Journal des débats 1984-oct-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House, I ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing in the Speaker's gallery members of the delegation of presidents of regional councils of France.

COMMERCIAL FISHING QUOTAS

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege in regard to a press release issued on October 19, 1984, about commercial fishing quotas. I believe the responsibility for this press release lies with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and legal counsel from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr. Justice Smith of the Supreme Court of Ontario, in a judgement released on October 15, 1984, declared certain federal and provincial fishery regulations to be unconstitutional and of no force and effect. The imposition of individual commercial fishing quotas by the provincial Minister of Natural Resources last April was thus declared invalid and unlawful.

On Friday, October 19, 1984, the ministry moved for a stay of this decision pending its appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. This appeal will likely be heard in January or February. The application for a stay was dismissed by Mr. Justice Houlden in chambers and costs were awarded to the respondents, Mr. Peralta and Mr. Moody.

Put simply, Mr. Justice Houlden would not interfere with Mr. Justice Smith's decision and suggested that, if so inclined, the ministry could appeal. Counsel for the ministry then asked Mr. Justice Houlden whether the ministry could lay charges against the fishermen who exceeded the quotas in the interim. Mr. Justice Houlden replied that the ministry "may attempt to lay charges" and that "the fishermen will simply have to take their chances."

The latter was a reference to the possibility that a finding of constitutional validity by the Ontario Court of Appeal, if upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, could result in the eventual prosecution of those fishermen for exceeding quotas and, thus, the eventual enforcement of the various charges that might be laid pursuant to the now declared invalid regulations.

It is the view of the legal counsel for the fishermen that a good defence for these charges could be made but that they would have ultimately to be placed before the courts.

This conversation with Mr. Justice Houlden was very much a conversation and was in no way part of any official statement or decree by the justice.

Now we get to the point of the press release that was circulated by the minister. Unfortunately, in the late afternoon of Friday, October 19, the minister issued a press release that fundamentally misrepresented both the content and the context of the decision made by Mr. Justice Houlden earlier that morning. Indeed, the confusion was such that three separate news reporters telephoned individual fishermen on Friday afternoon, following the receipt of this press release, to advise them that a stay had been granted and that a Court of Appeal justice had ordered the fishermen to comply with the ministry's fishing quotas.

Two particular misrepresentations in this press release gave rise to this confusion. First, it was the suggestion that Mr. Justice Houlden --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully and I have failed to see where the member's privileges have been offended in any way. The fishermen's privileges may have been, but yours as a member certainly have not been.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, may I take 10 seconds to respond to that particular point?

Mr. Speaker: I shall listen for 10 seconds.

Mr. Mancini: Like everyone else, I was confused by the minister's statement. The way the statement was prepared led everyone to believe a stay had been granted.

Two particular misrepresentations in this press release gave rise to this confusion. First, there was the suggestion that Mr. Justice Houlden found that "a stay was not necessary." In fact, the judge held that "a stay was not available."

Second, there was a suggestion that Mr. Justice Houlden had somehow decreed that the ministry had the right to enforce the individual commercial fishing quotas. In fact, the most that was said was that the ministry could attempt to lay charges.

These are not merely distinctions without a difference. The language used by the minister to misdescribe what transpired in Mr. Justice Houlden's chambers created the impression that Mr. Justice Smith's decision, holding the commercial fishing quotas unconstitutional, was of no real force or significance.

Indeed, this was the very impression created in the minds of the news media, of myself and of my colleagues in the Legislature. Whether the minister has, purposely or not, we need a clarification today --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, I have failed to see where your privileges as a member have been offended. I find you completely out of order. I would suggest that you address that question to the minister at the appropriate time.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I cannot --

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, no.

Mr. Renwick: On the question, Mr Speaker, I would refer you in this instance to the statement by the minister on Thursday, October 18, in this assembly at pages 3204 and 3205 of Hansard. It would appear to me that a consideration of that, together with the comments made by my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), would indicate there is at least a requirement on the minister on the question of privilege to make a statement in the House to clarify what he said on Thursday and what he said in his press release on Friday. My privileges are affected by that, sir.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I appreciate your drawing that to my attention, although the member for Essex South did not, in fact, refer to the previous statement made by the minister.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, my apologies for that, but I did refer to the press release of Friday. All of us are aware that the minister has --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: -- got himself into a pile of trouble over these quotas. I think it is only fair for him to clarify whether or not --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member will please resume his seat. You can ask that during question period.

VISITEURS

M. Villeneuve: M. l'Orateur, je désire souhaiter la bienvenue aux membres de la délégation française des présidents des conseils régionaux de la France, qui sont avec nous cet après--midi.

J'espère que leur séjour parmi nous sera fructueux, et tout particulièrement leur participation ici à Queen's Park. Je les assure que la province de l'Ontario a progressé énormément à fournir des services, dans la mesure du possible, à nos Ontariens d'expression française.

Chers délégués, soyez rassurés que la langue française en Ontario continue à s'épanouir avec l'encouragement du gouvernement de la province.

Encore une fois, bienvenue à vous en Ontario. Passez un bon séjour parmi nous.

M. Samis: M. l'Orateur, au nom du Nouveau Parti démocratique, j'aimerais souhaiter un accueil très chaleureux à nos visiteurs. Dans l'opposition nous sommes très heureux de voir des Français parmi nous. J'aimerais les assurez que dans l'opposition nous continuons la lutte pour avoir la langue française reconnue comme une langue officielle de cette province.

M. Peterson: M. l'Orateur, au nom du Parti libéral de l'Ontario, je voudrais moi aussi leur souhaiter la bienvenue en Ontario. Ils ont ici une bonne occasion de regarder le Parti libéral en action.

UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, for lack of a more appropriate term, I rise on a point of order. As you know, the people in this building, including some of your staff, have been working very diligently to hold another function for the purpose of raising money for the United Way. They have planned a Legislative Frolic and auction for Thursday, October 25, at noon hour.

Mr. Nixon: Another frolic?

Mr. Riddell: It is a little different program this year in that they are going to have some excellent entertainment, including some professional people who are offering their services. There will be other entertainment as well. I have to mention my good friend the member for York South (Mr. Rae), who will be there to play the piano.

After the entertainment there will be an auction, and this is considered to be the highlight of the whole campaign. It is where the staff here hopes to raise most of its money. I will again have the pleasure of conducting the auction. I want to tell my colleagues that I make absolutely no personal gain from this auction, so I hope my friends across the way will not stay away for that purpose.

I just want to mention that some of the items that will be going up for auction are a trip for two to Florida, a papal licence plate, a ballot box from the election office, a brick from the old Upper Canada building, a reproduction of the Pope and the Queen's signature, a pictorial history of Ontario, a book called Loyal She Remains, and many other excellent items.

In the past, many of the members have not shown up at this particular function. With the amount of work these people have to do to hold this function for a very worthwhile cause, I would think it is rather important that members of this Legislature show up. They should give the people who have planned this their co--operation. We encourage each and every one to come out and to be very liberal in his bidding.

Mr. Speaker: I might point out that we not only need their co--operation but we need their money.

NOMINATION MEETING

Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you can help me out with this because it requires some clarification.

This is in regard to an article that appeared in the Oshawa Times. I am wondering whether you would be able to help out on whether this person should be at nomination meetings. The article says, "Guest speaker at the nomination meeting will be Lou Parsons, chairman of GO Transit." I think this was for the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe).

I am wondering whether this is appropriate. I think this person is also looking after the campaign of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller). Is this in contravention of the Manual of Administration?

Mr. Speaker: If I may have your undivided attention, I am sure it is probably not a matter of privilege. Perhaps the question should better be directed to the appropriate minister at the appropriate time.

Mr. Bradley: I do not know whether that is a political decision or not.

Mr. Speaker: Neither do I.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TELEPHONE RATES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications about the hearings of the Canadian Radio--television and Telecommunications Commission currently under way with respect to the application of CNCP Telecommunications to compete with Bell Canada on long--distance lines.

I know the minister is aware of the issues at stake. He is also aware that if this goes through, Bell Canada will be refiling for so--called rebalancing of the bills of the average consumer in Ontario. He knows this could result in rate increases of some 200 per cent to 400 per cent for the average telephone consumer.

Will the minister stand in this House and send his representatives to those hearings and stand firmly against any system that would subsidize long--distance rates for either system at the expense of the ordinary telephone consumer in Ontario. Will he put his considerable weight behind this position?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be represented at the hearings. I do not wish to give any credence to the suggestion the honourable member has made in his percentage figures. I really have no idea whether they are anywhere close to being correct; I do doubt that.

Naturally, I would be concerned about any subsidization of long--distance rates by local telephone service charges, although I really do not think that is an issue at this time. The issue is whether there should be competition by another company that would be allowed to have long--distance voice service across this country. If that were to happen, there would be competition on the long--distance rates and it would lessen the amount of cross--subsidy between long--distance and local rates.

This is all the matter of a very lengthy and complicated hearing which is going on at the CRTC. My people are there and will be there for the balance of that hearing.

Mr. Peterson: Very clearly, the minister is not correct in his assessment of these issues. This has ramifications for the ordinary consumer of telephone service in Ontario. Very clearly, that is the case.

I shall bring the minister up to date on this.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Bell Canada's own figures say 85 per cent of the subscribers will pay higher costs than they would without the so--called rebalancing. This is what Bell will be filing for. It also says that probably 250,000 telephone users will lose access and have to give up their service because they will not be able to afford it. Those are their figures, not my figures, in their own application.

Given Bell's estimates, which presumably are reasonably accurate -- or why would they give them when they are not self--serving in any way? -- I am asking the minister to stand up with his colleagues on behalf of the telephone consumers in this province and say he will stand four--square against that position. It is a simple one. He knows it is going to happen if action is not taken. I am asking him strongly to take that position.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not accept the fact that everything is going to happen as the member says. I would like to point out that he quoted a completely different set of figures in his supplementary from those he quoted in his original question. It is the figures in his original question that I doubt very much.

I also object to him trying to say that I said it would not affect local telephone subscribers. Of course it will affect local telephone subscribers if there is a balancing of charges between long--distance and local service. That is the subject of the whole hearing, and we will be there representing the interests of the people of Ontario at that hearing.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, if the minister has followed the hearings over previous years, he will know that the figures given by Bell have been grossly incorrect and that their net income has far exceeded what was projected.

I simply want to ask the minister whether he will ensure that any cross--subsidization or cross--payments will be enough to ensure that the telephone users in this province, particularly the residential users, will not have their rates increased because of any competition from CNCP which in the long run may be good for the whole telephone system.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am at somewhat of a loss here. I do not know how the honourable member can expect me to guarantee him what a CRTC decision will be. If that is what he is asking me, I cannot guarantee him that.

Mr. Peterson: We are not asking that. We are asking the minister to get off the fence and take a strong position in favour of the consumers in Ontario. That is what we are asking him. We are not asking him to guarantee the CRTC decision.

Interjection.

Mr. Peterson: We are not. We are asking him to take a strong position on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member place his question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I am placing my question. I want to tell the minister again that the figures I have given him are not incorrect; they are according to Bell's filing. Surely he can understand the potential ramifications if 250,000 subscribers have to lose their phones, if rates go up by between 200 and 400 per cent or if, as they say, some 85 per cent of the subscribers' phone bills go up. Surely he can understand the impact of that on people in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Given that the minister does not have to make the decision but does have such considerable weight, why would he not instruct his counsel at that CRTC hearing to take a position clearly on the side of the consumers in Ontario? I am asking him to get off the fence.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, you and, I am sure, most others know I am not one to be on any fences. I think I proved that this morning.

As to the member's questions, I assure him we are not on any fence in Ottawa. I assure him my people are there solely for one purpose, and that is to protect the consumers of Ontario. At this moment I do not think the member knows, nor do I know, that any one part of that application can be designated as the only part that will protect the consumers of Ontario. We have to wait until we have heard all the information that will be brought forward at that hearing. We will be there and we will make our presentation.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister on the long--distance user's side or on the consumer's side? That is the question. He still has not taken a position.

TRUST COMPANIES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). The Solicitor General will recall that on Friday, April 27, 1984, I asked him a question in this House about the affidavit filed by Ben Axelrod that made some very damning allegations. That affidavit under oath in the Supreme Court of Ontario concerned a $500,000 fee he had paid, part of which was to buy influence with the Conservative government. The Solicitor General said then he would look into the matter. I would like to know now the results of his investigation.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, because he has asked similar questions of the Attorney General and me, it is a document that is part of an ongoing investigation in Ontario. I have not read the document because it is part of the investigation.

