are providing information to us as quickly as they can. I understand the company has scheduled a news conference for five o'clock this afternoon.

PETITIONS

FORESTRY PRACTICES ON RESERVE

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition as follows to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, urge that the burning and tree-cutting of the Ojibway prairie preserve, which is under the management of the Ministry of Natural Resources, be stopped. We cannot condone this type of destruction referred to as 'preservation.'"

The petition is signed by approximately 35 residents of the riding of Windsor-Sandwich, Windsor-Walkerville and Windsor-Riverside.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

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

"We are the electors and residents of the riding of Essex South. We appeal for your help in responding to a concern which we, the supporters of the United Mennonite Educational Institute of Leamington, share.

"For many years we, like other supporters of independent schools, have contributed thousands of dollars in education taxes and at the same time have had to bear the full cost of our own school. We recognize that in Ontario there exist government-supported schools which address the specific needs of Catholic and Franco-Ontarian communities. We also realize that in five Canadian provinces the principle of choice in education is recognized to the extent where some of the public tax dollars are returned to the independent school.

"In a multicultural country and province such as ours, choice in education should not endow some provinces or some groups with funding while denying the same rights to others. We, the undersigned, request that the honourable members provide form and substance in law for the basic human right of parents in Ontario to choose an education for their children. Moreover, we request that the right of choice in education include a remission of tax dollars to the alternative and independent schools of Ontario."

I am very pleased to table this petition on behalf of the United Mennonite Educational Institute of the constituency of Essex South.

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that reads:

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

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

"The supporters of Rockway Mennonite Collegiate cannot accept the fact that the government of Ontario can boost its support for Catholic and Franco-Ontarian schools while continuing to neglect to support other educational communities. In a democratic, multicultural society, choice in education should not provide some schools of choice funding while denying the same right to others.

"In at least five Canadian provinces independent schools are recognized as providing a public service and they receive various forms of financial grants. In Ontario legislators act as if the 80,000 children in independent schools do not exist. Parents pay the total cost for their education while also paying taxes at the same level as everyone else for public schools they do not use. In fact, in the past five years parents of children in independent schools have contributed $1 billion to educate other people's children in Ontario.

"When will their children receive some benefit from public education tax dollars? When will this government accept its responsibility to recognize the value of these schools and provide support for them, as it does for Franco-Ontarian and Catholic schools? When will this denigrating block be removed from our democratic, multicultural province?"

This is signed by 48 constituents.

HIGH WATER LEVELS

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

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

"The Nanticoke Ratepayers Association, the undersigned, wish to bring to the attention of the Ontario government, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Honourable Alan Pope:

"1. The deteriorating conditions of the retaining walls approved by and under the Lakeshore Protection Act, specifically under the approval of Mr. Latham of the provincial government at that time.

"2. We know that the cause of the high water levels on the Great Lakes system is controlled by the Ontario Hydro corporation by the diversion of the Ogoki River, which originally flowed into Hudson Bay but was diverted to flow southerly into Lake Superior in order to construct two power plants on the Ogoki River. This is why we presently have very high lake levels causing the erosion problems."

I would like to present this to you, Mr. Speaker, along with 11 pictures showing considerable damage.

3:40 p.m.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, just in case you were worried that I had run out of petitions, I have another petition as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the government and the Legislative Assembly to support the private member's bills of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wine in small, independent grocery stores.

"Pétition adressée au Lieutenant-gouverneur en Conseil et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, soussignés, par la présente pétition, demandons à l'Assemblée législative et au gouvemement d'appuyer les projets de loi du député Don Boudria qui permettraient aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre de la bière et du vin ontarien."

This is signed by seven people. We are somewhere around a total of 12,000 at the present time.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Kerr from the standing committee on social development presented the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Provincial Secretariat for Social Development, Social Development policy program, $11,468,600.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Samis moved, seconded by Mr. Lupusella, first reading of Bill 112, An Act respecting the Sale and Repair of Motor Vehicles in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide protection for purchasers of used cars and consumers of car repair services. The bill requires the motor vehicle dealer to affix a notice containing useful information for potential purchasers to every used motor vehicle offered for sale.

The bill sets out a statutory warranty covering the sale of used motor vehicles. It also contains provisions requiring a motor vehicle repair station operator to provide to consumers an accurate estimate of the cost of repairs. This estimate, if accepted by the consumer, becomes binding on the repair station operator. The bill also contains a statutory guarantee for repairs. The bill is based on provisions of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 77, An Act respecting the Protection and Well-being of Children and their Families.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, before coming to some general conclusions, I want to put to bed once and for all the question of the takeover by the ministry of the Family and Children's Services of the District of Kenora. This was raised at some length the other night, and I want to put on the record exactly what happened.

In the spring of 1982 the ministry received certain information about children being at risk. The ministry initiated a case review of the Kenora society's policies and procedures regarding the handling of child abuse situations. In particular, it focused on 20 child abuse cases. The review concluded that four of the 20 child abuse cases identified children to be in a high-risk situation. Seven of the 20 cases showed considerable problems in their investigation and case management. If these problems were to be allowed to continue, children would be left at high risk.

After informing individual board members earlier, the ministry in a formal session at Kenora informed the board of these findings in August 1982. The board was amazed by the extent of the problems with respect to these cases. Both the board and senior management gave their assurances the problems would be corrected. Because of the society's history, the ministry was reluctant to accept these promises, but we were hopeful that improvements would occur. At that time, additional funds were provided by the ministry for a consultant to be hired by that society to assist in the development of solutions to those defined problems.

In January 1983 the ministry undertook a follow-up case review of the child abuse cases identified the previous spring. We found the society's plan for corrective action, which it had agreed to, was not implemented. Children were left at risk. The ministry presented the findings to a formal board meeting in March 1983. Again the board could not believe its senior management had not taken the responsibility to ensure the problems were rectified.

At a meeting of the board, the ministry indicated the society was close to being taken over by the ministry for this incompetence. The ministry agreed to have the society employ a management consultant for a five- or six-month period to assist the board in management, to develop management procedures and practices and a detailed case management manual. Two additional clinical staff would also provide assistance in the immediate case management of those children at risk or possible risk as well as assisting the consultant with the writing of the procedures.

In early summer, the society agreed to an operational review, but it was agreed the actual review would take place when the consultants left. The consultants left in October upon completion of their six-month mandate. The members of the review team included an independent consultant familiar with child welfare, a representative of another northern children's aid society, a staff member of the operational evaluation and audit branch of the ministry, a financial auditor and a program supervisor not from the immediate area.

The review, which began in November, uncovered some very disturbing information regarding the operation of the society as well as a lack of commitment by the board and senior management to implement recommendations of previous reviews. Members will note the findings were made only a short time after the consultants had put the necessary policies and procedures in place. The team's findings were presented to the then president and the then vice-president of the board and to the executive director, at two separate meetings. Seven of the 15 active board members submitted their resignations by December 1983.

There were allegations of financial problems, but the problems were not financial. Let me point out that from 1978 to 1983 the budget of the CAS increased by 128.9 per cent. In addition, our area office made available to the society between $1 million and $1.3 million for initiatives for native child welfare in remote areas. We did not even receive a proposal from the society. Despite the close scrutiny in 1982 and 1983, the CAS service plan, the heart of the management of the CAS, was so late in 1983 that it is almost inconceivable to understand how a well-paid management group could act in such a manner.

Before the completion of the written report, but after the review had been completed, the review team asked to meet with my deputy and my senior staff in mid-December to inform the ministry of their grave concerns. I am sure members can appreciate that the request for a meeting was most unusual but was felt to be necessary by that review team.

On the basis of the review team's report, the ministry was forced to conclude that there was a real lack of commitment on the part of the board and management to addressing the long-term pressing problems at the society. The ministry saw no other course of action left but to take over control of the operation and management of the society, which was done on January 18.

The ministry informed the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, through its executive director, of problems at the society on December 24, and that organization knew of these problems when its representatives attended board meetings early in 1983. They were informed in confidence prior to the ministry move on the society. The rest of that involvement is a matter of record.

