Journal des débats 1985-déc-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Keyes: This morning I would like to advise all honourable members on a report from the Solicitor General's Special Committee on Police Pursuits. This committee was established in November 1984 under the chairmanship of John MacBeth, vice-chairman of the Ontario Police Commission, to examine police pursuit driving in Ontario.

The objective of the special committee's mandate was to determine whether the measures currently serving to ensure public and police safety in pursuit situations are adequate and to recommend, where required, alternatives and improvements to procedures related to vehicle pursuit.

The 10 members of the committee studied these issues extensively for the past year. Their deliberations included public hearings and a wide variety of submissions from interested citizens both within and outside the police community.

The majority report concludes that vehicular police pursuit is too hazardous to undertake as frequently as current policy permits. It recommends that, in the interests of safety, a more restrictive policy should allow a pursuit only where an offence under the Criminal Code is involved, and not for offences under the Highway Traffic Act.

However, in a minority report, the three police represented on the committee dissented from that recommendation. They submitted that the professional discretion of police to engage in vehicle pursuit cannot be restricted.

Committee members did agree, unanimously, on four other major recommendations:

1. The strict enforcement of section 181 of the Highway Traffic Act, which permits the police to charge a vehicle owner and which places the onus of responsibility on a vehicle owner, where the operator of the vehicle knowingly fails to stop for the police for the committal of an offence;

2. The enactment of legislation permitting the courts to impound a vehicle that has been used by a motorist to flee wilfully from the police;

3. The adoption of a camera system that would photograph vehicles and their licence plates, while simultaneously recording vehicle speed, when a driver is believed to be committing a traffic offence; and

4. The establishment of a helicopter police patrol on an experimental basis in an urban area. In recognition of the fact that such recommendations represent, as the committee put it, "fundamental change to the prevailing norms of law enforcement in Ontario," the committee suggests its recommendations be implemented initially on a trial basis with an evaluation to take place in two years.

There are a number of other recommendations in the report, 31 in all, ranging from procedural measures, pursuit training, public education and the use of firearms, to mechanical alternatives and improved communications systems.

The committee also reports that of the 170 pursuit policies reviewed from police forces across Canada, the United States, Australia and Britain, Ontario's is among the least restrictive.

Clearly, the issue of police pursuits is one for which strong arguments can be made on both sides. It is for this reason that the committee's report is so welcome and necessary. I will be discussing its content with my cabinet colleagues, and I will seek further input from the police community and ultimately, from the members of this Legislature.

This report should serve as the foundation for further protection of our citizens and the police who serve them on our roads and highways. I am indebted to the 10 members of the Solicitor General's Special Committee on Police Pursuits for their contribution.

SINGLE INDUSTRY COMMUNITIES

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Many northerners live in communities that are dependent on industries that must cope with fluctuating international commodity prices and resource depletion as part of their business environment. These factors, in turn, may lead to layoffs and closures such as those that have occurred or are taking place in Atikokan, Ear Falls and Pickle Lake.

J'ai le plaisir d'annoncer ce matin que le gouvernement de l'Ontario met sur pied un comité consultatif pour déterminer des façons d'aider les communautés du Nord de l'Ontario qui dépendent d'une seule industrie pour assurer leur survie.

The committee will examine the current situation and future outlook in general of the north's many communities depending for their livelihood on a single industry such as mining or forestry.

Besides studying current Ontario policies, programs and information on this matter, the committee will look at how other provinces and countries deal with this situation. Private sector practices with respect to layoffs and closures will also be examined.

Nous voulons trouver des mécanismes pour diminuer l'impact des mises à pied et des fermetures d'usines dans les communautés avec une seule industrie.

The following individuals have agreed to serve as members of the committee: the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman); the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin); the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce); Bob Axford, Red Lake, vice-president, Canadian Association of Threatened Single Industry Towns; Ron MacDonald, president, Sudbury local, United Steelworkers; Ginette Quirion, former Hearst town administrator; and Dr. Bob Rosehart, president, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay. Dr. Rosehart has agreed to chair the committee.