Just because it is an affidavit does not mean there is any truth in the material. If the member were to take affidavits from some of his people, there would be information and beliefs in them. If he practised law, I am sure he would remember some of the information and belief documents. There might be some of his people who would support him on information and belief, and I am sure there are some who might not.

I would not like to allege there is any accuracy in the comments in that affidavit. Since it is part of an ongoing investigation, I cannot comment further to this House except to say it might not contain any legitimate factual information whatever.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister prepared on a whim to dismiss a sworn document? It brings forth the question of what he is trying to hide. Why would he not at least investigate this document brought to his attention six months ago? Now he is saying he has not read it. It is bloody irresponsible of him. I asked the Attorney General on Friday and he was not aware of it. I asked the Solicitor General to discuss it with him and he did not.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: How seriously does he take these allegations? Does he let them roll off his back? Does he have no conscience? Anyone who took the judicial process in Ontario seriously would immediately investigate those allegations, which suggest that $500,000 or some part thereof went to purchase influence with the Conservative government. Surely the Solicitor General has not lost so much shame that he would not take it seriously and get to the bottom of it. That is his responsibility as the Solicitor General of Ontario. Why is he not fulfilling his responsibilities?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The honourable gentleman undoubtedly does not understand the system. The investigation is ongoing; the material is ongoing in the investigation. The member puts forward information, as he does continually. I remember a letter he put forward last year about somebody making payments, an innocuous letter. When we delved into it, it was nothing.

It is under investigation. The material is there. The police are investigating it. Surely the member does not believe a minister goes through each item in an investigation. I cannot believe he would want a political or legal system whereby the Solicitor General would look at each piece of information and evidence in a process or investigation to make a decision on it. He would be standing in his place yelling and screaming "political interference." I am sure there is nothing to the material, but it is under investigation.

Mr. Peterson: How can the minister make such an outrageous statement? How can he stand there saying he is sure there is nothing in it? How the hell does he know there is nothing in it without investigating it?

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: That is absolutely outrageous. He has prejudged the situation. For some reason he does not want this to get out. I am asking for an independent look at this very serious allegation. He is now saying, without investigating it, knowing nothing about it, that he knows there is nothing of substance in the document. That is the most irresponsible position the Solicitor General could take.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: He has an obligation to bring in an independent look at this question. That is what I am asking him for.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: On the content the member has put forward, there is nothing that would warrant an independent investigation on the point he has raised. It is part of a document in a very large ongoing investigation taking place at present. There is nothing in what he has said in this House or elsewhere that would urge me to bring about an independent investigation on that piece of information.

2:30 p.m.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier. I want to ask him whether he supports the provisions of the existing Ontario Election Finances Reform Act that require disclosure of contributions to political candidates and political parties and provide for a limit on those contributions.

If he supports that legislation and believes the public has the right to know who contributes, and how much, to local candidates, does he not agree as deputy leader of this province and as a senior person in his party that there should be limitations on the expenditures and full disclosure of the contributions for those seeking the premiership of this province, a process that will take place on January 24 to 26?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am here to account for matters of legislation. There is no question that the legislation on the books is supported and is part of the law of the province. The other question the honourable member raised is an internal matter of the party to which I belong, and I do not know that I should be called upon to answer a speculative question in relation to our party.

Mr. Swart: The minister cannot bypass the question that easily. Surely he recognizes that massive public funds in the form of tax credits are going to be paid from the Ontario public purse towards this leadership convention in a variety of ways through riding associations. Does he not also think that by any logical reasoning there is a public interest here, when the leader selected is going to be the Premier of this province, perhaps only temporarily?

The leadership candidates alone are going to spend millions in total, according to reports in the newspapers. Recognizing that money plays a real part in the selection process, does the minister not think the public ought to have the right to know whether vested interests are supporting certain leadership candidates, be they private nursing homes, developers, aggregate producers or whoever?

Hon. Mr. Welch: May we quietly trace the steps? Whoever is the successful candidate in the leadership convention being staged by this party becomes the Premier of Ontario. During the preparations that will follow, that individual will no doubt lead this party through another successful election campaign, whenever it may come.

In the preparations for that election campaign, in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the law, there is a clear responsibility with respect to full disclosure for those who make contributions for that consultation.

The member's party has had a leadership convention, and other parties have had leadership conventions. I take it as a matter of record that those campaigns have been conducted according to the law as set down, as far as disclosure is concerned.

The member was very careful in his supplementary question not to remind people that we draw a very distinct line between the contributions that are going to be made to an individual who will seek this leadership, for which no public receipt is issued, and the contributions that are made to a constituency organization from the standpoint of general purposes. There is a nice distinction, and no doubt the member would want me to make it for him just to keep his supplementary question clean and above board.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it is that very distinction that the public is concerned about. Is the minister not aware that some of the candidates, one of them announced and several soon to be announced, have many thousands of dollars in their constituency funds, each supported to the extent of 75 per cent with taxpayers' dollars, which may be transferred to the leadership campaigns where there is no limit and no accounting?

Even some cabinet ministers who are not themselves going to be candidates, some of whom stand firmly on the side of the one candidate who has already announced, have at their disposal many thousands of dollars that they can direct towards the campaigns where there is no limit and no accounting, even though in the spirit of the 1975 statute this was designed strictly for accountable election expenses at the constituency level.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member would want to be fair. It becomes a matter of fact as to the purposes for which a contribution is made. He knows very well that a contribution made to an individual for the purposes of this campaign is not eligible for a receipt for tax purposes.

Mr. Nixon: It has already been receipted.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It becomes a matter of fact as to whether I or anyone else has made a contribution to any constituency organization for the general purposes of the organization or for the personal campaign of any particular person. That becomes a matter of fact. The member does the whole system an injustice by imputing that type of motivation with respect to gifts that are made for the general purposes of the constituency organizations.

Mr. Swart: Surely the minister knows that the distinction between these kinds of contributions and those given to political parties under the present act is secrecy. That is what we think should not be there.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister know it is public knowledge that the member for St. Andrew--St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) received $12,425 from the nursing home industry in the year after his election?

Why does the minister not have enough faith in the electorate of this province to let it decide whether massive donations influence members? Why would he not want disclosure?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is a very interesting way to put a question.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind with respect to the present law. I happen to be one of a majority in this province, I hope, who do not think the public of Ontario can be fooled with respect to expenditures of money. As far as I am concerned, since August 1943 the people of this province have exercised pretty responsible judgement. That is what they really wanted and that is democracy.

CUPE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister not concerned about the trend and nature of collective bargaining in the public sector dispute, the current strike between 400 members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Locals 1582, 1806 and 2758, which is not over wages but over takebacks and cutbacks of workers' rights?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about any dispute in this province of a management--labour nature. Certainly, I am concerned about the matter the honourable member has brought forward.

Mr. Mackenzie: Has the minister looked into the changing management structure and strategy since 1981 which has resulted in grievances not being settled but forced to arbitration and which culminated in management responding at the end of April, four months after the expiry of the contract, with a rewritten contract that involved literally dozens of takebacks? Does the minister support this kind of assault on workers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not aware of all the facts the member has brought forward. I am aware of some of them.

I am in a bit of a quandary here because, since being Minister of Labour, it has been my policy when asked a question of that nature to respond in a manner in which I would not cast judgement on the bargaining that is going on. I do not believe it is my position to cast judgement on the position of management or of labour; it would be irresponsible to do so. I have expressed concern about the circumstances, and I acknowledged that a few moments ago, but to go any further than to express concern would be inappropriate.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Mackenzie: Does the minister understand that there is a clear negation of basic individual seniority rights, new exclusions from the bargaining unit as well as reductions in the numbers of stewards, the negotiating committee and the grievance committee? The list goes on and on. The minister should bring himself up to date. Does the minister understand that means the leadership in this local now can be targeted and removed? Rights and protections the workers have won, including protection for workers from changes resulting from new technology, are destroyed.

Will the minister not intervene quickly to prevent the fundamental destruction of workers' rights and security that is happening to these workers? Will he not act to demonstrate that this government is not turning a blind eye to a policy that seems to say open season on workers and their rights in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I was with the honourable member until that last sentence; then I am afraid I lost him, because I totally disagree with his last remarks.

The unions in question, the locals in question and the individuals in question do have recourse; they have recourse to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and I would suggest that this is the appropriate forum in which to address these matters.

I will commit myself, however, because I know the member is quite sincere in the matters he has brought forward, to looking into the matter personally.

STAFFING OF REST HOMES

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health following upon my question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) yesterday regarding the beating of a Vietnamese woman at the University Rest Home in Windsor. I am sure the minister will remember that the individual who was victimized in this attack was one of only two staff members on duty at the time in a home with more than 100 patients.

The minister will be aware that, as a result of the classification of residential care that now exists in Ontario, it is possible to have several types of residents with extremely broad characteristics, ranging from physical disability and psychological disturbances to the problems of ageing, in the same rest home. All have different needs, and yet no provincial legislation exists to ensure the staffing and program requirements to meet these various needs.

How long do the minister and the government plan to allow a situation to exist in Ontario that continues to place both the staff and the patients in these rest homes at risk?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I am not familiar with the specific situation the honourable member refers to, but I am sure that at this point he is well aware of the fact that the appropriate authority to deal with the regulation of rest homes is at the municipal level and that, in so far as the health aspect of such a residence or accommodation is involved, the local medical officer of health has all the authority that is required to ensure healthy conditions within the premises.

Mr. Wrye: I am well aware of that fact, and that is the problem. Is it not true that the Rest Home Association of Ontario has asked the government to become involved in the regulation of rest homes? In fact, in its May newsletter, its president states:

"The type of residents admitted to our facilities has changed a great deal and their needs have increased. Government is trying to ignore this fact. We have to convince the government that a standard rate must be established to provide continuity of standards across the province for our residents."

When will this minister, as one of the ministers in this social policy area concerned with a system that results in individuals with special needs seeking care in rest homes, be convinced that he and the provincial level of government must begin to play a role?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the members of the rest home association are saying there are persons being inappropriately admitted to rest homes, then they ought to cease that practice.

If the member is saying that a higher level of care is required, something that might be more appropriately provided in a nursing home, then that is an entirely different matter. If they are functioning illegally as nursing homes, then the member should raise the specific case and I will see that it is looked into.

Otherwise I would simply say that the rest home association and members of that association ought not to be inappropriately admitting residents for whom they cannot provide the required level of care.

I do not know whether the rest home association is requesting government regulation at the moment or not. I do know that in the past it has done so; but whenever it has requested that it has always been tied to a request for funding. I think one has to look very carefully at such requests so as to determine whether the request for regulation is in fact just a guise for --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, this is the rest home that I suggested to the minister in estimates last year was operating as an illegal nursing home.

I suggest that the minister talk to the people in the hospitals in Windsor, the medical officer of health or the placement co--ordination office, with Mrs. Prince. They will be glad to tell him, as some of them told me last week, that all sorts of people in our city and across this province who should not be in rest homes because they need nursing home care, are nevertheless being released into rest homes from hospitals because there are no nursing home beds available. There are all sorts of inappropriate placements.

When is the minister going to get in touch with the reality of what is going on with these rest homes and understand that they have to be regulated? Most of them are operating as illegal nursing homes, in the meantime making all sorts of profits, while their residents are not protected by anyone because there are only half a dozen municipalities in this province that even have bylaws to provide any minimum level of protection for the residents in rest homes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that when the honourable member raised this concern last year the investigation done at that time indicated that the levels of nursing care required by the residents of that particular home did not in fact reach the level of care required for nursing home care.

I think if I were a responsible resident of the community of Windsor, as this gentleman claims to be, and if I felt that my municipality was not acting responsibly in the regulation of such residential accommodation, I would talk to the municipality. I would not try to champion the cause by attacking my municipality on the floor of this Legislature; I would go and talk to my municipal representatives and urge them to get on with the job they ought to be doing.

Mr. J. A. Reed: You promised legislation years ago.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I did not.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Your predecessor did.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding the housing and rental crisis that exists in Windsor. The minister may or may not be aware that the vacancy rate in Windsor is now less than one per cent. There are 125 rental units available in Windsor. As a result of this lack of supply, market forces have squeezed thousands of people out of the rental market, and we are seeing massive rent increases for buildings that are post--1976 and therefore subject to no regulation by this government.

There have been rent increases such as these: the rent paid by Edith Drummond in Janisse Towers went from $355 to $425 a month, that at Lawson Towers went from $425 to $525, and that at Lonsdale Towers went from $525 a month to $685, a $160--a--month increase.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: Does the minister think those kinds of increased rents are justified, or is he going to bring in the kinds of amendments to the rent control laws in this province that are needed to protect tenants now, when they need protection, rather than waiting for three or four years, when the second phase of the Thom commission finally reports?