In February 1984 the operational review team published a report in which they detailed all the concerns they had expressed to my deputy about the society. I want to read from that report. We will go, first of all, to page ii and page iii. The review team notes:

"There are serious, continuing management problems within the society in terms of operational, financial and program management. There are serious doubts regarding the board's willingness or ability to provide adequate direction to or exercise control over the society."

It goes on to say: "Of particular concern is the fact that while a great deal of effort and money have been put into developing policies, procedures and standards, the senior management have failed to demonstrate a commitment to them."

3:50 p.m.

I am going to read verbatim from page viii, because the conclusions are not long; they are very succinct.

"Conclusions: The review team has noted a great number of concerns with the society's operation both in the executive summary and in the body of the report. It is our conclusion that while the recommendations made would be of some help, the central problem is management.

"The ministerial reviews identified problems which resulted in children being at risk. Consultants were brought in to develop the necessary system and to assist staff to develop the necessary skills to address these problems. Senior management, however, has indicated that the new policies and procedures cannot be implemented, and indeed the review team found major continuing inadequacies in the implementation of the key controlling system. The board appears to be unwilling to act to require accountability and adherence to the legislation and ministry guidelines.

"The study team is forced to conclude that only major changes in the attitude of the board and senior management will ensure that the recommendations of the consultants and earlier reviews, or indeed of this review, will be implemented."

We acted on the basis of that. I suppose there was a hypothetical question about a so-called joint press release involving the ministry and that society. There was never a joint press release. There was a proposal by the society that a joint press release be issued, but it was rejected by the minister.

I also note that I think the key concern in this bill should be the fact that rather than having to stand in this assembly on this day, and rather than having had to go into the standing committee on social development on an earlier day, to explain as much as I and my deputy minister could about the reasons we acted in Kenora, all of that will be in public with the passage of this bill. There will be due process to replace the present system under the ministry act where an order in council is sought in cabinet.

I remind members that as a minister, like all my cabinet colleagues, I have sworn an oath, the executive council oath, in addition to oaths as a minister of the individual portfolio. We cannot discuss cabinet matters.

With the sections in this act, any such activity in the future, and I certainly hope there will be none, would require a proposal to be made, due process. The public would have the right, and that includes not only members of this assembly but also the entire public through the media, to scrutinize what is going on. I regard that as a very significant improvement.

I want to turn to one particular issue because I see my friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) is here. I took due notice of his concerns the other evening regarding future programs for the native offender, particularly in areas to the north of his residence.

I draw to his attention the fact that after meeting with native leaders, we began discussions as to how to best reflect their needs in this act and respond to the concerns expressed. We were involved in consultation in large measure with them and their legal counsels. We think particular concerns are met in clause 194(2)(b), which authorizes the minister to make agreements with native people regarding all services under the act, including services for young offenders.

On Monday, we will begin a series of meetings with chiefs regarding the types of services they think we can implement in the immediate future, bearing in mind that Bill 28 gives us authority until Bill 77 is passed and has the identical sections.

We would like the input of the member for Lake Nipigon, even on an informal basis, but we would also like to consider his views based on his experience and the fact that, long before ministers of the crown were visiting reserves on a regular basis, the member for Lake Nipigon was doing so and is familiar with many of the problems, not just of today but of the past.

I point out to him that at the moment we have about 15 probation and aftercare officers on those reserves or responsible to those reserves. That has provided a significant area of alternatives to the traditional methods of incarceration or institutionalization. We want to build on that, and we want to take advantage of the fact that, particularly in this bill in regard to services to other than offenders, we are moving a long way on those reserves towards the band taking over total responsibility for the services as soon as is reasonably practical.

Some of them can start almost immediately, and others may take a little longer because of the need to train, but we will be consulting with the honourable member, and I ask for his input and advice on these matters. It is not a question of waiting for Bill 77, because we have a similar clause in the interim bill. We can begin to move at almost any time. I think the consent and the support of the chiefs is very important and significant.

Mr. Stokes: And the elders.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes. I lump the two together, the chiefs and the advisory groups, who are the elders.

There are a couple of other matters I want to address, more to clarify than to meet particular issues.

With regard to the medical procedures that three speakers have spoken about, Bill 77 does not in any way affect the legality of or condone medical and chemical experimentation. By the way, that does not mean experimental medicine; anybody who has read the act should be fully aware of that. Chemical experimentation is as simple as changing a long-term prescription for treatment.

What Bill 77 does is to acknowledge the intrusive nature of these procedures and require that they be subject to formal review. We had originally wanted to prohibit these procedures, but a joint committee of the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centres, and the Ontario Psychiatric Association made a very strong case to us that these are essentially medical procedures which the Ministry of Community and Social Services should not try to regulate.

4 p.m.

I will read to the members from page 17 of their brief. "Some of the procedures listed are solely medical acts and thus would be done only by a licensed physician and they are controlled by other legislation and disciplining bodies.

"The committee" -- that is, the three of them -- "believes the Ministry of Community and Social Services should not have the capacity to prohibit or regulate a medical act that is already governed in other acts. In one sense, does this not place the minister in a position of practising medicine without a licence?"

I have read that verbatim from their brief.

These procedures are carried out in acute care hospitals; they are not carried out in our facilities. As medical procedures they are subject to the requirements of consent and all the elements inherent in the doctor-patient relationship. Legally these procedures are controlled by Ministry of Health legislation.

I want to emphasize that Bill 77 does not propose that electroconvulsive therapy is ever necessary for children; it merely requires scrutiny before such a procedure is used in an acute care hospital. Nothing in this law legalizes electroconvulsive therapy to be used or condones its use. In fact, we are providing further safeguards for the use of these procedures to children in our or other agencies' residential care. This ministry would not propose laws that would deny children the benefits of advances in medical science, such as developments in chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants or new and safe medications.

There would seem to be a great division within the ranks of Her Majesty's loyal opposition over the question of the rights of children, particularly those placed in a residential or a treatment setting. These are the so-called reviews.

The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) said we were appeal-happy in this legislation, that there were too many reviews in Bill 77. I should say he said we were "review-happy"; that was the exact terminology. The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) and the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) wanted more reviews and more due process within the reviews.

Perhaps it is because Bill 77 strikes such a balance that it allows professionals to do their work and to exercise their professional judgement that there appears to be a difference in the way individual members see the review procedures. But it is of paramount importance that children not be lost in the system, whether it is a system of residential care or a system of treatment, and the bill provides for a review of these very important decisions, especially in the area of long-term residential placements.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am speaking in defence of the member for Huron-Middlesex, to whom the minister referred just a moment ago. I think, in fairness, when the member made the suggestion that being "review-happy" -- and the minister was quoting his words -- was a concern of his, in fact he was reflecting the concern of the major agency that is a part of his riding, that is, the Family and Children's Services of London and Middlesex County. If that is a legitimate concern of theirs, I hope the minister will address his comments to that rather legitimate agency as well as to the member.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have addressed my concerns about reviews to every agency in this province.

Mr. Van Horne: That is the concern they have.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Rights of people in reviews are a concern of mine as well. If a person is an adult and is going to be placed in a long-term treatment procedure, then he or she has the right to a review. I do not think we have gone too far; as I said, we have tried to strike a balance.

We went to the committee and we pointed out the difficulties of whether, after a placement, an adolescent has the right to a review; and there were those, like the agencies -- and I am not too sure they spell it out exactly and as emphatically as the member did --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Drea: We have now found out who is responsible for the brief, because the member opposite made it plain that he was reflecting views that were not necessarily his own. Surely if someone is to be placed in treatment, that person has the right to ensure that the professional, no matter how well-meaning, how expert, how infallible, has been correct.

I think we have struck a balance. It may not be the balance and fine-tuning that everybody wants, but it is a balance. It is not arbitrary and I do not think it erodes the rights of professionals at all. One of the things I would have welcomed is more professionals trying to work a little bit harder to find a review procedure that was not intrusive upon them, but did protect rights, in particular the rights of adolescents who are virtually on the edge of adulthood and within a month or two will have full rights in the system.

I wish my House leader was here, but I hope he will read Hansard. The suggestion was made the other night in regard to the question of French language rights, and I believe both in public and in lengthier conversation with my friend the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) there is an understanding as to what the particular language means. The issue was raised that it was only in the committee this question came up and that, indeed, it was because of people who appeared before the committee that this decision was made.