These people will give the committee the broad makeup and experience it will need to carry out its mandate effectively. The committee will report to me and the cabinet committee on northern development by March 31, 1986, with proposals for action.

10:10 a.m.

ELECTROSHOCK THERAPY

Hon. Mr. Elston: In February 1984, Windsor lawyer Charles Clark was asked to review the use of electroconvulsive therapy in Ontario and to make recommendations to the Ministry of Health about its future application in the province.

The report of the Electro-Convulsive Therapy Review Committee has been completed and submitted to me. Because of its importance, I want to highlight some of its recommendations for the members of this House.

Although electroconvulsive therapy has been used in psychiatry for more than 45 years, there is a divergence of opinion among health care professionals and laymen about its indications for use, its effectiveness and its side-effects.

There is concern about the potential misuse and abuse of the treatment and about patient rights. At the same time, there is also concern for the wellbeing and appropriate treatment of psychiatric patients.

In examining the Ontario situation, the committee heard more than 350 submissions. In excess of 250 of these were from private individuals, the majority of them former patients or their families.

The personal testimonies were about evenly divided. There were those who believed ECT had greatly benefited them and in some cases saved their lives. Others believed ECT had not helped or had even harmed them. The committee was very impressed by the convictions and courage shown by all these individuals in sharing their feelings on this very sensitive subject.

In addition, the members looked at a range of scientific and clinical work.

The committee felt there are risks and adverse effects associated with ECT, as there are with most medical procedures; however, these considerations must be weighed against alternative forms of treatment, or no treatment at all, and the needs and wishes of the individual patient.

On the basis of this evidence and the strong beliefs of individuals who were convinced that ECT had helped, the committee, with the exception of one dissenting member, reached the conclusion that electroconvulsive therapy should continue to be available as a mode of treatment in Ontario.

While recommending continuance of ECT, the committee strongly emphasizes that extensive safeguards should be put in place to ensure high standards of medical care as well as protection of individual rights.

The committee's report contains 39 recommendations directed at ensuring that the use of ECT is based on sound legal, ethical and medical principles.

The committee dealt extensively with the complex and controversial area of patient consent and on this matter has made the following recommendations:

1. The individual patient should have absolute autonomy, if competent, to consent to or to refuse treatment. This includes a decision of no treatment at all.

2. The patient must be kept fully informed about the medical treatment and its expected results and risks.

3. The patient must be able to choose freely or refuse the proposed treatment without undue influence.

Determining a patient's competency to make treatment decisions is the most fundamental element of patient consent. The committee concluded that the definition of competency must therefore be clarified and expanded.

In cases where the patient's competence is in question, the committee recommends that competency should be determined by an impartial tribunal. It suggests the jurisdiction of regional review boards be expanded to include determination of the competence of patients to make treatment decisions. This would change the present situation where competence is determined by the physician alone.

Under current legislation there is no provision to appeal decisions regarding the competence of patients to consent to treatment. Therefore, the committee recommends that the decision of the impartial review board be subject to the right of appeal to a criminal court, in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

In addition to these recommendations regarding patient consent, the committee recommends that the Ministry of Health establish and enforce minimum performance standards for ECT equipment, that hospitals be required to record standardized information regarding the use of ECT and that each hospital should have written clinical procedures for the ECT treatment. It recommends that research should also be undertaken to investigate how ECT produces its therapeutic effect and on ways to improve the treatment's benefit.

I wish to thank personally the committee chairman, Charles Clark, the other committee members and support staff for their work and efforts in preparing this report.

I wish to give every assurance that these proposals and recommendations will be carefully considered by me and by my ministry staff.

My staff has already contacted the Ontario Hospital Association, the medical and psychiatric associations and the Canadian Mental Health Association, as well as organizations of former psychiatric patients, to start up a process of consultation to address these recommendations.