Is he prepared to act now to protect tenants, or is he going to continue to allow landlords to rip off the tenants of this province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member well knows that rent control and rent review were brought into this province in 1975, were revised again in 1979 and have undergone some changes since then with respect to administrative policies and practices, more recently with the amendment in 1982. We have done nothing but demonstrate as a government our interest in continuing protection for tenants.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, nonsense.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Anyone who says this is not so had better go and try another hollow muscular organ, because when I have to leave here occasionally they do not understand that there is more than one. I know they think there is only one but let me say as a physician that there is more than one.

This government and this Legislature have always understood the principle that in order that there be the construction of rental accommodation in the private sector in this province it was deemed to be necessary -- and there are studies to support this -- that there be a portion of the market which is not regulated. The regulated or controlled market endeavours, as we see from place to place, to try to control those balances. In addition, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), through his responsibilities, looks at other options with respect to providing other accommodation.

Mr. Cooke: So that the minister understands what I said, I said there were only 125 rental units available for rent. Thousands of tenants are being squeezed out of the rental market. There are no new buildings going up in the city of Windsor, nothing in terms of nonprofit, co--ops or public housing because this government has opted out of the construction of housing in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: Instead of all the minister's platitudes about support for tenants and the protection of tenants, why does he not introduce legislation that forces landlords to justify rent increases in the post--1976 buildings? If they can justify a rent increase they will get it, but if the government does not do something thousands of people in Windsor are going to be out on the street or cutting into their food budgets to pay the rent.

Is it not time in this province, supposedly the richest province in Canada, that decent, affordable housing should be a right and people should not have to go begging to landlords or live in slum facilities because they cannot afford decent housing?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say we have had a long--standing commitment to rent control and rent review, and the public appreciates that. What we are talking about now involves several areas.

One is the private construction of rental accommodation. Whether or not it is there now, the low vacancy rate in the unregulated area will prompt that construction. Second, the member knows very well he should direct his question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with respect to other accommodation that might be made available.

In the area that comes under this ministry's regulation, we have a program that has reflected a continuing and legitimate concern for the tenants in this province, and they understand that.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on the minister's policy of protecting tenants in this province, if he is so concerned about helping tenants in this province, why would he not immediately lend his weight and assistance to his colleagues in the amendment to the demolition control bill that would save the homes of some 200 people at 790, 800 and 840 Eglinton Avenue West in the city of Toronto? Those people will be thrown out and those buildings will probably fall under the wrecker's ball without that amendment.

I presented that amendment to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), but the minister is the one concerned with protecting tenants. Why will he not immediately bring that amendment forward to protect those people?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think that is a supplementary question.

TRANSIT LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour with respect to the Mississauga Transit strike that is causing considerable hardship for some 55,000 users. I know that a mediator is at work. Could he report on the status of those negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is quite accurate to say that a mediator is at work at the moment, because he is not. A senior mediator from our ministry met with the parties on October 17, 18 and 19, before the work stoppage.

When there is a work stoppage, it usually requires a day or two for the respective parties to assess their bargaining positions and objectives before resuming negotiations. In that light, there were no additional mediation efforts in the last two days. However, I am pleased to advise that mediation will resume tomorrow. I believe that to be a very positive step.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned to hear from the minister that in this dispute there is no mediator working at present. The member for Mississauga South has mentioned that some 55,000 people have had their transportation disrupted. That does not take into consideration the hardship the workers are facing. Why is the minister's department not there on the job to help resolve the strike?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat what I said a moment ago. In many cases of work stoppages and stoppages that have occurred despite the best efforts of a mediator, the parties like to take a day or two to assess their positions before they get involved with the mediator again.

Let me make it abundantly clear that our mediator would have been available upon request from the minute the work stoppage began, but our mediator was not requested to intervene at that time. The parties wanted to assess their position. That is not unusual; it is more or less normal procedure. Mediation is to resume tomorrow. The parties are now prepared to come back to talk to each other and that, to me, is an encouraging sign.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, out of curiosity, I would like to ask the minister why he was so quick to legislate back the Toronto transit workers before they had even gone on strike and so slow to move in this case?

Mr. Speaker: I hardly think that is a supplementary, with all respect, but if the minister wants to answer it, he can go ahead.

The Minister of Health has the answer to a previously asked question.

Mr. Martel: That is a supplementary. What is wrong with that supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: It was not, as I said, in keeping with the original --

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the minister was prepared to answer. Are you going to bail him out?

Mr. Speaker: I am not bailing anybody out.

Mr. Martel: You sure are.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The member for Hamilton East did link the Toronto transit strike to the present situation and contrasted the minister's actions. That is a legitimate supplementary question. It may be that the minister is unable to answer it, but it is a legitimate question.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to you that supplementary questions must be based on the previous answers.

Mr. Foulds: It was.

Mr. Speaker: No, with all respect, it was not.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, could you just listen to me for a second? The member asked why there was a contrast between the minister's action in this case and his action in a previous case. That seems to me to be a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: That seems to me to be completely different from the original line of questioning.

The Minister of Health has a very brief answer to a previously asked question.

Mr. Martel: We ask you not to intervene. The minister was prepared to answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kennedy: On a legitimate supplementary, could the minister give us a report on Thursday as to --

Mr. Speaker: No. That was the final supplementary. The Minister of Health has a very brief reply here.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I hope the timing of your calling my response was not to lull everyone into silence. I realize things were a little unruly there for a moment.

I do have a response to the recent question of the member for Kitchener--Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) respecting the Kitchener--Waterloo Hospital and his concern about the suggestion of permanent closure of 41 beds and the request that I authorize additional funding to ensure the operation of those beds.

I instructed the staff in the ministry as of yesterday, and I assume this has now been carried out, to contact the administrator of that hospital and to direct that the 41 acute care beds that were closed for the summer be reopened. In the early part of the summer, in June I believe, when the hospital submitted its budget, it proposed the permanent closure of not only 41, but an additional 14 beds. They were told they could not do that because there simply seemed to be no justification for it.

3 p.m.

According to the information I have, as of April of this year, their budget was showing a $1.2--million surplus in operating funds, plus an additional working capital surplus of $3.6 million. At the moment, on the assumption of the operation of all 41 beds, plus the 14 additional beds they propose to close, our projections are that they will finish this fiscal year with a surplus of $1.4 million.

My conclusion is that no additional funding is necessary. For that reason, I have directed the reopening of those beds immediately.

Mr. Speaker: I might point out to all the members who are interested in holding up fingers that answer took less than two minutes.

RONDEAU PARK

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I hate to tear the minister away when I know he is getting very good advice there.

Can the minister explain why, over the years, his government has treated the leaseholders in Rondeau Park in such a haphazard fashion in carrying out his policy of phasing out cottages from the park? Can he tell us how he is going to deal with 28 leaseholders whose leases come due in 1985 more fairly than he has in the past? As the minister knows, some leaseholders have been treated to a reasonable buyout of their cottages, while others have received nothing at all. How is he going to deal with these people fairly?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, in 1954 the government decided on a policy with respect to Rondeau Park and has been implementing this policy since that time.

The member probably also knows that in 1978 cabinet reviewed its original decision of 1954 and allowed the remaining leaseholders an option of extending their leases to 1996 or to the date of the death of the surviving spouse, whichever was the sooner, and offered this choice to the leaseholders. Some 15 per cent of the outstanding leaseholders accepted that offer.

In 1979 the Ombudsman investigated this matter at the request of the leaseholders. He found the leaseholders had been treated fairly, not shabbily, in line with the government policy, and that the offer of 1978 was an eminently reasonable one for them to consider. Unfortunately, only 15 per cent of the leaseholders chose to accept it and they are the ones who are now seeking the advice of the member.

Mr. McGuigan: We are not questioning the right of the government to have made that policy back in 1954, or again in 1978 when they did the review. Now that 28 of these people are coming up to the end of their leases, and these are not people who took part in the 1978 change, it seems to me the government has the obligation to buy them out. Is the minister going to give them, as he has done in some cases, $10,000 or $15,000, or, as he has done in other cases, is he going to give them zero?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I am not aware of the payments to which the member is referring. The policy of the government has not really changed since 1954. There was a reprieve offered in 1978. I cannot tell the member that there has been any change in the 1978 position or that we suddenly have a policy that, when leases are surrendered or are asked to be surrendered, we will compensate on the basis of some appraised value of improvements to the property.

This has never been the case, and it would have some impact on many thousands of leases across the province. More important, it surely would have some impact on those who were in Rondeau Park originally and surrendered their leases without compensation under the old program.

ALCOHOL--RELATED ACCIDENTS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In a study of accidents in sport done by Dr. H. Dubo, head of rehabilitation medicine in Winnipeg, there were 31 cases of quadriplegia from diving in a six-- or seven--year period. The majority of the people were diving into three and four feet of water. The average age was 23 and alcohol was involved in 72 per cent of these accidents.

Could the minister indicate whether his ministry does any studies with respect to accidents that might involve the use of alcohol in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will recall the specific reference to the dangers related to diving and particularly with the aspect of alcohol. It is primarily, if not exclusively, an injury that tends to occur among men from 16 to 26 years of age, or something such as that. I would like to think we have been in the forefront in trying to make sure there is public awareness of the dangers of diving into shallow water, be it in a lake, a pond, a river or a swimming pool. I think the press deserves a lot of credit for bringing this critical problem to the attention of the public for two summers in a row now. I mean that quite sincerely.

There has also been an emphasis placed on the fact that a great number of these incidents occur when people who have had the odd drink are fooling around. We cannot stop people from diving and doing some of these things. We can certainly try to have an impact on their awareness of what can happen as a result of a careless dive.

We are very interested in reviewing the studies that have been and continue to be done at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, primarily in the past by Dr. Charles Tator, who now is moving to the Toronto Western Hospital. I presume Dr. David Rowed or Dr. Michael Schwartz will carry on with those studies. After two summers of trying to heighten awareness of this issue, we will be very interested to see whether there is a diminishing number of quadriplegic and paraplegic injuries resulting from this problem.

Mr. Martel: I want to ask the minister a supplementary because the same study, and I am leading to a specific issue, indicated there were seven snowmobile accidents which resulted in three quadriplegic and four paraplegic cases. The average age was 22.5 and alcohol consumption was involved in 71 per cent of those accidents.

I am wondering about the lifestyle advertising of the alcohol industry, showing people in balloons and all the great things young people are doing with beer in particular -- that one must have something to drink and then go out. It can lead to accidents. Are we doing any studies that might indicate that type of advertising is, I am not suggesting causing, but influencing or contributing to the type of accidents Dr. Dubo indicated in his study were devastating?

Since the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is responsible for advertising and the alcohol industry, are we doing any studies which might help us in trying to curb that type of advertising? If one looks at the age level, that might reduce the incidence of young people losing their whole livelihood.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I cannot recall whether there are specific studies, but I do know that over the years there has been legitimate concern expressed about this by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) and by me. I recall the matter was raised under a previous minister. The member will recall so--called lifestyle advertising never shows people taking a drink and then going out to perform a sport.

3:10 p.m.

I have to tell the member that at a recent meeting I had with the Attorney General and the Minister of Health we concluded we need to go further than that. We need to reduce even the suggestion of lifestyle or at least modify it significantly. That is an issue I intend to be discussing with the board and with the industry. More attention must be addressed to that matter.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, has the minister considered the possibility of counter advertising as part of that picture? This summer after a party two young men went to Rondeau bay near my home, presumably for a swim. Later they were found washed up on the beach. Does the minister think it could be part of that advertising to show what happens after drinking? He is quite correct that the advertisers show it in the order of they work or play and then sit down to have a drink afterwards. Could we not follow that to show what is all too often the case; they then decide to go on some risky venture?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any of us are at odds with the concerns about anything that might lead people to do foolish things with respect to alcohol. That does not mean we can change the world. The member knows that and I know it. It does mean that we can thoughtfully try to address issues such as lifestyle advertising, which the Attorney General, the Minister of Health and I have discussed. I will be having meetings with the industry about this.

As the member probably knows, the Attorney General has set up what is called a drinking--driving countermeasures office to endeavour to introduce and stimulate proposals or measures that bring this very dramatic issue to the attention of the public. Lots of us understand things that can be done. Many things are being attempted. We have to continue with those endeavours, all of us understanding that we do not disagree on this point. It is a matter of how much and where one can properly direct those endeavours. Those are issues we have put our minds to.

TENDERING PRACTICES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, is there any member in the House who is on the Management Board of Cabinet? Anybody home?

Mr. Speaker: I think not.

Mr. Sargent: Then I would like, on a point of privilege -- I cannot, eh?