I want to place it on the record that the person responsible for this major breakthrough in the provision of services in the French language in this province is my friend, colleague and neighbour, the government House leader and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). Last year he wrote to me most emphatically, because at that time we were still in the consultation process and we had not even arranged to bring a conceptual bill before the standing committee on social development.

He said there should be provision, that we should break new ground in providing French-language services in this most sensitive field in this province, children's services. He did more than write. It was through his ministry and through his personal initiative that the government House leader provided much of the motivation, much of the inspiration, and, if one wants to spell it out bluntly, the clout that produced a very significant breakthrough in the provision of French-language services.

It is one of the most important parts of this bill. It is a matter of record that when I first appeared before the committee, before it ever studied this bill, I commended this section to it for scrutiny, long before anybody appeared. I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

In conclusion, while there have been some expressions of displeasure with certain sections of this bill, I think it is fair to say that, by and large, on all sides of the House there has been a general welcoming of Bill 77. On that basis, I find it rather strange that both opposition parties have said, for different reasons, they are going to divide on second reading.

4:10 p.m.

Before the opposition votes, I ask them to remember that if they stand and vote against Bill 77, they are voting against the chairman of the standing committee on public accounts, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). Never before has there been a bill which wants such accountability from transfer agencies, a subject which is very close to his heart.

If the members want the procedures followed, if they want due process, if they want complete accountability in terms of transfer payments, then I say if they stand up today to vote against it, they are going to have a very difficult time having people take them seriously again in those demands. They cannot have it both ways.

I know the New Democratic Party will stand up today. I have listened to their front bench all this spring going after the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) by saying: "Where is your inspection service? What is it doing? Why does it not do this?" These are the people who suddenly do not want me to have an inspection service. They want my rights to discipline and my rights to move in eroded.

If they want to be taken seriously in the last few days of this session, asking the Minister of Health what he is doing about nursing homes and other institutions, then they are going to have a very difficult time if they stand up to vote against Bill 77.

I will adjourn the debate at this time.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Drea has moved second reading of Bill 77.

Clerk of the House: He moved adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: No, I do not think he was intending adjournment of the debate. He was just completing his comments.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I did move adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Mr. Drea, the debate was adjourned.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved second reading of Bill 99, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief in that I gave a 30-minute opening statement last evening when we discussed second reading of Bill 101. I referred to Bill 99 in that statement.

One comment made last evening by one of the speakers -- at the moment who it was escapes me -- was that an important section of the amendments was missing. The opinion of the member who raised the point was that the benefit increases were not indexed.

I would like to make one comment in this respect. If those benefit increases were indexed, we would not have the opportunity each year to have a very forthright and open discussion on the Workers' Compensation Act and on the perceived problems the members opposite have with it. Therefore, I am looking forward to the debate today, as we discuss a five per cent increase to the benefits package for injured workers.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, statements made by cabinet ministers of this Conservative government never cease to amaze me. It was rightfully pointed out by my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) that if the government is so concerned about having full debate on its policies, it would not have introduced ad valorem taxes.

Mr. Ruston: That is right. It is just the opposite.

Mr. Mancini: It is the opposite of what the minister has stated.

Mr. Ruston: I agree with it, if we are going to do it with all of them. If we have a debate on the tax every year, there is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Mancini: As always, this Conservative government likes to have it both ways.

I have looked through Bill 99 and, as we know, it was initially the intention of the government to come forward with one bill, having the sections in Bill 99 and Bill 101 merge. Because of the difficulty and the need for further debate on the sections covered by Bill 101, it was agreed by all that the sections of the act that were to be amended to grant increases to the injured workers should be separate in order to not delay the increases due to the injured workers. It was not the intention of any member of the House to delay the increase to the injured workers.

The minister did the right thing by agreeing to split the bill. It was a very generous move on his part. He could have taken the other road, causing confrontation, but he decided not to do so and I wish to acknowledge that.

As I look over Bill 99, there are the usual increases to the allowance for burials, increases in payments to widows, increases in payments to children who have lost either of their parents, increases in the lump sum payment, increases for back braces and for upper limb prostheses. We are not going to say these increases are not going to meet our acceptance.

I realize that for this fiscal year, until October, we are still under the Inflation Restraint Act and I realize many of these increases are five per cent or not much more. I realize that for many of these allowances, the burial allowance for instance, we have raised it from $1,400 to $1,500, but we could have been more generous.

I do not think a family could have a funeral paid for by the amount the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario is offering. Possibly the ministry should have canvassed some of the funeral homes and funeral directors across Ontario to get an average figure for a funeral and used that figure. I do not think any members would have objected. I do not think the public at large would have objected. I do not think the businesses who pay the workers' compensation premiums would have objected. When someone has lost his life on the job, I do not think we should be looking to burial allowances to try to reduce costs. I would have recommended to the minister that he look for an average cost.

It will not behoove any of us today to say the government has moved it from $1,400 to $1 ,500, now make it $1,600. I am not going to get into a bidding war with the minister or with anyone else. I am just going to leave the thought with him that maybe we should canvass across the province to determine the general cost of a funeral and insert that figure at our earliest opportunity.

4:20 p.m.

Payments to dependent widows and widowers are increased by $29. That is another area where I think we could be more generous. We are not talking about a person who is going to have an opportunity to get back into the work force and earn more or someone who may receive more benefits down the road. We are talking about a situation where the injured worker unfortunately has been killed on the job and the widow, the mother of the family, is left with all the responsibility of raising the family. I do not know why we have to chisel around with a $29-increase.

As I said before, I am not going to try to get into a bidding war with the minister, but I hope that some time between now and next year we can have a better debate on these matters. I am sorry we have to put it off that long, but the wheels of government turn very slowly. I acknowledge that. I would be foolish if I tried to pretend the wheels of government are anything but slow.

To have a better debate, we need more information from the minister. It would be very nice and informative to know whether many of the mothers who are widowed due to the death of their spouses, or people who cohabit who have lost their spouses, have to rely on social services to meet the needs of their families.

I am sure it is happening, but I would regret deeply if that happened to a family that had lost the father, the major breadwinner, the head of the household. Although society changes and we have many situations where both parents work, in many other instances it is still just the father, the husband who is out working because of any number of situations. We do not need to expound on the reasons for that.

When we have these tragedies, personally I always find it slightly offensive that the Legislature should be chiselling around with $29 for the only increase they are going to get this year. We are looking at $564 last year. I guess the minister must have used five per cent. Did he tack on five per cent?

If it were five per cent of several thousand dollars, that would mean something. If it is five per cent of $564, it does not mean very much. In future, when we get further opportunities, I hope we will look at it not as a percentage increase, but will try to establish a fairer and more equitable increase that would guarantee that the family of the deceased worker would not have to rely on social assistance, would not have to go to the social assistance office and make out an application for welfare assistance.

The loss of a loved one, particularly someone as close as a husband or a father, is very traumatic and tragic. I find it intolerable if we drive them to a standard of living that we would not tolerate. That is offensive. I am not trying to be too critical of the minister. I am just trying to make another suggestion that perhaps we should review how many of these families have had to rely on welfare or on family benefits allowances.

Any child of the deceased worker under 16 years of age would have his benefits increased from $157 a month to $165, not a lot of money in today's society. A young boy or girl 12, 13 or 14 years of age grows rapidly and needs new shoes and clothes on a regular basis because he or she is outgrowing them. At that age they grow very rapidly and usually consume more food than they do later on in life. It is very costly, and I do not think we are doing enough in that area.

The minister has raised the ceiling on earnings and also made some increases, as I said earlier, for replacement clothing, for a back brace and for any upper-limb prosthesis. I would like to see us cover the entire cost of whatever back brace or limb prosthesis is needed. If a worker has been injured on the job and if the result of the injury is that the worker needs a back brace, I do not understand the logic of why we would not cover the entire cost of the brace needed.

I am assuming, of course, that the injured worker has seen a doctor and has been rechecked or looked at by one of the board doctors, and I am assuming that the injured worker has received medical advice from practitioners both inside and outside the board as to his need for a back brace. I am also assuming that these medical practitioners would instruct the injured worker on the type of brace needed and where it could be purchased, etc. When we go through all that, one wonders why we put a limit on the amount of money that can be expended for the back brace.

A good back brace that has been recommended by both outside practitioners and doctors representing the board costs $350 or less or more. If any of us were ordered by our doctor to obtain a brace because of pain or injury in the back, the first thing we would ask would be: "What kind of brace do I need? Where should I get it?" Immediately we got that information, we would know the cost of the brace and we would know from our doctor, "Yes, that is an adequate brace for the type of injury you have."

I had a notion earlier to propose an amendment that would strike out those figures and leave it up to the doctors, the injured worker's doctor in consultation with the board doctor, to decide what type of brace was needed, and the full cost of the brace would be paid. I believe that is something we should do.

I did not make the amendment; we are trying to get this bill through. But I leave that for the minister's attention. As he said, we are going to be discussing this again next year, possibly after an election. Maybe he will be sitting here and some of us will be sitting there. No one knows.

Mr. Ruston: That is right. Do not shake your head, Russ. It might happen.

Mr. Mancini: I am not sure if the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) will even be running again, but if he does not, we will all miss him. We have enjoyed his company over these many years. The member for Renfrew South actually came to my constituency some years ago and visited my home town of Amherstburg. We had a delightful conversation the day he was there.

Mr. Philip: You even had a cup of tea together.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, we had a cup of tea.

Getting back to the argument concerning the upper-limb prosthesis, the same argument holds. If that is what is needed, if that is recommended by the doctor, why do we have a limit on what the injured worker is allowed to have? If the injury is genuine, if it is proven through the system the board has in place that it is a compensable injury, I find no good reason these limits are in place.

With those few comments, I will say to the minister we are going to endorse Bill 99. We want the injured workers to receive their increases without delay. We will look very seriously at any possible amendments that may be brought forward by anyone else this afternoon.

I hope the minister will give some thought to my comments today. I have tried to make them in an unprovocative way and put them forward in an effort to open up a dialogue among the minister, myself and others, and I would hope to give strength to the argument I have tried to make.

ACCIDENT AT FALCONBRIDGE

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I thought the assembly would be interested in the latest information regarding the Falconbridge nickel mine. The word I have just received is that all miners are on the surface except for the four men trapped just below the 4,000-foot level. There were only 100 to 200 men in the refuge chambers, not 250 as I reported earlier.

At 1:15 this afternoon, there was more bursting, and the rescue crews who went in to rescue the man just below the 4,000-foot level had to come back to the surface. The rescue crews were still able to maintain voice contact with the trapped man until they had to resurface. This man is about 10 feet below the 4,000-foot level.

Further information will be provided to me just as soon as it is received and I will pass it on accordingly.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's attempt to keep honourable members informed about this terrible tragedy. I know it is very emotional. We get so emotional when a tragedy in the mines and elsewhere is taking place.

I hope we will also become emotional when we are dealing with the improvement of benefits for injured workers. I do not think this is the case. I know a tragedy such as this is a media event. It is followed by everybody. People hope these tragedies will never take place.

When we are faced with improving the level of benefits, I think the government is using a completely different pattern. Even though I do not want to become controversial, as I was last night, I want to tell the minister and other members that we have a great concern when we are dealing with and debating improvements in the level of benefits. We always did in the past and we always will in the future. We have a specific and concrete concern about the well-being of injured workers, their families and their children.

We are faced with Bill 99, which has to do with the level of benefits. What we are dealing with is a poor five per cent increase in the level of benefits to injured workers across Ontario. To be frank, I do not think this bill is completely different. From what? It has been debated for the last year, since about July 1983, when the level of benefits was increased on behalf of injured workers.

I guess the pattern is the same. The mood is the same. We have voiced and raised concerns on behalf of injured workers and brought them to the attention of the minister. We moved amendments which were above the five per cent figure, but as members will recall, our amendments were defeated. Even though we have to follow the same pattern this year, we are pleased to do that on behalf of injured workers, although we realize the position of the government will be to defeat the amendments.

It is becoming a ritual event for us. Each time we talk about injured workers we raise the same concerns and get the same apathetic approach from the government without any specific response. We were critical of Bill 109, which was the major event on reshaping the Workers' Compensation Board across Ontario. We thought -- at least we had in mind from Bill 99 -- that something was coming up in relation to the contents of the bill per se rather than dealing with the five per cent increase.

We have become critical, but we have been trying to be constructive as well, trying to bring to the attention of the government the problems in relation to injured workers. There was never a concrete or positive response from the government, trying to deal with the situation in a more responsible way. This situation cannot be tolerated by us. It will not be tolerated in the future and we are going to voice the same kind of criticism until the government gets tired one day and takes the position that something must be done.

In reshaping the Workers' Compensation Board, which was one of the major events, and improving the benefits of injured workers across the province, we are faced with 80,000 injured workers across the province receiving a five per cent increase. How can we tolerate this situation?

I would like to respond to the points raised by the minister at the very beginning when he stood up and said last night that someone stated that the level of benefits has not been raised on a yearly basis. I was the one who raised this specific point. I think the minister missed the most important ingredient to the issue of indexing injured workers' pensions.

For the last 14 years, I realize the government has been increasing injured workers' pensions, based on the increase in the cost of living. What we need is a specific clause within the statute to make sure this increase will take place automatically. That is what I meant when I voiced that particular concern in relation to the indexing process for pensions of injured workers across Ontario.

This particular approach would eliminate the situation of injured workers having to appear at Queen's Park trying to make specific demands on the level of benefits. As the minister in charge of the Workers' Compensation Act, why will he not include a specific clause which will take into consideration this automatic indexing formula, which should be incorporated within the act?

4:40 p.m.

Nobody is saying that for the last 10 years the government has not increased the level of injured workers' pensions, based on increase in the cost of living. We are not saying that. The minister has done that, but the minister and the previous minister did it as a result of the pressure coming from injured workers' groups in front of Queen's Park and elsewhere and through briefs and letters. This situation is unacceptable because injured workers have been claiming and demanding the inclusion of this specific clause within the statute of the Workers' Compensation Act. It is time to do it.

Injured workers are not supposed to follow the whim of the government that is in power. Let us place this specific demand within the act and an automatic increase will take place every year whether or not an election is called. When that specific clause is included in the act, it will be up to the board to increase the level of benefits yearly, based on the cost of living increase.

I remind the minister, even though for the last 14 years injured workers' pensions have been increased on the basis of the cost of living increase and even though the five per cent increase this year is taking into consideration the cost of living increase from July 1983, that there are workers who were injured 14, 17 or 20 years ago and who are currently receiving permanent disability pensions. How much money did they lose? Are we taking into consideration the level of benefits for them? I do not think so.

That is why each time there is a demonstration, injured workers talk about injustices in the level of benefits. We never approach a solution to their problems. This is something that must be considered. It is not new. It has been raised in previous criticism, last year and two years ago. When the Workers' Compensation Board came before a committee of the Legislature to deal with its annual report, this criticism was heard.

We are getting frustrated, because we repeat the same thing all year round, and no concrete, positive response comes from the minister, the government or the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board to implement these policies.

Bill 99 does not take into consideration a lot of problems. I bring to the attention of the minister the specific clause dealing with workers who have been fatally injured. Based on Bill 99, their widows or widowers will be receiving an increase from $564 per month to $593 per month, effective July 1, 1984.

The minister is well aware of the number of fatalities taking place across the province. It is in the range of 322 every year. I hope I am not wrong with that figure. We are talking about the most sensitive issue of people who have passed away. They died in the performance of their duty. I do not see any difference between a worker dying on the job and a policeman dying in the line of duty. They are on the same level, if one wants to make a specific comparison between an injured worker dying on the job and a policeman being killed in the line of duty.

The government is using a different approach, and I think that is completely wrong. We have to equalize the situation and treat people equally. I do not think injured workers who die as a result of an injury on the job are considered to be the same as policemen dying in the line of duty.