Mr. Van Home: Try it anyway.

Mr. Sargent: They are in bad trouble over there. I will give this to the Minister of Government Services.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. Sargent: Most of us in this House have been in county, township, city or town governments. A basic premise of our society is letting contracts on a lowest tender basis. When it comes to Management Board, there has been a series of large contracts being let recently in direct contravention of this principle. In the last few days the minister does not appear to have been able to answer this question. He is never in the House.

I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services, if he is on that board, when is the report he promised he would have ready this fall going to come out?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of Management Board. The report the member is referring to is the study on the management practices of the government. They felt it was due because it had been many years. It was to look at how well government is doing and report accordingly.

I know the study is being done and has not been completed yet. Some of the second--stage interviews with ministers, deputies and senior staff are taking place now. Following that, I understand the consultants will be putting the report together and tabling it. I do not know the specific time frame.

Mr. Sargent: Management Board is at the point where it does not call tenders. It is verging on corruption in management unless this process is stopped. Those guys know the rules; they wrote the book, but they will not go by their own rules.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sargent: It is time someone reported to this House. As our leader asks, "What the hell is going on over there?"

Hon. Mr. Ashe: To use the same words, there are a hell of a lot of good things going on over here. When it comes to honesty in government and above--board tendering practices in awarding tenders in a nonpartisan way, as they should be awarded, the record of this government does not hold second to any government in North America.

MINING EXEMPTIONS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will bear with me as I attempt to roll a question and a supplementary into one minute.

My question to the Minister of Natural Resources has to do with exemptions from the processing requirements of section 104 of the Mining Act of Ontario. I assume the minister is aware that exemptions, granted by cabinet, now allow Ontario mining companies to ship unrefined ores to the United States, Norway, the United Kingdom, Japan, Sweden, Italy and Belgium.

I would like to know whether the minister is willing to re--examine those exemptions in view of the very high unemployment rate in northern Ontario? In the Sudbury district, for example, it has gone from 16,000 to 19,000 since February.

Would the minister re--examine in particular one exemption that has been granted to Inco to ship its unrefined nickel to Japan because, and I quote the cabinet reason, "Customers unwilling to accept fully refined material can get requirements elsewhere"? The customers are the Tokyo Nickel Company and Shimura Kako in Japan.

Given that these firms were involved with Inco in establishing the Indonesian --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Can I not finish it?

Mr. Speaker: That is a very good question.

Mr. Laughren: I have not even put the question.

Mr. Speaker: The time is going. The Minister of Natural Resources will respond.

Mr. Laughren: Will the minister examine that particular one to make sure that Inco is not playing off its former partners against themselves in order to get these processing exemptions?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that from time to time these section 104 exemptions are controversial. We have discussed them during the course of estimates over the past three years. We will continue to re--examine them from time to time. I understand the member's position and I know he understands our position. We feel that employment in northern Ontario depends on this kind of flexibility.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. May we have the consent of the House to revert to statements?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DEATH OF ENVIRONMENTALIST

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence in reverting to statements.

An environmental pioneer in Ontario passed away in St. Marys, Ontario, on Friday, October 19, 1984. I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to the memory of Dr. Albert Edward Berry.

Dr. Berry pioneered safe drinking water in Ontario. He was an engineer who advocated water treatment and other health measures when typhoid and similar waterborne diseases were affecting the health and lives of the people of this province.

Following the First World War, Dr. Berry joined the then Department of Heath of Ontario and rose to become the chief engineer of the sanitary engineering division of that department.

Subsequently, he was appointed the first general manager and chief engineer of the Ontario Water Resources Commission, the forerunner of today's Ministry of the Environment. In this position, he was responsible for the updating of water and sewage treatment facilities across the province. His pioneering spirit, his dedication and his expertise in the field were second to none.

3:20 p.m.

Dr. Berry was awarded the Order of Canada for his contribution to environmental engineering. He was the only man who served as both the president of the American Water Works Association and the Water Pollution Control Federation.

After he retired in 1963, he became a consultant to the World Health Organization and travelled throughout the world helping other countries, particularly those in the Third World, to correct their water supply problems, thereby safeguarding and improving the health of their citizens.

Dr. Berry has been eulogized as Canada's most distinguished environmentalist. Certainly his peers thought so, and as an inheritor of part of his legacy to environmental protection in this province, I too wish to acknowledge the contribution he made to the health and environmental progress of his beloved Ontario.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House. I wish to remind all members that pursuant to standing order 28(a), the member for Windsor--Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) has advised of his dissatisfaction with the response by the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) to a question he put earlier. This will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

Mr. Wrye: Do not be too definite about that. This will be the third try.

Mr. Speaker: I will be here.

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 1,170 college students. It reads:

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

"We wish to declare our support of the issues that the teachers are fighting for in the colleges. An increase in their work load will only hurt us. It is already difficult for some students to get individual attention, and taking away classroom time limits for teachers will only intensify this situation.

"Extending the school year is not a solution to a long strike. Summer jobs will be lost to most students, and graduating students will miss out on full--time job opportunities also. As well, for many students it is necessary to work full--time for every possible week in the summer. If our year were to be extended, the possibility of not being able to afford another year of school could become a reality for too many of us.

"For every day of the strike that is not made up, we request the refund of our tuition fees. This is the third day of the strike. That means already, based on tuition fees alone, the 120,000 full--time students in the system have lost more than $1.3 million worth of education, training we have already paid for. We will not pay for an education we are not getting.

"Another potential solution we do not agree with is that of the government legislating teachers back to work. The strike should be settled, not just ended. Most important, the teachers must retain their right to strike."

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition presented to my office by students at Niagara College, dated October 11, 1984. It is signed by 881 petitioners. I thought you should have it and see that the appropriate minister receives it.

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

"All our future depends upon the preservation of Ontario's education system. We, the students of Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology, feel strongly that both parties return to the bargaining table and reach an equitable solution now."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Foulds, first reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, this bill would prevent school bus passengers from standing in the aisle while the bus is in motion. Some kids are travelling 30 and 40 miles standing. The present regulation allows one third of the passengers to be standing in the aisle while in transit. I think the whole thing is crazy.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. MacQuarrie moved, seconded by Mr. Kolyn, first reading of Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. J. A. Reed moved, seconded by Mr. McGuigan, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the report on the Niagara Escarpment Plan: Recommended Policies of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, which has been submitted to cabinet for final approval but which has not been debated publicly in this Legislature; the apparent subservience of this plan to the government s mineral aggregate resource planning policy, resulting in the potential destruction of up to 63,000 acres of Niagara Escarpment land; the encouragement of the location of pits and quarries under the wayside process in the escarpment protection area contrary to the goal of that designation; and the encouragement of the circumvention of the licensing procedure for wayside pits.

Mr. Speaker: I would advise the honourable member that I will be prepared to hear for up to five minutes why he thinks the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, members will recall that about a year ago the subject of the Niagara Escarpment report was raised and debated in this Legislature before it was taken for consideration by the government.

Both the government and we ourselves agreed that while the debate might be useful, it was probably premature. The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling) said, "I would have thought it would be more prudent perhaps to have this debate after I had an opportunity to formulate my position on the various matters." He went on to say, "I will be constrained in some ways from commenting on specific issues." I believe the official opposition, while agreeing with the necessity of a debate, felt it was premature in nature.

It is our feeling that this is the proper time, between the time this plan was submitted to the provincial secretary and the time the cabinet will make its final decision. The problems that have been encountered, which appear to have developed as a result of this Niagara Escarpment plan, should be thoroughly aired so the minister may make his commentary and we may understand what the wording in the Niagara Escarpment plan really means and whether some other governmental policies will take precedence over the Niagara Escarpment plan, negating its impact.

3:30 p.m.

We are concerned specifically with incorporating the proposed aggregate policy into the Planning Act, the obvious result being that any public hearing where a hearing officer has to accede to that provincial policy would give it preference or would appear to give it preference over the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

Two prevalent schools of thought seem to have emerged in the past few weeks, and we believe now is the time to air those so we all know what the wording of this sometimes confused proposed policy really means. Now is the appropriate time for this debate in the Legislature, and I ask that every member of the Legislature give this motion his support.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure everyone expects, I want to say we will support the call for the debate in this House. All members of this House, whether or not they agree with this, will recognize that we in this party have taken a strong stand all along on preservation of the Niagara Escarpment and that we are united within our party on that stand.

The House will remember that last fall we called for and did have a special debate on the two plans that had been submitted, one by the hearing officers and one by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I initiated that on behalf of my party.

While we support the proposal for the debate, it comes as something of a surprise with real questions surrounding the reasons for which the Liberals are presenting this now. One has to ask the question, "Are they simply trying to recoup some political losses?" After all, the House has been sitting for two weeks and nobody in the Liberal Party has raised this issue. We raised the issue in this House a week ago yesterday, within the first week of the House sitting.

More than that, there was a period of six weeks from the time the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development tabled the proposed plan in which submissions could be made by any interested party relative to changes in that proposed plan. The minister may mention this when he rises. I am not sure whether the cabinet received 225 or 125 submissions on this matter. The Liberals made no submission whatever on the plan during those six weeks. It is true that the honourable member who is proposing this motion did write a letter subsequent to that, four days afterwards.

The real time to make submissions under the act went by and the Liberals did not even think it was worthy of presenting a brief. We in this party presented an eight--page brief which included our concerns about the priority in the minister's plan given to the extraction of aggregate on the escarpment.

The motion we have before us today says nothing about the dangers of development control. The whole matter of development control is a very important one, because it can bypass all the official plans and zoning bylaws and permit a county, region or local municipality to do almost anything it likes without the public hearings one has to have for normal changes of official plans and zoning bylaws. That is extremely dangerous not only for the matter of aggregates but also for any kind of development on the escarpment. This motion says nothing about that.

As I have already mentioned, my question a week ago pertained precisely to the issue in the resolution today where Regan Graham Ltd. is given permission to take more than a million tons from a wayside pit in the Caledon area. When I raised that question in the House, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) did give what I thought was a reply of some concern, and there may be a favourable response from the minister. I hope the minister will get up today and say, "Yes, we are going to change that along the lines requested; so there is no need for the debate to take place today."

What a use for a wayside pit. My goodness, that cannot be classed as a wayside pit in any part of the province -- a million tons? To allow a wayside pit in what was a protected area of the escarpment surely has to negate any of the statements, the act and all the rest of what is proposed to preserve the escarpment. We must have this policy changed. The debate today might help to bring that about and so I support it.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, it is evident from our government's stand on July 31 that we are indeed interested, as I believe are the other members who have spoken on this motion, in the preservation of our Niagara Escarpment. I hope that was evidenced in the proposals put forward by the plan. As was mentioned in the previous remarks, I believe last October we had a debate on the Niagara Escarpment, which I did not oppose at that time; I thought it might be helpful then to consider it.

As to this particular motion dealing with the aggregate issue in the Niagara Escarpment plan, I welcome a debate on this issue at some time. I feel it is important to inform the members of the House, however -- and if I had been asked, I would have revealed this fact -- that the cabinet will not be dealing with this issue until at least well on into December and may not deal with it until the new year. For that reason, the urgency of this particular issue is not there, and in those circumstances I oppose bringing forward this motion and a debate now.

If the members would like to debate this some evening, and such a debate could be arranged, I would be most pleased to do so. In terms of the scope of the debate, it would be better to be a little further on into the process of reviewing more than 200 appeals to cabinet at that time. As members must realize, each and every appeal to cabinet has to be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner, and the time lag between my recommendations, the close--off date, which was September 14, and the cabinet being able to come forward with its final proposal will be of reasonable duration.

If the member who put forward this motion would like to write to me about clarifications of my recommendations, I would be most pleased to respond to him or to any other member of this House. The response that will follow from that, of course, will be the decision of not only myself but also my cabinet colleagues.

Having said all that, as I have indicated already, Mr. Speaker, I welcome such a debate, but there is no urgency to the matter at this time and therefore I oppose going forward with the motion and a debate this afternoon.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully and attentively to the submissions put forward by the honourable members to the House. I do have severe reservations about this matter, as I did when a similar debate took place in the last session. I have a great deal of difficulty in finding the motion in order. In fact, I find it is out of order in relation to our standing orders.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Why?

Mr. Speaker: I am glad you asked, inasmuch as in my opinion it does not fall within the criteria set out specifically in standing order 34(c)(i), "The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration." I cannot so find; so I have to rule the motion out of order.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is the fall session of this Legislature and the report has been tabled, the submissions have been made to the minister and it becomes of a emergent nature.

Mr. Speaker: You may appeal the ruling if you so desire, but you cannot continue the debate.