What does the widow receive? She receives a poor $564, which will be increased by five per cent to $593 effective July 1, 1984. Here we are talking about justice and the rights of injured workers across Ontario. Sometimes we do not understand when we see groups of people demonstrating in front of Queen's Park or having meetings across Ontario, but they are trying to deal with their destiny, with the future of the Workers' Compensation Board and with what the government is going to do.

Last night I was very critical about Bill 101, about which the minister stated he would be introducing just one amendment about French language rights and services when it is debated again in the Legislature after it comes back from the committee that will sit during the summer.

I want to emphasize a principle to the government and to the minister in particular. He is not inclined to have an open mind about modifying Bill 101. I think the whole exercise defeats the principle of sitting as a committee and having public hearings during the summer. I will be the first to refuse and to reject the notion that I have to sit on such a committee. I want the minister to be aware of that. Maybe somebody else will sit on it, but I will not.

Unless the minister and his colleagues who will be sitting on the committee have an open mind about modifying Bill 101 from its present form to a better form by improving the contents of the bill per se, I do not think I want to participate in a process that is lost from the very beginning.

I hope my friend the chairman of that committee will understand my feelings. We have been sitting for many months. We have been debating the issues. Now we have to go through the same process. For what? Will we come back with the same bill in the Legislature and try to debate it clause by clause and then vote on it without modifying the bill?

The minister should concretize the utility of having a committee and how useful it would be if the committee could amend the content of the bill. He should have an open mind and accept recommendations that come from the committee as a whole. If we are going to have a closed mind, or if we see a closed mind on the government side, we are defeating the purpose of sitting on that committee. I will refuse, with great respect, even though I would like to participate in a debate about reshaping the future of workers' compensation benefits across Ontario. I think my function would become futile and fruitless. I do not think I will be willing to sit.

Even though we are dealing with Bill 99, I hope the minister will be able to give me a more positive statement in relation to the future of the committee and what the government will be willing to accept from the committee's recommendations when we debate the contents of Bill 101 before I finalize my own position.

I have an open mind, as the minister will notice. I hope that he and his colleagues also will have open minds and make a clear statement that they will accept the committee's recommendations I hope he will try to make sure that the members on his side of the House who will be sitting on the committee will take into consideration the contents of the presentations that will be made before the committee during the summer.

4:50 p.m.

Having said that, I want to go back to the principle of Bill 99, because that is where we are. The so-called fatal cases are the most sensitive cases with which members of this Legislature are faced. This is a traumatic experience for the survivor spouse and the dependants, and here we are talking about going from $564 to $593 per month, based on the five per cent increase.

That is completely wrong; they deserve more. We cannot calculate the life of a worker who dies on the job at $593 per month, effective July 1, 1984. It is unacceptable. The minister is aware that we are dealing with 322 fatal cases every year across Ontario. He is well aware that billions of dollars are invested by the board. Some of the money should go back to these people. They deserve this money; they need it urgently because their families have been suffering as a result of the breadwinner disappearing because of an accident.

As I recall, I raised this point in July 1983. In July 1984 I am raising the same concerns. To whom am I talking? That is why I feel really frustrated when we talk about Workers' Compensation Board problems and about the concerns of injured workers. I realize some people are fed up, but they are real problems and we have to come to grips with them.

I want to draw to the attention of the government that last year I said we pass legislation every year, and then the corporate board implements policies to interpret the legislation we pass. That is where injured workers are facing the bureaucratic process, at 2 Bloor Street East.

This morning a constituent of mine came to my office to deal with a WCB problem. Let us see the approach of the board in relation to the so-called item of rehabilitation, which falls under subsection 43(5).

I felt offended on reading the contents of this letter. There was a wage loss supplement involved. The man is losing money. He has been receiving a wage loss supplement for two years. He was a successful case of rehabilitation; he used to be a construction worker making $10 per hour, and he was rehabilitated by the board, became a cabinet maker and ended up making $5 per hour. A 30 per cent disability award was granted by the board on a permanent basis as a result of a serious back injury. Consider the contents of this letter in relation to the wage loss supplement pension:

"Information on file indicates that you have been in receipt of a wage loss supplement since March 12. 1979. The supplement is temporary in nature and is designed to assist a worker financially, provided that the impairment of earning capacity of the worker is significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury. In other words, it must be demonstrated that the permanent partial disability is preventing the worker from returning to this pre-accident employment or earning a wage comparable to his pre-accident earnings, which is based on 75 per cent of the average weekly earnings during a 12-month period immediately preceding the accident.

"The payment of a wage loss supplement is temporary in nature. In your particular case, you have been in receipt of a wage loss supplement for a considerable length of time." I do not want to go through the whole content, but the conclusion is: "Because of the considerable length of time, enough is enough. We have to stop the wage loss supplement."

Subsection 43(5) does not mention a considerable length of time. They say: "This person received enough wage loss supplement from us, a 30 per cent disability award since 1979. Tough luck. The person can stand on his feet and make $10 per hour now. The law is clear." The policies made by the compensation board are completely wrong. The interpretation of the law is completely wrong.

Enough is enough. Tough luck, if one is making $5 per hour. There is a wage loss involved. There is no doubt about that. There is a 30 per cent disability award, given on a permanent basis, but this man lost the wage loss supplement from the board because it was given to the man for a considerable period of time. There is no specific section within the act where it talks about the length of time. There is still time to move an emergency debate on this topic.

For some time, we have not received sympathy for the criticism we are raising. I know the minister might say, "You should write a letter to clarify the position of the board," or "Send me a letter and I will investigate the case for you," or "You can investigate the case by yourself."

From my constituency office today, I got in touch with the pension section of the board, which is in charge of the wage loss supplement. It took me 20 minutes before I could communicate with someone in that section. I realize there is a change in the communication system at the board, and they might be faced with problems, but I think 20 minutes is too long to wait before a person is able to talk to someone.

When I was able to contact someone -- not the person who wrote the letter, but somebody else because the other person was not available -- the only comment I received was: "You made your point. Someone will contact you." That was it. I think I should write a letter to the chairman, or else I will not get anywhere. If I do not get anywhere, I am trying to interpret the feelings of an injured worker who is trying to clarify his situation in relation to his individual case.

When injured workers go there, they are frustrated and fed up. The people at the board call the police and the injured workers are charged with trespassing. Can the minister tell me how many people cannot go to this public place as a result of charges laid against injured workers because they are fed up with the bureaucratic process and explode when they are there? I would like to have the figure. I was not able to get this figure from the board. Maybe the minister can. I sympathize with these people who go there and try to get their frustration off their chests.

5 p.m.

If we are not sensitive about fatal cases, which number 322 every year -- the widow or widower receives benefits for dependants in the range of $176 per month, and as a result of the five per cent increase they have been increased to $185 for a dependant child under the age of 16 years -- we are not understanding the trauma of injured workers across the province.

My colleagues in this party have been raising the same concern over and over. I am sick and tired of reiterating the same concern every year when an amendment is introduced in this Legislature at the end of the session. If we have time, my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and I are going to plan a different political strategy in the future over the yearly emergency debates on behalf of injured workers; emergency debates every day on behalf of injured workers on the floor of this Legislature, trying to sensitize the ministers and the members on that side of the House.

I know the minister means well. He is concerned, and when we have talked to him about specific problems he takes them very seriously. I do not expect the minister to be at the board on a daily basis trying to find out what is going on. That is why there is a chairman, appointed by the government, trying to run the show there. The bureaucratic approach has been increasing lately and someone is responsible for that. I think the minister has to clear the air down there.

Injured workers are angry, I am angry, and I hope the minister, with his sensitivity, will be able to do something about it. I know some of my colleagues would like to participate in this debate. I would like to tell the minister we are going to move amendments. We disagree with the notion of the five per cent increase. We are going to move amendments based on a 10 per cent increase in the level of benefits.

I am already reading the intention of the minister and the government to reject the 10 per cent increase, but for us as a party there is a strong commitment to injured workers across Ontario. Even 10 per cent will not cover the pain, suffering and bureaucracy they have been faced with since their accidents.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on Bill 99, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act. I find difficulties in debating the bills before the Legislature, Bill 101 and Bill 99. It seems to be a practice in the Ontario Legislature that legislation to amend the Workers' Compensation Act is usually brought in about this time of year before the recess of the spring session, or in the late fall session when the House is almost ready to prorogue.

It seems to indicate a tendency of the minister or the government to have closure on such important pieces of legislation. I was rather disappointed I did not have the time or opportunity to address myself to Bill 101 yesterday. There was about two and a half hours of debate on it, which is not sufficient to put forward the views of all members of the Legislature on what should be in it.

In 1978 I introduced a motion in committee asking for major changes in workers' compensation legislation to bring it in line with present living standards and qualities required to maintain a family. It was carried in committee and that was the beginning of the Weiler report.

Look at the intent of the Weiler report: "The initial premise of workers' compensation remains valid. All workers should be guaranteed protection against loss of income due to occupational injuries irrespective of the incidence of fault -- be it their own, their employer's or a fellow employee's." That is from Paul Weiler's Reshaping Workers' Compensation for Ontario in November 1980.

There has been much discussion since then concerning the different reports. I thought by this time we would have some conclusion evidenced from that for a new direction, setting new policies and guidelines in the Workers' Compensation Act. I find today in Bill 99 that is not coming forward. It has been the practice in past years to bring in a bill around June with a small increase in benefits to the injured worker. This year it is based once again on the five per cent ceiling.

The previous member mentioned that the New Democratic Party would be bringing in amendments to raise that to 10 per cent. Even 10 per cent does not seem to be too much for the injured worker on the present income that he may find himself faced with through the loss of job and income. The benefit the injured worker receives is based upon 75 per cent of his gross income, so he is already taking a 25 per cent penalty. Then we come in this year and say we are going to give him five per cent.

That applies to different areas of the bill. One is the burial allowance benefit, an increase from $1,400 to $1,500, which is minimal. My colleague mentioned he thought it should be raised. I understand much of Bill 101 will be integrated with the Canada pension plan. I suggested in 1978 they should take all the pension plans, company or otherwise, when a person is injured and has lost his source of income, and bring them together under one plan as one source of guaranteed income. The family should not suffer for any loss due to the injury. I agree with that.

Perhaps I could agree with paralleling this bill with some of the provisions in the Canada pension plan, but let us take a look at the increase in the CPP benefits announced in a statement issued on December 21, 1983:

"Ottawa's Health and Welfare minister today announced that over 1.5 million Canada pension plan recipients will have their benefits increased effective January 1, 1984. The annual adjustment, which this year is 6.7 per cent, is based in the rise in the cost of living over the last year." I suggest much of the government policy in this area is based on some form of indexing to the cost of living.

It goes on: "There is a lump sum death benefit payable under the Canada pension plan. The maximum payable in respect of contributors who die in 1984 will be $2,080." I suppose if we add the $1,500, that will cover the average burial expenses a family may encounter. I suggest they are already paralleling this with much of the federal CPP.

5:10 p.m.

Let us take a look at other areas here. I was looking through the Ontario Gazette dated June 16, 1984, and I want to bring this to the attention of the minister. I wish the government would follow some consistent path when it brings in legislation, particularly amendments to workers' compensation. This relates to the public under the Regulations Act, June 16, 1984, the Provincial Courts Act.

The judges now have a common factor of 80 years plus service. If they get a factor of 80, they can come up with a pretty reasonable pension and insurance scheme in case a person does not attain the age of 65 or retirement age. There is a survivor benefit. I think under the teachers' superannuation plan there is a factor of 90, and even under the Ontario municipal employees retirement system the factor is 92.

We have different variations. Under this government's legislation, criteria have been set up for different agencies or groups of persons who have pension schemes. On survivor's allowance, it says that upon the death of a spouse a person is entitled to an annual survivor's allowance until the child or the youngest of the children attains 18 years of age.

It states in the section that it is paid until a survivor is 16 years of age, unless one can show proof that the survivors or children are going to attend some school upgrading their education. That almost leaves the door open for another area of appeal. Sometimes members have to be involved in the issues of workers' compensation, checking with the board to find out why it has not allowed benefits for a child aged 16 to 18.

It goes on to say that under the Provincial Courts Act, "For the purpose of determining entitlement to a survivor allowance under the regulations, a person who has attained the age of 18 years" -- I understand in the new Bill 101 it is 19 -- "but has not attained the age of 25 years, and who is in full-time attendance at a school, college, university or other institution that is recognized by the board as a place of higher education, shall be deemed not to have attained the age of 18."

One would think the minister responsible for the legislation would have put that in Bill 99 or Bill 101, but it is not there. I suggest consideration must be given to this area, It should not be left to the discretion of the board where somebody might say, "We are not going to permit your child to enter university or college."

When there is a death due to an injury, it has a traumatic impact on the family. One of the first things a person may encounter is, "What about my children's education?" Under the present act, there is not much encouragement. It says a person may continue to be eligible if he continues to be in full-time attendance in a school. The benefits can terminate when the child reaches the age -- I do not know what the age is, but he has to be in school. Many survivors question that area. It frightens the child when the surviving spouse says, "My child will not be able to attend a school because we may be cut off from workers' compensation." That is an area I am concerned about.

On the section dealing with the increase of five per cent from $188 per week, I am surprised that will still remain at five per cent. There is nothing that moves it up to a higher rate. I mentioned the Canada pension plan to the minister --

Interjection.

Mr. Haggerty: My House leader tells me not to prolong this.

Mr. Nixon: It is a free country.

Mr. Haggerty: It is a free country. He did not get my message when I began. I said that bringing in a bill at this time is almost like closure.

Mr. Nixon: Not only that but we want to vote on it before six.

Mr. Haggerty: Perhaps he has provoked me into further discussion of it.

Mr. Nixon: I was afraid of that.

Mr. Haggerty: Looking at subsection 4 of the bill, the minister thinks he is giving them a great deal by giving five per cent. I am sure he is aware that in the last few years the Supreme Court of Canada has made a number of large awards in personal injury actions.

I quote: "In 1978 it decided a number of cases with substantial general damage awards of $613,000, $859,000 and $540,000. In these cases the court affirmed the basic principle of compensation in tort litigation: namely, that the victim must be restored to the financial position he or she was in before the injury.

"To this end the court has decided that the standard of care applicable to paraplegics is that of optional care, which is care in the home rather than in the hospital, in all three cases, and confirmed" at a later date I guess; this is a 1981 case -- "the award for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life has been $100,000. The Supreme Court has made it clear that only in rare circumstances will it award an amount higher than $100,000.

"In fact, the dependants of people who have been injured or killed by the fault or neglect of any person may also, under the Family Law Reform Act, sue for damages; the dependants of workers who have been injured on the job, on the other hand, are not entitled to compensation unless the injury is fatal, in which case workers' compensation legislation provides them with benefits."

When you look at the civil action cases in courts or tort actions taken, the compensation is much higher than is allowed here.

I have to give the minister credit on one section of Bill 101, where he has allowed a new section of the act. I recall that I have spoken on this for a number of years. The new section reads:

"A new award scheme will be introduced for the dependants of workers who die after the bill comes into force. The new scheme will apply regardless of when the accident occurred. Under the scheme, a lump sum payment of between $20,000 and $60,000, depending on the circumstances, will be paid to the spouse, separated spouse or children of the deceased worker, and periodic payments, not exceeding 90 per cent of the deceased worker's net average earnings at the time of the injury, depending on the circumstances, will be payable to the dependants of the worker."

I recall addressing myself on a number of occasions to the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act and the fact that there was nothing in there for a surviving spouse. I believe it was about two years ago, speaking about the same time in June, that I brought this matter to the minister. After my comments on the bill relating to surviving spouses, the Workers' Compensation Board, through an actuarial decision, decided the injuries would be worth $30,000 up to $60,000; but if the injured worker passed on, nothing from that trust fund would go to the surviving spouse. I understand changes have now come about.

I remember the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) discussing it with me afterwards. He said, "I never looked at that section until you brought it to the attention of some of the members over here." It was a serious flaw in the legislation that there was no pass-through for survivor benefits after that trust fund had been set up. I commend the minister for listening to some of the comments from members on this side of the House.