Mr. J. A. Reed: All right, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal that ruling. Inasmuch as this is the fall session, the material has been tabled and the cabinet is going to make its decision in December, this is of an emergent nature.

Mr. Speaker: All you have to do is say you appeal the ruling and I will put the vote to the House.

4:05 p.m.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Runciman, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Bradley, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, Peterson, Philip, Reed, I. A., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 53; nays 40.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I should indicate that there is a change in the business of the House for today. This evening we will deal first with second reading of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Education Act. Following consideration of that bill, we will deal with the budget debate.

Since many will want to attend because of the speaker, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is going to honour us with his speech today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I have a statement I would like to make at this time.

The Deputy Chairman: May I suggest that the normal way to proceed is to deal with sections.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Could I ask the consent --

The Deputy Chairman: If there is an opening statement, then everyone else will have an opening statement, and we might never get out of the opening statements and into the bill.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps I could just take a moment to explain the reason for an opening statement and then you can make a ruling accordingly, or perhaps ask the members opposite for --

The Deputy Chairman: All I do is caution the minister, with every desire to expedite business, that if an opening statement is desired, it means we will get into opening statements. I have been here when we have never got out of the opening statements.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps I could just take one minute to make one comment. When we left committee this fall there were some outstanding issues. I promised to address those outstanding issues and to bring them to the attention of the Legislature at the beginning of the session today. I was just honouring that commitment. If you tell me I am out of order --

The Deputy Chairman: No. I just want to make sure the House is happy with whatever we do.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, the minister is right; there were some issues that were not completed at the committee stage. I do not have any particular objection if the minister is going to have an opening statement about the general feeling of Bill 101 or about new amendments he is planning to introduce. The House should be aware of the minister's intention, aside from the principle that he has to reply to certain things that were uncompleted at the time the committee rose.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honourable member for his help.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I want to make it abundantly clear that I have no objection if the minister is making an opening statement; but should you find yourself in the position where the opposition parties also want to make opening statements, I am sure you will allow that.

The Deputy Chairman: That is why we should get agreement at the beginning.

Mr. Martel: That is why I am trying to get the clarification from you now, Mr. Chairman, before we get into a hassle.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the member for Sudbury East. There is a big cliff out there. What I am suggesting is that if there is an opening statement from the minister, there will be opening statements from the other parties.

Mr. Martel: If they so desire.

The Deputy Chairman: If they wish. It is a matter for the committee to decide whether that is what it wants to do.

Mr. Nixon: It is certainly by agreement, Mr. Chairman. You are entirely correct. When we are dealing with the bill clause by clause, that is precisely the way the debate proceeds: anybody who wants to speak on section 1 does so and he or she has a chance to do so in response to other comments; the section is either amended or carried and we go on to the next one.

I agree with you, sir, that it is a very dangerous precedent to get into this opening statements stuff. We did it on another bill and it simply took us weeks to get out of it. You will recall our procedure in estimates, where opening statements have expanded and ballooned until we hear nothing but the contrived tripe that goes for opening statements. I suggest that you apply the rules and that we get on with this bill section by section.

The Deputy Chairman: I would like to do that. If that is the case, I would like to proceed with section 1, but I do recognize with pleasure the member for Dovercourt.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, I believe certain members are not aware of the extensive work that has taken place at the committee stage and the commitment by the minister to reply to specific concerns raised by Liberal members and members of my party in relation to specific issues regarding the bill per se. I do not have any objection if the minister is going to make an opening statement about something that must be clarified as a result of the extensive work that took place during the summer. I think the members should be aware of the intent of the minister at this time.

The Deputy Chairman: The chair recognizes that the member would like to expedite the business of the House. In the tradition in which we have operated in committee, there is no great tradition for opening statements. The chair would therefore like to proceed with it section by section. As matters arise, if the minister wishes to comment, the committee of the whole House rules will be operational.

Therefore, the chair rules we shall deal with Bill 101 section by section. There will be opportunities within each section for the minister to apprise the members of things that have arisen since earlier discussions.

Mr. Lupusella: If I may, I understand the chairman's position is to follow the practice he just enunciated. Is there any possibility that the minister will distribute a copy of such opening statement to the two parties at this time?

The Deputy Chairman: If the minister wants a copy sent to other members on things he wants to say, that is entirely up to him. As background information, I see nothing wrong with it.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am prepared to do that as background information for the critics of the other two parties.

The Deputy Chairman: The amendment I have received from the minister is to section 3. Shall sections 1 and 2 carry? No?

On section 1:

Mr. Martel: If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the definition of industrial disease in subsection 1(5).

I grow increasingly concerned about the whole matter of industrial disease and how it affects workers in the industrial sector. Eventually, this is going to be the item that is going to do in the board and the whole concept of workers' compensation.

The problem of industrial disease is going to get worse, not better and the number of people who are being granted compensation benefits under this section is negligible.

There is a difference in medical interpretation on any industrial disease. One doctor says "Yes," the next doctor says "No," and there is no consensus. One can set up as many tribunals as one wants, but it is not going to sort it out. It is impossible because there is no agreement. One has to have a virtual litany of death in a particular plant before one is able to obtain benefits for a worker or workers who have died from an industrial disease.

I only have to draw the minister's attention to the experience of the sintering plant at Inco. When one talks about industrial disease one talks about a latency period of anywhere from 10 to 15 years for most industrial diseases from known carcinogens. There are probably between 300 and 350 accepted known carcinogens, some much more severe than others, some considered mild, but in fact very few are recognized in terms of what they do in the work place.

4:20 p.m.

I believe we have regulations pertaining to only eight substances in this province. At the same time as we recognize only eight substances that are affecting workers, between 500 and 1,000 new substances are coming on to the market annually. Most of them, in fact, are not tested. There is no system of testing either those compounds or the new chemicals we are using. There is no way of breaking down the formula so workers know what they are exposed to.

The whole term "industrial disease," which indicates we will send it off to a committee of doctors willy--nilly, is so much hokum because we do not know which of those substances are causing the disease and we do not know and cannot get medical consensus on whether it is something we will accept as causing the problem.

If I relate back to Inco and the sintering plant, there are now over 100 men dead in that one operation, but it took a virtual torrent of claims to establish cancer from the old sintering plant. We had to count the bodies before anyone would even look at it. The steelworkers were on to it long before the medical profession was. I want to say to my friend who chaired this committee that the Workers' Compensation Board was dead on the issue.

It was the steelworkers, together with a Dr. Cecilioni from Hamilton, the only doctor who would come to our aid as we flew by the seat of our pants. Because of the great number of cancer cases that were occurring, we suspected there was something wrong. The Workers' Compensation Board was totally useless.

I want to bring it up to date. It is too bad the minister is not here. I remind members of Wilco just two short years ago and the lead poisoning of some 20 workers. At that time the compensation board did not get hold of the Minister of Labour and say: "My God, there is a problem. We have 20 young men, aged 19, 20, 21 and 22, who have lead poisoning." Where was the compensation board in its role of identifying the fact that a great number of young men had suffered lead poisoning? It was found wanting.

I think the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), as a former medical person, would agree with me that it is difficult to determine or to get agreement on what industrial diseases are caused by exposure to something in the work place. It is very difficult. We play this silly game of, "Yes, if you have got the proper latency period," and "Yes, if you are exposed to certain levels." Whether it is sinter from the old sintering plant or whether it is lead, we cannot get agreement.

My friends in the medical profession tell me fewer than one in 100 of the cancer cases that are occurring in the work place are now recognized by the Workers' Compensation Board. There is no way the board has the wisdom of Solomon to say, "Yes, it is caused by this," and "No, it is not caused by that." We throw all the smokescreens in the world in the place. We say, "If it is asbestos, it is because he smokes."

That contributes to it. I was just reading an interesting paper by Dr. Irving Selikoff called "Twenty Lessons from Asbestos." Certainly, smoking increases the incidence, but what about the original percentage? What about other factors? We have eight regulations in the province. The whole thing is totally perverse and it cannot give the workers who are suffering from industrial disease the protection to which they are entitled.

One could look at another interesting case I raised several years ago. It dealt with cancer at Canadian General Electric. Where was the Workers' Compensation Board and where was Canadian General Electric when all those women were dying from cancer?

I could go on for an hour and a half if I wanted to, because I have reached the point where I do not know how we are going to grapple with it. As I say, a committee of medical people who are going to make that determination is crazy. It will not work; it cannot work. I do not know who is misleading the minister into believing that if he sets up some sort of medical tribunal he can sort it out. He cannot, and I defy someone to get up in this House and tell me I am wrong.

Not a thing that we are doing in the changes to the act is going to protect workers from suffering these horrible diseases. We are changing only how we are going to protect their families in the event they become disabled or die. The government is still playing the game. Somebody is playing games by trying to imply that if the government gets this panel in place and defines "industrial disease," then that has resolved the problem.

The government has not touched it, and that is what infuriates me so much. It has not dealt with the problem. A definition is not enough; the minister has to be crazy to believe a definition or a medical panel is enough. The minister could have a litany of industrial diseases.

Let us look at Wilco. Did it tell the Ministry of Labour that lead poisoning was going on? No way. What about the women at Canadian General Electric and the types of cancer they were suffering from? Did anybody tell the Ministry of Labour that this was going on? Did anybody from the board say, "Wait a minute; we have had seven or eight deaths in that plant"? We have seven or eight deaths, but I do not think one has been compensated.

With all the respect I have for Paul Weiler, I am told by doctors that his figures are crazy. Did he say one in 30 or one in 17? I am told it is not even close to that. Probably fewer than one in 100 is being recognized. How are we going to resolve that problem? How are we going to deal with that problem now when we amend this act with a major overhaul for the first time in how many years? We have not dealt with it and we are not going to deal with it.

What about the Elliot Lake miners? If one works underground at Elliot Lake and is exposed to radon daughters in excessive amounts and there is no past history -- they did not keep the records -- he might get a claim. If he sits on the yellow cake in the concentrator, he ends up with lung cancer or with some form of cancer. And they do; the steelworkers union has at least 50 or 60 cases. That is not recognized. It does not make sense. What about a mill worker who sits on the bloody stuff?

In fact, one of the companies was really good. It went in and painted the whole building yellow so one could not tell how much of the yellow dust was from the refining capacity that was there. They painted the whole thing yellow because the stuff that was going up from the process was yellow. Sure, if they paint the whole building yellow, people cannot tell how much is getting on the walls.

4:30 p.m.

It goes on. Which of those workers got cancer because he was working with uranium? We have known for a long time. I think history notes that in 1917 in Czechoslovakia, Poland or someplace the first case of cancer from uranium was identified. Here we are in 1984 and we do not give the worker the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt in the board's decision--making. There have not been enough statistics on enough people dying under certain conditions to warrant giving pensions.

I have never found a thing that bothered me more than dealing with this area because people can rationalize it. They say: "The compound was not enough. The time exposure was not enough. Where do all these crazy ideas come from unless a whole series of people die first?" We say: "Enough have died. There must be something that causes it and, therefore, we will recognize it." The whole thing is totally perverse.

This minister has moved ahead and I think has brought in eight substances, but that is not going to resolve it. It just is not. It is as simple as that. We cannot sort it out. That is why New Zealand moved to a system where, if one got disabled at work from a heart attack or through illness, one was disabled.

A person needs two things when he is disabled. He needs income and physical rehabilitation, and perhaps retraining. The government cannot sort it out and it is never going to be able to sort it out.

They came to their senses in New Zealand a number of years ago and said: "If you are disabled, you are disabled. The purpose should be to get people healed as well as possible and back to work."

The list could go on. They talk about differences in industrial disease. I was talking to one of the minister's staff recently. If one looks at white hand syndrome, better known as Raynaud's disease, one has to have -- what is it? -- two years or five years before one recognizes that one gets white hand syndrome from dealing with vibrating equipment. It must be effective the time one leaves. It must affect one right after he leaves the work place.

The interesting part is the difference in opinion of the medical profession today, that that is crazy. There is the ageing process. Even though it does not show up right away, the damage is done to the blood vessels and the hands. As one gets older, the aging process affects the blood vessels even more. If one does not meet the criteria the board has laid down, that it has to be two years of exposure to that prior to leaving the work place, one does not have the benefit of the doubt and one does not get compensated on white hand or Raynaud's disease.

Is there agreement even between the board and the Ministry of Labour staff? There is not. I am told that in England they have now come to the conclusion that one can get white hand syndrome in three months in certain types of occupation. However, in Ontario we have this crazy formula, the crazy criteria that say one has to be exposed to it for two years, backdating it from the time one first got it, and one has to be working for that two years.