As I said previously, it is difficult for a person to accept the five per cent. With the amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party for 10 per cent, I hope the minister will follow the guidelines set down by the Canada pension plan benefits and will index the increase at least to the cost of living over the past year, which is 6.7 per cent; let us make it seven per cent. I think this would ease some of the pain that many injured workers and their families have to go through year after year looking for the next increase in workers' compensation, the next source of additional income.

5:20 p.m.

Despite government policy, we do not see Ontario Hydro rates remain at five per cent; we do not see home heating fuel costs stay at five per cent; they are usually higher than that. I suggest the minister should be taking a close look at the amendments coming forward from my colleagues to the left. We should be considering additional increases above the five per cent permitted under the present legislation and in the amendments put forward by the minister in Bill 99.

Based upon the House leader's remarks to me, I will sit down now, but I do wish the minister would consider some of my comments.

ACCIDENT AT FALCONBRIDGE

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: With the permission of the chair and my colleagues, I would like to bring the latest report relative to the tragedy at the Falconbridge mine.

This report was provided to me through the courtesy of Scott White of Canadian Press and it was carried on the press wire at 4:51 p.m. It reads as follows:

"'Voice contact has been made with one of four miners trapped by rock falls in a nearby nickel mine more than 1 kilometre below the surface,' officials said. Peter Marshall, a spokesman for Falconbridge Ltd. said, 'A team of senior supervisors, sent down the mine shaft, talked to one of the men about 4:15 p.m. this afternoon. It was unknown if he was injured or if the three others were still alive,' Marshall said.

"Marshall said the men were working in a stoke, an excavation area about 150 metres from the mine shaft, when the series of rock bursts began about 10:30 am. The miners were cut off from the shaft by rubble. 'About 170 other miners working in other locations got out of the mine safely,' he said. 'Officials were pumping oxygen into the shaft,' a Falconbridge spokesman said, but it was unknown when a rescue attempt would be made."

An earlier report I gave indicated the rescue crews had to return to the surface because of additional rock bursts. That was about 3 p.m. this afternoon when the rescue crews had to come up and the situation is not safe enough for them yet to return, although they expect that will be accomplished just as soon as is prudent.

In summary, the other miners who were underground at the time are all now on the surface. There are four miners still trapped. One of them is known to be alive. The whereabouts and condition of the other three is not known at this time.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister keeping us up to date on the events at Falconbridge. Our thoughts are with those miners and their families. It must be indescribably difficult waiting out this kind of news when one is close to people who are trapped underground.

I shall be very brief in discussion of this bill because I believe my colleague the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), as usual, has covered the main points in fine fashion.

We are going to support this bill because it does provide an increase. As well, I was very pleased that this part of the bill was split off from the other part of the reform, Bill 101. There are a lot of problems with this bill though and it would not be very difficult to vote against it. It would be very easy to vote against it and justify to injured workers in the province why we voted against this bill.

Some day this government is going to have the decency to bring in a bill like this in March, April or May and not leave it to the last couple of days of the session. It is truly remarkable and unacceptable the way the government plays games with injured workers every single year by doing it this way.

If the government is not ashamed of the increase, it should bring it in at a decent time so we can have a decent debate. I suppose if it is ashamed of what it is doing, then it will continue to bring it in at the last moment so there is inadequate debate on the bill.

I really believe there is no other single issue that so clearly separates this party from the government as legislation surrounding the needs of injured workers in the province. It is funny because it is as though the government members had virtually no contact themselves with injured workers in the province. I do not know how that is possible.

Mr. Barlow: Oh, come on.

Mr. Laughren: I am serious. The chairman of the resources development committee expresses disbelief. I do not know how he can support the kind of legislation that is the responsibility of government and still deal with injured workers on a daily basis. It is beyond my comprehension.

I ran out of time last night, but I know there is a lot of time today. I thought I would spin out the story of an injured worker who came to me, and express to the minister how frustrating it is and ask him whether at some point he will reply to the principles involved in this particular case. He has never done so in the past.

A man who is in his late 40s -- he may even be 50; I am not sure -- has worked for many years at Inco in Sudbury. He has a 15 per cent disability to his back. Last fall, he went on total temporary benefits for a period of time and then went on to total supplement to carry him over for a while. About two weeks ago he received a notice saying his supplement was being cut off because his level of disability was now at 15 per cent.

Here is a married man with three children in post-secondary institutions this coming year. His income is 15 per cent of maximum compensation benefits. The sickness and accident people tell him it is a compensation problem and not to come to them. The compensation board says he is at his level of disability -- 15 per cent. The doctor says, "You can go back to work on light duty." The employer says, "There is no light duty available, sorry."

I want the minister to tell me how that person is supposed to exist. What is that person supposed to do? Does the minister think that is fair compensation? Is that a fair compensation system? I do not know what to tell this man. I can understand the anger that is welling up in him. It was scary when I witnessed it. That is the kind of thing the minister refuses to deal with.

More specifically, on the bill itself, I am not happy about the fact there is still no indexing. It still means this government feels a very strange need to exercise control over the fate of injured workers on a yearly basis. The government wants to have them sitting in the palm of its hands every June and, depending on its largess, to bring in an increase. The government may or may not do it. It is entirely up to the government. How paternalistic can it be. That is the attitude of the government.

I look at the income of dependent spouses. My goodness, I did some very simple arithmetic. If a worker is killed on the job, and there are four children at home, that family will have to live on $1,253 a month with these increases in place. It does not matter whether that income earner, the spouse who was killed on the job, earned $15,000 a year, $20,000 a year, $25,000 a year or more. That does not matter. That has no relationship. I know it is going to change under Bill 101. Thank goodness for that. It is amazing what guilt can do. This is an outrageous system the government has here.

Another thing is the earning ceiling. How the government justifies an earning ceiling of $26,800, I do not understand. By the minister's own admission, 32 per cent of workers in Ontario do not have their earnings fully covered by the compensation system. That is in the background notes on page 8. I always thought that of all people, the Conservatives -- big-C and small-c -- believed in the work ethic and therefore they would not penalize someone because he happened to be earning a higher income than someone else.

5:30 p.m.

There are quite a few miners, construction workers and high steel operators who earn more than $26,800, but the government has decided those people should be penalized more than someone earning $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 a year. I would like to hear the rationale for that. I have never heard a good one. I would really like to hear the rationale for that.

We are going to vote for the bill despite those problems, although what is in this bill is not enough. It is not indexed. The ceiling is absolutely ridiculous and discriminatory. It is ridiculous for the dependents of workers killed on the job, and there is no solution for those thousands of workers who were hurt a number of years ago, as my colleague the member for Dovercourt explained a few minutes ago.

Mr. Wrye: I want to be very brief, Mr. Speaker, but I want to raise two issues with the minister.

The first is the lack of automatic indexing. I, for one, cannot understand why we have to go through this same charade every June. The minister is aware of the views expressed way back when by Professor Weiler.

Having sat on the committee and having reviewed them thoroughly, I want to say it is time to take this whole issue out of the political arena so we are not in a situation of the government trying to decide whether it ought to meet inflation, or come close to inflation, and the opposition trying to pick a number out of thin air. We should simply take the best objective method of indexing injured workers' pensions and benefits each year, by looking at the increase in the average industrial wage.

After all, what is an injured worker? He or she is someone who, if still in the labour force, would be a part of that average industrial wage. I would urge the minister to go back to his colleagues and make this the last year of what I would call a charade.

I want to deal very briefly with one other issue. I raised this with the minister a week ago today, I raised it with the minister last night, I am going to raise it again and I am going to keep raising it until I get an answer. I would remind the minister of the point I made. He said we would be debating these bills next week. He thought that would be the appropriate point to talk about it. So let us talk about it.

I am going to give him the same example I gave him a week ago: a 40-year-old spouse with two dependent children, widowed one day before the proclamation of the new law. In other words, it comes under this existing act, Bill 99. The pre-accident income was $26,000. That family will get the sum of $923 a month and any Canada pension plan benefits if they apply. As the minister well knows, they do not always apply.

On the other hand, the same spouse, same age, same income, widowed one day after the proclamation of the new amendments, would receive a lump sum of $40,000 -- the minister knows that is in Bill 101 -- plus 90 per cent of the net earnings of the accident victim or, approximately as I reckon it, $1,600 a month.

I wish the minister would get up on his feet and explain that enormous discrepancy to me and to injured workers in the province. It is there in black and white. I congratulated the minister last night, I congratulate him again today and commend him for having recognized just how poorly we treated spouses and children of fatal accident victims. One of the truly good improvements in the new detailed amendments in that very field.

Having said that we recognized the problem, why does the government get tied to the five per cent? Why did the minister not just reach out and say, "We have treated you badly over the years," and simply double the amount? We would argue that the five per cent is certainly not adequate. It does not match the increase, for example, in Canada pension plan disability benefits, which is 6.7 per cent.

If there is any one area where an injustice continues to be wrought on the families of injured workers, it is that one. I would hope the minister would either explain away this enormous discrepancy or simply do the right thing: bring in an amendment to his own bill and increase that one area. I ask him again to take a look at increasing the five per cent to 10 per cent in that one area, and give them a little more of what their real due is.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on this bill. I thought I would congratulate the minister when I read Bill 101, because I felt with that bill he would introduce some substantial amendments, but that is not the case. The fact the minister says he has introduced amendments in the last years, increasing the benefits by five per cent, six per cent or eight per cent, does not really mean much.

What is basically wrong with Bill 101 is that the government is starting to reshape its words. It is not what we say, that the worker's compensation system is basically wrong.

I want to tell the minister he is perpetuating a situation of inequity with this bill. I want to bring to his attention two sections of the bill that deal with widows.

Can the minister tell the House why a widow who is currently receiving a pension from the Workers' Compensation Board should receive $593 from July 1, 1984, and a widow -- I hope there are no widows, but we know tragedies happen every day -- under the new act will receive a lump sum of $20,000 and a pension? Why is there such a disparity in the treatment of the two different situations? We know the consequences from a financial point of view, from an economic point of view and from a moral point of view are exactly the same.

I would also like to tell the minister that by increasing by five per cent the pensions of the majority of the 90,000 workers who are partially disabled, he is really not redressing a situation that is basically wrong, because it is based on an assessment reflecting a criterion that is not acceptable and that was condemned by most of the people who appeared before the standing committee on resources development. I am talking about the meat chart.

I do not want to make the argument one more time because it is not necessary, and we know very well the meat chart is a structure that applies without discrimination to every kind of injured worker, without taking any account of the peculiar aspects of the injury, the aspects related to the background of the injured worker, his or her skill or the possibility of going back into the labour market.

We have a majority of partially disabled workers who according to the act would theoretically be able to go back to a job, but they do not go back. If they receive pensions that are almost insignificant, then if they do not go back to any kind of job, they cannot go back, and not because they do not want to go back. By giving them five per cent, the government is perpetuating a situation that is unacceptable. I do not want to prolong the debate, but I want to make this point because I feel very strongly about this.

I want to make a further point that subsection 43(5) of the present act which has not been amended also penalizes the injured workers because the pensions and supplements are based on the salary the injured worker received in the 12 months before the accident. I had a recent case of a worker who was injured for the first time in 1971, subsequently went back to work and now is condemned to a situation of total disability. He is receiving 30 per cent disability, his pension is based on the salary he was receiving before 1971 and his supplement is based on the salary he was receiving before 1971.

If the minister thinks that is justice, he should stand up and tell us. However, he knows and we know this is very wrong. This amendment is perpetuating --

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Could you prevail upon the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) to allow the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) to listen to the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I have a request for the member for Riverdale from the member for Lake Nipigon not to divert the minister's attention.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have to take responsibility for attracting the attention of the member for Riverdale by asking him to come over to discuss a mutual concern. It is my fault and I want the member for Lake Nipigon to know that.

Mr. Di Santo: I thank the member for Lake Nipigon. I will repeat briefly the point I was making. Many injured workers who are partially disabled are not working. This means, for all intents and purposes, they are totally disabled. This bill does not redress the situation. The workers who receive benefits under subsection 43(5) receive those supplements based on the wages they were making before the accident. That is wrong. I want the minister to tell us how this bill is going to redress that situation.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Since the members have raised concerns during the course of the debate, perhaps the minister has a reply. I think it is time for the minister to give us an answer.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give a response on each of the concerns that have been raised today. I will make an opening statement and try to address them when Bill 101 goes to committee.

I am not trying to be patronizing, flippant or anything when I say that the various members opposite who spoke last evening and those who spoke today for the first or second time are all very able advocates for injured workers. I mean that sincerely. I have listened with interest, I appreciate what they are trying to say and I will try to make a complete and full response at that time rather than an ad hoc, ad lib type of response.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I move second reading of Bill 77.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: As I understood it, the arrangement was that we would have committee of the whole House and third reading of the bill before we adjourn today. Is that not correct?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will stand down the motion I moved. I thought it was only on the vote.

Mr. Speaker: The motion has been withdrawn.

House in committee of the whole.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 99, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I think I should give you a summary of the amendments I am going to put forward in relation to Bill 99 so at least you can proceed in an orderly fashion in relation to a specific process.

The Deputy Chairman: Is the honourable member going to propose an amendment to something in section 2?

Mr. Lupusella: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to subsection 36(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member has put the chair in a position where, with the permission of the House, the member for Dovercourt is going back to section 1, which I thought had already passed. If there is unanimous permission, we will go back to section 1.

Agreed to.

On section 1:

Mr. Di Santo: He was on his feet.

The Deputy Chairman: I did not see him. We have that permission.

Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended as follows:

Clause 1(1)(a) of the bill by striking out "$1,500" and substituting therefor "$1,540";

Clause 1(1)(c) of the bill by striking out "$593" and substituting therefor "$620";

Clause 1(1)(d) of the bill by striking out "$593," "$165" and "$185" and substituting therefor "$620," "$173" and "$194," respectively;

Clause 1(1)(e) of the bill by striking out "$185" and substituting therefor "$194"; and

Clause 1(1)(f) of the bill by striking out "$593" and substituting therefor "$620."

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be relatively brief. I want to emphasize the principle that has been enunciated previously in the course of the general debate in relation to Bill 99. The minister is aware that we are not completely happy with the ceiling on the increase, which is in the range of five per cent; injured workers deserve more. Just to be consistent with previous amendments that were moved in July 1983, I think the 10 per cent increase will not alleviate the problems of injured workers across the province, but they will help them.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I made it plain in my earlier remarks that we were unhappy with the percentage increase being offered by the ministry but that we would not be putting forward our own amendments because we did not want to be seen to be getting into a bidding war with anyone. I also made it clear that if the New Democratic Party were going to put forward an amendment for a 10 per cent increase, we were going to support it.

I want to make it abundantly clear to the minister that I am unhappy about the way we are figuring out the costs of such items as burial allowance. I said to him earlier that we should not be chiselling around trying to increase the allowance by $100 or $140 or $150. We should have information provided to us. The minister should know what the average cost of a burial is; that is the figure we should be allowing the family of the fatally injured worker to receive. If it is $2,200 or $2,400, that is what the figure should be.

We should not be chiselling around saying to the family of an fatally injured worker, "Last year we gave you $1,400 for a burial and this year we are going to give you $1,500 for a burial." That is a policy I cannot support in principle, although we are going to support the bill.

As to the other changes that were recommended by the member for Dovercourt, the same argument holds true in the case of an injured worker or a worker who is killed on the job. It is not so much a question of how much we are going to give the family in lieu of the monetary loss and in lieu of the tremendous family loss, but of absolutely ensuring that family will not have to turn --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, can I move that the committee rise and report? The member will be on first tomorrow.

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

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT (CONCLUDED)

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Drea's motion for second reading of Bill 77, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McCaffrey, McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell;

Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip, Rae, Reid, T. P., Renwick, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Van Horne, Wrye.

Ayes 57; nays 39.

Ordered for standing committee on social development.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could indicate the order of business for tomorrow.

Following routine proceedings tomorrow afternoon, we will complete the committee of the whole stage of Bill 99; followed by Bill 66, second reading and committee of the whole; followed by Bills 104, 105, 84 and 85, and committee of the whole if needed. Then we will move on to committee of the whole of Bill 141.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

20 juin 1984