The medical profession disagrees. Some say, "Yes, that is right." Others say: "No, it is through the ageing process. It occurs three or four years later, or perhaps years later." Who gets shafted because of the disagreement? Is it the Workers' Compensation Board, the industry, the doctors who disagree, or is it the injured worker and his family?

We will never be able to sort it out, but we try. My colleagues say it is section 86, the definition at the first stage. They tell me every time they tried to speak on this the government bowed and paid homage to that section, which would set up a medical tribunal to try to sort it out. It is not going to work.

I listed a couple that occurred at Wilco involving lead, and the board did not tell the minister that lead poisoning was happening. It was at the sintering plant. We counted the bodies. At Elliot Lake we counted the bodies underground. I was there in 1974, 1975 and 1976. I am still trying to find out why those workers who get cancer working in the concentrators are not entitled to benefits.

I am told the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union and the Steelworkers union between them have accumulated over 100 cases of cancer underground. It cannot be proved. Everybody says, "In hardrock mining there is no silicate dust in the type of ores we have in the Sudbury basin." What is causing it? Is it all lifestyle? Are some more prone to it? It could be diesel fumes, I do not know.

We cannot resolve that jigsaw puzzle. We do not have the wisdom of Solomon needed to do it. In the process it will be families, wives left out in the cold without husbands or sources of income. To relate it the other way, referring to Canadian General Electric and the many cases we know about there with no resolution to them, there are husbands who are left without spouses, husbands with children.

We try to dicker around the edges. We try to play around the edges with everything. Our whole bent is that we cannot affect industry. The minister knows my position on these toxic substances. We should pretest them all. If one does not pass, we should not let it in. We should not use it until it is proved safe, but the government will not accept that.

Then there is the other option. We can say, "If anyone dies of cancer and we cannot prove it is work related but it certainly looks like it, we will automatically give the family the benefit of the doubt." That will not happen either.

I know what industry has said. When the minister said that because he was going to introduce the changes that meant a 40 per cent levy or something like that for the next two or three years, industry went crazy. I heard Inco say, "My God, we are going to have to charge 23 cents more on the pound for nickel to pay that bill."

We have a third option, do we not? That is the one we have opted for. It is the one we always opt for. It is to let the family and the kids struggle. We can put them on disability until the husband or wife dies and then we can put them on welfare. We cannot take chances. We cannot always give the benefit of the doubt. The government is not going to sort it out. What is the answer? I suggest this is not the answer.

We could not bring the top 100 doctors in any field together and get consensus, but we are going to have a tribunal. How many are on that tribunal? Three?

Mr. Haggerty: Nine.

Mr. Martel: But at any given time? Three or nine, it does not matter. It will not matter because they will not be able to sort it out. I appreciate what the minister is trying to do, but it will not deal with the real problem which is, as I have said to the industry and the minister, that until we eradicate those things and not allow them to be used in the work place, we will not sort it out.

4:40 p.m.

In the United States the major corporations are now getting together, if members can imagine, to pool their resources to fight certain cases so that a precedent is not set. About a year ago I listened to a lawyer from the United States at a conference in Toronto. He said they are putting up as much as $1 million to fight one case so as not to allow it to be proved that one worker is dying.

As I say, if we think we can do it where there is a wholesale loss of life and we have difficulty -- and my friend the member for Algoma--Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) knows the problem -- how are we ever going to sort it out when it concerns only one person? That is the final test. If we count bodies, as we did at Elliot Lake and so on, we ultimately prove part of it. But how are we ever going to prove for one person that he was prone to these toxic substances which he was exposed to and that this is what caused him to die of cancer or of whatever other industrial disease?

No one wants to tell me how we can assess that this one death from cancer, if I may use cancer as the example, resulted from this person being less able to withstand the exposure to the substances with which he was working. We will never prove it. Never in 100 years will we prove a single, isolated cancer death in an industry, a small plant or a small operation, because the only places we have been able to prove it are those in which we were able to count bodies.

We still have that horrible television advertisement dealing with asbestos --

Mr. Haggerty: "If he only knew."

Mr. Martel: "If he only knew." If that dumb, stupid slob of a workman had only known that working with asbestos was going to kill him. And you see this poor, gaunt--looking man on a bed.

Mr. Haggerty: That should have been his right from the beginning.

Mr. Martel: Yes, and there is not even a right to know law.

One of the things for which I have difficulty forgiving the minister is for not saying to the Workers' Compensation Board, "Pull that rotten ad totally." I know he looked at it. I would have said, "You pull that damned ad fast." It is so horrendous and so distorts the reality that the workers know. They do not know; my God, they do not know.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the honourable member is quite up to date with the circumstances. I have written to the Construction Safety Association of Ontario and made a strong recommendation. A meeting was held yesterday. I will have a decision on this within the next day or two; so action has been taken.

I would also suggest to the honourable member that there was some problem because there were labour representatives who approved that ad in the first place. One of those labour representatives called the member's research department and suggested the party back off because he wanted to retain that particular advertisement.

Despite that, I did write a strongly worded letter, a copy of which I sent to the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston); he knows all about what is going on. So I suggest that the member opposite is not quite up to date.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister says. I withdraw my remarks. If somebody from labour said it was adequate, I disagree fundamentally with him. I think it is just awful to get that kind of advertisement.

As I look at most of the WCB advertisements -- I must say this in all fairness -- and at the ads run by the Industrial Accident Prevention Association, it is always the worker who is the dummy in the piece. Has anyone ever found that strange?

The other one that really tickles my fancy shows a worker whose little girl asks him, "Are you coming home safe tonight, Daddy?" He was stupid enough to get run over by the back wheels of a big truck.

Has anyone ever pictured the foreman or the big brass sending some guy underground or into some operation that was not safe? Why do we not make an ad about Rothsay, where the foreman sent the man down into a pit containing a huge egg--beater thing? When the guy climbed into the egg--beater to break the ice and take the feathers away, upstairs somebody put the switch on and the guy needed 250 stitches. Fortunately, he was rather small and he went through the 14--inch opening as it threw him out.

Did anyone ever see the IAPA run an ad like that and say to management, "You have to be careful"?

Mr. Haggerty: They are exempt now under the act. You cannot touch them.

Mr. Martel: Yes, the worker is dumb. Part of it is because he cannot get the information. That horrible ad says he should have known better. Maybe we could do an ad about the Elliot Lake miners, saying they should have known better too back in 1965 or 1970.

"If he only knew." That is so true. If only so many companies were not so interested in hiding the facts. The minister knows that as well as I do. I will be the first to admit some companies are good, but others are dogs. Then the IAPA or the WCB puts out an ad and says, "If he only knew." He should know. He should also have the option of whether he works in there, but when it comes to industrial diseases, he will never know. He cannot know because even the medical profession does not agree.

How are we going to sort that problem out? By a panel? We can count bodies when we get enough of them stacked up. Then we will get some recognition for workers in a particular work place. But for the one or two in any work place, the answer is, "He simply got cancer," and therefore the worker has no benefits. Yet we know that more than 300 substances currently are carcinogenic. How do we sort that out?

It is time this Legislature dealt with that problem seriously. How are we going to sort it out? I look at my friends on the back benches. Farmers, more than anyone else, do not have a clue what the herbicides, insecticides and pesticides they are using are doing to them. In fact, what was so horrendous was that they fought like mad against coming under Bill 70, but if we look at the statistics for farmers under the WCB, they are right at the top of the heap.

We are not going to prove any of this. We have no way of proving it until we have a body count. When we have the body count, we also have backed up another 100 or so who have had the right latency period of 15 to 20 years before it starts to show up.

The minister is not going to convince me that a panel of nine doctors is going to do it. Maybe he could, if he tried to convince me really hard. Maybe he can tell me, if there are only one or two deaths in a particular operation, how we can prove, if there is industrial disease, whether it is a result of the exposure to whatever substance is in that place. How is he going to do it without the body count? That is the real problem. It makes it simpler to get benefits if we have a lot more dead. We cannot do it with one or two.

4:50 p.m.

There is no agreement in the medical profession. As I said, I was reading Irving Selikoff's statement. If anyone wants to read it, it is a very short article that appeared just recently called "Twenty Lessons from Asbestos." Many of the things he says in it I have already raised, such as lifestyle.

Mr. Haggerty: The board does not listen to that expert.

Mr. Martel: No, the board does not listen. My friend Dr. Jim Nessercott has an interesting case right now involving a young Korean man whose job was to grind brakes in a plant. He got mesothelioma. The board's specialist -- I guess it is Dr. Ritchie, who is the great Pooh--Bah in all of this -- has a couple of people from British Columbia who said, "This is from ingesting asbestos." Brake shoes are full of asbestos. "It is from his job grinding the brake shoes down."

Dr. Nessercott is a specialist, a dermatologist. He finally went to Selikoff to try to get help, because the board in its wisdom, despite all the medical support, said: "No, it cannot be. There are not people dying from cancer from grinding down brake shoes. It could never be that."

That is what I say to the minister is the final test. Even when one has medical people who say yes, the board says no, and there is disagreement. If there are only one or two cases, that family is out. That worker will not get benefits and there is no way we are ever going to sort it out.

This is not enough, I say to the minister. Even at 11:59, just before midnight, as we bring this bill in, it is not enough; it is not going to resolve the problem. I want the minister to tell me now how he is going to overcome this problem of identification not only of cancer but of lead poisoning, of white hand syndrome.

I just read about two or three interesting cases of carpal tunnel syndrome. It seems there is even a mixup at the board. I have written to the chairman to suggest that it would appear to me as an ordinary layperson that the board is using the same criteria for carpal tunnel syndrome as it is for white hand syndrome. I will show the Minister of Education the three cases if she would like.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That would be difficult.

Mr. Martel: It certainly is difficult. That is what amazed me as an ordinary lay slob: how in God's name the two can be mixed up. I cannot be convinced that could happen. I know the minister is going to convince me here as I resume my place how he is going to sort out this whole problem of industrial disease. I await with interest.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, in making some comments about this section, I want to add my concerns to the comments already expressed on this difficult subject of industrial disease. It is a difficult subject for several reasons, the main one being the devastation it brings to the individual who suffers and to that individual's family.

Unfortunately, our record here in Ontario has not been very good. We had the situation with Johns--Manville Canada Inc. and Bendix Heavy Vehicles Systems Inc. I know the Minister of Education will agree that those two situations certainly brought the issue forth as it has never been brought before, either years ago, at present or, I would hope, in the future. Because the minister is a doctor, I am sure she realizes just how much those poor people suffered.

I have to take offence at the commercials that have been run over this past year, and perhaps longer, where we see a very sad--looking, deteriorated person lying in bed with all kinds of tubes running from his arms, looking pale, thin and very sickly, to say the least, and Mr. Voice--over says, "If he only knew."

I have to agree that is a considerable distortion of the truth. We did know asbestos was dangerous. People in the business knew, and perhaps officials in the government and people in the medical profession knew, that working with that substance was very dangerous. We were not told, the workers were not told and the general public was not told.

However, once the situation reached epidemic proportions, it was not difficult to put all the pieces together. It amazes me that in a situation where nobody knew anything, it was very easy to put all the pieces together after the fact and come to the conclusion that it absolutely was the asbestos that had caused illness to so many people.

We had a situation with Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Inc., not far from my own constituency in Windsor, where a person was awarded a disability pension. I believe it turned into the spouse's disability pension after a short time. I am told that after the individual passed away, the company appealed the decision to the board. The minister may be familiar with that case. There could have been another one; I do not recall right now. I do not have those files in front of me.

Mr. Martel: It is Lucy Dunn, is it not?

Mr. Mancini: Yes, I think it is the case my friend mentions.

We have been confronted squarely and in a very ugly manner, if I may use that word, with how devastating industrial disease can be. I am not sure exactly what benefit we are going to get from this section of the act. The fact that the minister is moving forward with this legislation and with the section we are dealing with may help. It may help because it is in the bill that we are going to have the panel. That in itself may give some credence and may give the board some willpower in that area possibly to grant claims.

However, as has been said before, we hate to believe that a great number of people have to suffer before an industrial disease correlation is actually found. We would like to believe that it can be found early on and that people who have suffered are not only compensated but also that their colleagues in the work place can be immediately protected.

I want to express my concern about the fact that we recognize only eight substances that can cause industrial disease. It has been stated before, and it will be stated over and over again, that we cannot forget the worker in this scenario. With the number of new chemicals that are being produced and used in the work place on a regular basis every day and with the new things that are being brought forward for the betterment of all, these people believe, we cannot forget the person who is involved in the work place and who has to use these chemicals or agents on a regular daily basis.

5 p.m.

I am glad we have the panel. I hope we can do something. I hope it can be done as fast as possible. I hope there is no need for great suffering before we conclude that certain substances can and do create industrial diseases.

However, I am disappointed with our past record and with those commercials. I do not know if every member of the House has seen those commercials, but they are truly offensive. I know the minister has, over a period, repeatedly expressed concern on a wide number of issues. Frankly, I think most members and most people who have worked with the minister believe he is concerned and that within all his limitations -- cabinet solidarity and all the political limitations he has as a member of the Conservative Party -- he does try to do the best he can.

I am surprised that he would try to defend those commercials because they are truly some of the --

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Let me see if I can throw a little more light on the matter of the commercials. I responded to the member for Sudbury East, who withdrew his comments after I explained, but perhaps the honourable member was out of the chamber at that time.

Mr. Martel: I withdrew my remarks.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I know, and I appreciated that.

When this matter was first brought to my attention --

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, I have a point of order.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, may I speak after the minister?

The Deputy Chairman: Absolutely. We are in committee and if it is dealing with subsection 1(5), then we can move to subsection 1(6).

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Let me give the background of this as briefly as I can. When the matter was first brought to my attention, it is true I did not agree with the criticism at the time. I happen to have a bit of background in the communications business and I was assessing the commercials on their effectiveness. There is no doubt the commercials got attention and got their message across. I defended them on that basis.

Then the second argument started to come to me that this one commercial was placing the blame on the workers. Then at committee one day -- and I think the honourable member in the back row will attest to this -- when the matter was brought up, I said: "Look, I will get the storyboards in. If you give me a revised copy, I will be happy to have the appropriate people look at it." With the greatest of respect, I do not believe I ever got that revised copy.

The member for Scarborough West, who is ill, brought to my attention a third point. He really got my attention on the point that the families of asbestos victims, now and previous, were finding this commercial particularly offensive. At that point I wrote to the Construction Safety Association of Ontario -- not to the Workers' Compensation Board or the Industrial Accident Prevention Association -- which had the commercial assessed and approved by a joint labour--management group.

In any event, the board of directors, acting upon my letter, met yesterday. They called me for some further information, which I gave to them. They also relayed to me the fact that they had had a -- the word escapes me at the moment; I should know it because I was familiar with it when I was in the business -- but they assessed the value of the commercials. There is a service available to find out whether the commercials are getting attention and to find out whether or not there is acceptance or rejection.

They found -- and bear me out on this; these figures may not be entirely correct, but they will be reasonably close -- it had a very high identification factor; in other words, people remembered the commercial. It was something like 90 per cent, which is unheard of for a commercial. They found that 75 per cent of the people who were polled did not take exception to the commercial. They also found that more than 50 per cent of the people polled did find something wrong with the commercial. That is higher than normal too.

I apologize for going into such detail, but this seems to be a subject of concern to everyone. The bottom line is that the Construction Safety Association of Ontario is pulling that commercial out of rotation. It will not be used again until further consideration is given to the whole matter.

I cannot give the House an absolute assurance the commercial will not show up again. However, at the moment, the chances of it appearing again, certainly in its present form, are minimal.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to correct the record --

The Deputy Chairman: Excuse me. I am sorry. The member for Essex South wanted to finish his remarks. Then we will go back to you.

Mr. Mancini: I believe the minister was upon a point of privilege, or was going to clarify something. I am sorry, but I was talking to one of his staff members when he was in this discussion with the member for Sudbury East. I do not know why the member for Sudbury East had to withdraw what he said and, having heard what the minister said, I do not believe I have said anything I should withdraw.

I can see why the families of people who have suffered from asbestosis would find the commercials offensive. I can see why they would want them to be withdrawn. We still have not addressed the matter of these commercials being factually incorrect when Mr. Voice--over boldly states, "only if we had known," leaving the impression we did not know, when in fact we did.

I have to agree with the minister. These commercials are very effective because they are so ugly. This is the only way I can describe them. They are ugly, offensive and factually incorrect. I am glad they are going to be withdrawn.

I want to wind up my comments on this section by saying I firmly believe that in the future we are going to be spending more and more of our time discussing this matter of industrial disease. As we learn more, we are going to find out that more and more workers have suffered from one or another agent or chemical.

I hope the board will be prepared and able to move quickly, not only to compensate the individuals but also, as I said earlier, to protect the workers who still have to make a living, who still have to put bread on the table, who still have to go to the particular work place.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the record about the commercial regarding asbestos. I understand the minister is extremely busy with his various activities.

If I recall correctly, when my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and I raised the issue about this specific commercial on asbestos being shown on a regular basis on television, we explained why it was very offensive. We felt there is an indirect implication that if the worker had known about the conditions under which he was working the consequences could have been prevented. This is why the commercial was offensive to us.

5:10 p.m.

The minister then undertook the task of reviewing the content of the text. He gave copies of the content to me and to the member for Nickel Belt. The minister knew what we found offensive, based on the explanation given to him. There was an indirect implication that the worker was responsible for the consequences of asbestos because he did not know. There was no balance between the worker and the employer. I think the employer knew more about the dangerous aspect of asbestos. I think the board knew and I think even the Minister of Labour knew 10 or 15 years ago about the dangerous aspect of asbestos.

I can go through the content, the draft copy of the standing committee on resources development, to extract exactly what the minister told us. Using my memory again, if I recall, the minister did not ask the member for Nickel Belt or myself to give a revised composition of the text. Actually he had an opportunity to review the contents and he agreed with the implication my friend and I made at the time.

There was another commitment from the minister that he would get in touch with the Industrial Accident Prevention Association, Ontario to clarify the issue. After a week, I never saw that commercial any more on television. I said, "Good." I thought the minister had made progress and had stuck to the commitment given to us during the committee stage of deliberations about Bill 101.

Two or three days ago, I witnessed the same commercial without any change in the content of the text. That is the real story of that commercial and I do not think the minister really -- and I can prove it -- expected that my colleague and I would revise the content of the text per se. We are not experts. We do not know what kind of text should be used on TV, but the minister was well aware of the implication made about the worker without any clear balance about the employer and the others who for so many years have been aware of the dangerous aspects of the use of asbestos. This should be clearly spelled out in the contents of the commercial per se.

I think the minister will have an opportunity to clarify the position further, but the reason I am standing now is to get involved on the principle of industrial disease. I want to compliment the member for Sudbury East. I am sure all members of this Legislature are quite aware of the cause my colleague has been pursuing for so many years. For 12 or 13 years, he has been fighting for that cause and for the victims of industrial disease across Ontario.

I do not want to forget, of course, with the greatest respect, our former leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Lewis. I think in the 1975 and 1977 elections, industrial disease prevention and improvements on behalf of victims were part of the political theme of the elections.

I do not think it is fair at this point to go back to a historical perspective of the situation, now that finally the government is recognizing there is a need to improve the environment and improve the life of the workers across Ontario in order that they will be protected from industrial diseases.

I want to compliment my colleague for the cause. I am sure he will be raising this issue again in the years to come. We as politicians can set no limit to this important aspect of the industrial revolution.

A few minutes ago someone mentioned we are faced with 3,000 new products being introduced on the market on a yearly basis. It is not only the workers manufacturing the product, it is all the citizens of Ontario who are exposed to these unknown products because we do not know their long--term effects.

The main point that should be directed to the government is prevention. We have raised this issue through the years and all the citizens of Ontario are well aware of the implications of these industrial diseases. I do not think the government made any specific improvements in the area.

I recall the workers at Elliot Lake. As a result of pressure from the leader of this party and individual members of parliament, the government came to realize there was a need to remove workers from environmental situations that were endangering their health. Did they get any relief as a result of such a process? I do not think so. I also remember that the injured workers in the Elliot Lake area were not able to get supplementary pensions because of the unwillingness of the board to grant such benefits.

Those workers were in a very tight situation. There were no jobs available. They could not perform the same type of work because they would be exposed to these dangerous elements. At Elliot Lake we were talking about radiation from uranium. In the meantime, the board was pushing these injured workers to look for jobs elsewhere.

The member for Sudbury East, other members and the previous leader raised these issues on different occasions in the Legislature, but we were unable to get the government to specify new policies or new directions. We were unable to get the board to change its policies so that the workers affected by the problem would get the benefits. Did they get any pension as a result of that? The answer again is no. If the workers got pensions, they were so small that the workers got to the point of questioning their validity.

5:20 p.m.

There is need for reform in this area, no doubt about it. Professor Weiler enunciated the importance of such reform. I understand the minister is willing to move to phase 2 of the so--called reshaping of the Workers' Compensation Board dealing with the specific aspects of industrial disease. I want to state my pessimism based on the past records of the government and the board.

I do not think the new subclauses incorporated within subsection 1(5) are telling this Legislature what this panel is going to do. With the greatest respect, I do not want to make any innuendoes today, but I have my doubts about the whole process and what is going to happen in the future in relation to the issue of industrial disease.

The member for Nickel Belt raised this concern after attending the committee hearings. The standing committee on resources development in September debated the issue clause by clause and we emphasized that we needed clear guidelines to be spelled out within the act.

Everything should come under the direction of Bill 101. The government cannot empower an industrial disease panel to enunciate new policies and to have discretionary power to investigate things across the province. There is no clear indication of how long these people will sit on that panel. After developing certain expertise about industrial disease, their mandate will eventually finish and new people will sit on this panel. We will again be faced with a chaotic situation from which injured workers will not get any benefit.

The theme of the New Democratic Party has been prevention. The prevention aspect of the situation should prevail above any kind of panel that will be established to cover the industrial disease aspect within the principle of Bill 101. If we read this subsection, I do not think any member of this Legislature will be impressed by the mandate this industrial disease panel is going to receive from Bill 101. We are going to be faced with discretionary power. When this law is enacted, the industrial disease panel, like a board of directors, will sit from time to time to establish policies.

We had ample opportunity in past years to find out how policies are working against the interest of injured workers across Ontario. I see nothing different, with the greatest respect, even though I realize the minister has good intentions about the mandate of this industrial disease panel and the wide range of activities it is going to develop, what it is going to investigate and what it is going to do in the years to come to make sure this field is going to give concrete benefits to injured workers across the province.

By using my imagination, I can see this panel going around, compiling investigations across Ontario or compiling material coming from different nationalities across the world. I do not think the main thread of their mandate will be the principle that prevention should be respected in Ontario, to make sure the citizens and workers of Ontario will get the benefits of being in good health and, in the final analysis, to make sure the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) will get some benefits to save money for more taxpayers and reinvest that money in the different spheres where it is required.

We are spending millions of dollars to treat a problem that the government has a clear responsibility to clean up. I made a specific reference to the 3,000 new products which on a yearly basis are sold on the market and not even tested to find out the long--range problems that human beings might develop from the use of such products.

We talk about prevention. Let us go back to the origin of the problem. Let us try to clean up the work place. Let us try to make employers more responsible. Let us try to introduce legislation in this province such that new products to be sold in the market must first be tested before reaching the table of a normal citizen in Ontario.

Health care must be a priority in this province. We cannot fool around on that issue. We need only goodwill from the government to enact the legislation, and employers and other people will have to comply with the principle of the new law to protect citizens across Ontario.

In theory, even the principle of the Workers' Compensation Act, when it was first enacted in 1913 and 1914, was good. I do not think anyone in this parliament rejected the principle of compensation in 1913 and 1914.

Here we are developing new ways in which a principle is established within subsection 1(5), that an industrial disease panel should operate in Ontario. But the chaotic and disastrous aspect of that organization must be seen in the years to come before evaluating the process as a whole.

We have had an opportunity to review the activities of the board for many years. I am not very optimistic that this panel will stand up to the test of seeking prevention on a daily basis in the province and of making the health of the workers and of the citizens a high priority for the government. I understand where their friends are. They are employers across Ontario. We are usually accused of being against small business, against big employers, against corporations and so on.

Tell me, Mr. Chairman, what kind of money would you pay to live in good health in Ontario, to be protected from the environmental problems to which all citizens of this province are exposed daily? The question is to have a good political will to enact the legislation that will make sure the health of our people will be a priority in this province and that we will not be treated like items that, when they are no good, can go to funeral homes and finally to cemeteries while life continues and new babies continue to be born just to strike a balance in our society.

I do not view society in that way, with the greatest respect. I think we have an obligation to enact good legislation, in spite of the principles on which the New Democratic Party stands, who our friends are and who gives us donations to carry on our fight every four years or in minority situations every two years. Who knows? It is just a question of common sense and nothing else that leads us to the protection of the environment, of the workers and of the citizens across the province.

5:30 p.m.

I do not think subsection 1(5), with all the subclauses included, really spells out the mandate of this industrial disease panel. Of course, during the committee hearings the minister gave us the assurance that it has the power. It does not want any particular interference from the Minister of Labour, and even he has to play a careful role in deciding what undermines the health of workers in Ontario and therefore should be investigated, just to maintain the spirit of independence, just to make sure that the role of this panel is going to be open and without any political interference.

If we do not want political interference, let us clarify the issue on the floor of this Legislature. Let us spell out the panel's mandate. Let us make sure the actions which will be carried out by this panel will be clearly enunciated under different clauses of Bill 101. Then there will be no need for political interference. But we are operating in the dark. We have to raise questions in the future about the stability of this panel, about the effectiveness of this panel, to give them direction so they are able to cover the issues of the health of workers and the health of citizens, areas about which politicians are extremely concerned.

We are also faced with the delicate role of the minister, who must be extremely careful before getting in touch with this panel because we want to maintain the principle of independence. The discretionary power given to this panel must be a guide to develop and clarify their role. I think we are wrong. That is why in Ontario we are going to be faced with archaic laws.

Through the years we have enunciated good principles which no one can oppose, and then the boards, which have been created under the Tory regime, develop policies. Who can change the policies? We have to maintain the status of independence. We have to make sure the minister will not guide the panel and we have to make sure the politicians will not interfere with the process.

Our message during the hearings which took place over the past few years and in September when the committee was engaged in clause--by--clause discussion was very clear. Let us spell out the mandate of this industrial disease standards panel. I am sure in years to come my colleague the member for Sudbury East and other members of this Legislature will raise these problems all over again.

The minister might tell us Bill 101 is a good bill; it is an improvement of the system and injured workers will get good benefits from these changes. However, if we analyse the indirect implications coming from all the clauses contained in Bill 101, as we did throughout the course of the standing committee on resources development, I become extremely concerned about the intention of the government in relation to all aspects of compensation and prevention.

The government feels pressure coming from employers that such an institution is becoming too costly. The system cannot afford to pay more money to make sure injured workers in Ontario will get what they deserve. They will be complaining in the future as well. If politicians or pressure groups push to reshape the principle of the Worker's Compensation Board, the theme of money, dollars and cents will be raised by employers across Ontario because the system cannot afford to pay any more money. Then there will be a flow of statistical data, as we noticed throughout the course of the hearings. Actually, it is coming from --

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I wondered if the chairman of the standing committee on resources development which dealt with this whole bill was leaving?

Mr. Barlow: I thought I would. When the filibuster is over, I will be back.

Mr. Laughren: Okay, thanks.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I really resent this type of comment about how we feel about the bill. On behalf of our party and as a critic, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the government about the principles enunciated in Bill 101.

I do not want to use my Latin motto. It is a general motto that history can teach us something. I think we have learned enough from past experience. The present Workers' Compensation Act has now been enunciated and activated by the board. As far as I am concerned, even though the principle might sound good, injured workers through the years have given a clear indication to the government that the system is unworkable. That is why we are here today.

That is why the government appointed Professor Weiler. It was not to satisfy injured workers protesting outside against injustices they have been faced with throughout the years, but I think there was a clear indication from the government, a sign of goodwill, that the system was archaic and there was a need for revamping and reshaping the system. That is why the government did it. To hear comments that we are trying to stop the process is unfair.

The member left, but I think I was supposed to rebut his remarks. I do not think his criticism was a fair and sound one.

Prevention is one thing. There is nothing in this particular subsection 1(5) which gives direction to the panel that it has to do that. It will have indefinite discretionary powers to investigate and compile material, but I think the material is already available. It is available to the doctors who have been deeply involved in this particular field of industrial disease. It is available at the Minister of Labour's library and it is also available to the board.

After years of studying and reviewing the issue, one can tackle all the carcinogen products which are on the market and the implications of asbestos. I think in the past we engaged ourselves on the percentage of fibres that can be inhaled by workers and what percentage might constitute a danger to health.

We know where the problems are. We know the medical profession was able to spell out the problems. I think we have been faced with an unwillingness on the part of the government to take the right direction to prevent certain things from happening in Ontario.

Let me assure the minister that even though we do not know when the next provincial election is going to be called, the WCB and industrial disease will be one of our major themes in our political strategy because I think the citizens in this province and the workers themselves should have the right to know what the government is doing in relation to that.

One cannot just state that now that we have an industrial disease panel, it will look after future problems which might develop, and that if there is a specific interest coming from any politician or any interested group, the position taken by the minister will be that he will direct the inquiry through the industrial disease standards panel and it will investigate the concern.

5:40 p.m.

The panel will then go through the contents of the material that has been compiled. I do not really think it will develop new material. It will go where the sources are and give a satisfactory answer to the minister and to the workers. If there is an appeal, its decision or reply will eventually be the basis as to whether an injured worker wins or loses an appeal. That is unfair.

My mind is on the thousands of injured workers who have been suffering from industrial diseases since the inception of the Workers' Compensation Board who did not get compensation because the long--term effects of certain products were unknown. That is why we are quite offended by the commercial with the clear statement, "If the worker only knew."

Surely the worker did not know. The worker works to make a living as a result of the work he or she performs in Ontario. Of course, if the worker refuses, he is going to be laid off. Even if the worker knew, he would be faced with being laid off as a result of his refusal. Thousands of workers in Ontario have been faced with such dilemmas in making a living, having to do the work assigned by the employer or else the final prospect was to lose his or her job.

That is why the commercial is very offensive. I am quite surprised to know today that the Industrial Accident Prevention Association made a deliberation on the issue last night. I was of the opinion that the issue was well clarified when the minister made his statement during the committee stage. I am sure I will have an opportunity to check the exact content of the minister's position.

Unless we are going to be faced with a clear indication that the government is willing to move forward in regard to the specific aspect of industrial diseases in Ontario, we may even waste our time in reiterating the same principles of what the government should do.

We have sometimes been accused as a party of being destructive by making specific arguments or criticisms in regard to specific issues affecting people in Ontario and of not being willing to co--operate in the passage of a particular law that is good in principle but where we do not know the final stage or final analysis of the law.

When we are able to make clear recommendations as to how the government should operate on certain issues, we are faced with a strong position of refusal and are told the system cannot afford it or the employers cannot afford to pay any more money. They use any kind of argument -- the recession, the economic crisis, the recovery aspect of the situation -- to make sure our objections and criticisms will be torn apart, instead of being taken into consideration and the government having an open mind about adopting the criticism as a guide in producing and enacting new law in Ontario.

If I recall correctly, it was around May or June when Bill 101 was referred to the standing committee on resources development for new hearings throughout the summer and for the final deliberation on sections, clause by clause. If I recall correctly, the minister told us on the floor of this Legislature that he would approach such a committee with an open mind. The only positive aspect of the minister's participation was his presence at the committee hearings. It was a sign of goodwill.

When I said the government should have an open mind in regard to the criticism raised by different members of the Legislature regarding the principle of revamping and reshaping the WCB, I interpreted the open--mind aspect to mean the minister would accept some of the amendments presented either by the NDP or by the Liberal Party in the course of our final deliberations. I did not see this open--minded acceptance of certain principles which the government was supposed to incorporate within Bill 101.

I understand we cannot make opening statements, but in the final analysis I foresee Bill 101 as being a very detrimental bill, but not on the principle of the bill or on the principle of each section affecting injured workers in Ontario. I see detrimental effects on the application of Bill 101 by the board's administration and enunciation of policies that eventually will be enacted when Bill 101 is passed by this Legislature.

This is where I lose faith in the system. I do not think the problems will clear up in the future. I think the minister has good intentions when it comes to listening. He is very patient in listening to our arguments. However, the political implications behind his positions are bothering politicians as well as people outside who are affected by this legislation.

Benefit of doubt is incorporated in a specific section of this bill. We will find out how this will be applied by the board through the years and how many injured workers win appeals on the premise of the benefit--of--doubt section.

I have reservations about the bill per se. I have reservations about the whole area of industrial disease. I am particularly concerned about people who are not working in a dangerous environment but are in contact with dangerous products. Even citizens of this province are not living in a safe environment. We blame the United States or Ontario Hydro for acid rain, pollution of the lakes, people eating contaminated fish and so on, but the government has undertaken to solve the problem.

5:50 p.m.

In 1985, it is said the acid rain or pollution problem will diminish because Ontario Hydro is going to reduce its emissions by a certain percentage. I do not know the figure.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It is 43 per cent.

Mr. Lupusella: I thank the minister. It will be reduced by 43 per cent by 1990.

In regard to pollution of the lakes and the life of the lakes per se, 300 lakes are already dead in Ontario. Are we expecting a natural disaster to destroy those lakes in Ontario, when we are polluting the environment and the government is not doing anything to make sure industries will stop polluting the lakes? This is the kind of reasonable approach the government should use to resolve the problems and protect the health of its citizens in Ontario. I see nothing like that.

Sometimes when the government is taking a strong position on what must be done, the employers or big corporations threaten, "If you do not give us more moderate guidelines, we are going to leave the province. We will move elsewhere. We will go to the United States, where we are not faced with particular restrictions on the environmental aspect of the situation."

In the meantime, we pay billions of dollars for our health care system in Ontario, which we say is the best system in the world, doctors would like to have a generous increase and so on.

Let us talk about prevention once and for all. We would save billions of dollars and we could direct those billions of dollars into different areas where our citizens could get benefits. Let us not play around with how many billions of dollars the board pays annually to injured workers to justify that the board is operating effectively in Ontario when we know for a fact that injured workers in the province are faced with daily injustices as a result of an inadequate act which has been in operation since 1913.

Why do we defend the system? The law is too old. The law needs changes. There is no need to justify the operation of the board, which spends billions of dollars on injured workers, when in fact for an amputated leg an injured worker does not receive as much from the board. Why? The injured worker is penalized for different reasons. At the time of the injury, he or she was performing a job that did not pay too much; because of that and the meat chart, the injured worker is faced with a small pension and the loss of a leg.

Now, within the new act, for fatal cases a lump sum of $20,000 up to a maximum of $60,000 is to be given to the survivor spouse of a deceased worker. The figures might sound attractive, but if we take the maximum that a surviving spouse receives under the present act and multiply it by 12 months on the range of 10 years, she or he will be receiving more than $60,000. Here we are using parameters that limit the amount to $20,000 up to a maximum of $60,000. I am sure that in new fatal cases, widows are going to lose money as a result of the new law.

We will not have to wait long for new injured people to associate themselves with demonstrations in front of Queen's Park, and we are going to have an increased number of new injured workers, covered under Bill 101, protesting the inequity of the system. Then the board and its actuaries will come, as they came before the committee, talking about how much money that particular section will cost the employers and the board, saying that it will cost millions and perhaps billions of dollars and that the system cannot afford to pay that kind of money.

I do not question the goodwill of the minister; I know that in his heart he understands the problems of injured workers across Ontario. But, turning to the case of a deceased worker without dependants, the new act proposes to finalize his or her case with a burial expense of $1,500 to $2,000 and with no money going to his or her parents, who have participated in the growth of that person.

I do not think the minister rejected such a premise because he does not have a good heart. I think there is a political motivation behind it. There is a principle which cannot be rejected, because the father or the mother should be compensated for the pain and suffering of the diseased child when a son or daughter has a fatal accident.

Am I accusing the minister or any member of the Conservative government of being cruel? No. It is the political implication. They are defending a system of people who are supporting their party and as a result of that some persons in our society have to suffer. I cannot accept such a premise. It is not appropriate in good legislation and good principles which must be passed by a responsible government.

Sometimes I resent certain arguments. Most of the time during the committee hearings the Conservative members did not have rational answers to our concerns and the points we raised on how the laws should be amended. There was no specific answer or reasonable explanation given by the government to justify the course of action contemplated by Bill 101.

We can use comments that have been made by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt when we were asking about the rationality of specific premises for certain clauses. When we asked why the government took that course and did not take our amendment into consideration, sometimes we were faced with irrational answers; they did not have any answers, only political deliberations and nothing else.

Certain aspects of Bill 101 and the present Workers' Compensation Act cannot stand in the light of religious arguments. I am sure Tory members are very religious. They cannot repudiate certain principles which are part of their own beliefs, but for political reasons they have to do so. It is not because they are bad or cruel or because they do not feel anything about the issue. They understand the reality of life, but for political reasons they cannot because the party or its policies must prevail.

Going back to the principle concerning industrial disease, I am very disappointed because aside from the ministerial statement to the standing committee on resources development, which sat during the summer, the government did not give us a clear indication of how this panel will be governed. We got verbal assurances, but no legal or legislative assurances, on how the panel should be operated. Maybe I could move the adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Chairman: No. Can we approve section 1 now?

Mr. Lupusella: No, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk.

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

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

23 octobre 1984