I am also sending copies of the report to a number of medical, legal and public interest groups and have asked them to provide me with any comments and concerns they may have.

Once a thorough review of the report's conclusions has been carried out, I will inform the House about specific actions the Ministry of Health intends to take.

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. We were surprised to learn this morning that after intense questioning about the negotiations with regard to the proposed sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., and without notifying this House or the public, the Premier had a secret, unknown meeting with Bombardier Inc., one of the bidders.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Why not ask me about it?

Mr. Grossman: Asking the Premier gets no information; it gets arrogance and sarcasm. We will see if he even told his minister about his meeting.

Can the minister tell us whether it is true that the Premier has agreed to give Bombardier confidential information with regard to the financial circumstances of UTDC, without requiring written guarantees or any deposits?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that is not true.

Mr. Grossman: This is likely a Hugh O'Neil situation.

Can the minister tell us how much of a deposit will be required of Bombardier before any information is released by UTDC or the government?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: There is simply nothing in the offing that would require a deposit from anyone at this stage. There are ongoing negotiations, as has been clearly stated in this House repeatedly. There is nothing new in those negotiations that would require that kind of action at this time.

Mr. Rae: The minister will know that Sinclair Stevens, whose bona fides the minister would have no reason to question, said yesterday he would be prepared to postpone the de Havilland deal until such time as a legislative committee has had a chance to study all the terms and contents of that deal. Is the minister prepared to be just as generous and forthright in consulting a legislative committee as is Sinclair Stevens?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: There is no deal and therefore nothing to be postponed.

Mr. Grossman: I knew it would be a Hugh O'Neil situation.

No offer has been signed. We know that. Therefore, let me ask the minister whether, in his answer to the member for York South, he has undertaken that no deal will be entered into, finally signed by the government, without first giving a committee of the Legislature, to which our party has referred the report, a chance to study the proposed terms of sale? Will he give that undertaking to the House?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: There is simply no deal. Nothing has been signed. We are continuing negotiations with more than one principal. The Premier has indicated we are responsible for it; we will handle it, and whatever documents are required to be tabled will be tabled.

Mr. Grossman: I think we will spend some time with the minister after Christmas.

Mr. Speaker: This is before Christmas. Can we have the second question, please?

10:20 a.m.

DOMED STADIUM

Mr. Grossman: I want to give the Premier a chance again this morning, before we break for Christmas, to exhibit his vaunted skill in sarcasm and sneering, so we will return to the stadium.

Mr. Rae: Go get them, Rambo. Go for it, Rambo.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Those Decima polls have certainly got to the member.

Mr. Grossman: Yes; the government is doing as well as we were in February 1985; I acknowledge that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a question to the Premier?

Mr. Grossman: Yes, it is. Given that his government is the controlling shareholder in the Stadium Corp. of Ontario, given that the process followed in selecting someone to build the stadium is obviously an important matter of public policy and scrutiny, and given that the president of the stadium corporation now says significant design changes will be made after the competition is over -- for example, a 10 per cent reduction in the number of seats, which is a large reduction-will the Premier agree to give the three lowest bidders a chance to hold further discussions with the stadium corporation to make sure they have a chance to address the price for which they would build an adjusted stadium?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not exactly sure of the entire method. As the member knows, this was a design-build proposal as opposed to a straight tender on one design. The various companies were invited by the Conservative government. I gather the member was on the board at that point, but I may be wrong. They were the shareholders. They invited four groups or consortiums to get together and submit design proposals.

I gather that was done and they finally came through. The operating premise at that point was that it was going to cost about $150 million. I have even seen statements where the member said the province was going to contribute $10 million or $15 million and the price was going to be $110 million or $125 million. When the final designs came up, one could see how wrong were the people who were putting their minds to the question a year or so ago.

Everybody has a serious problem, given the price all the designs came in at relative to the kind of facility people want. As I understand the process, the various designs were submitted to the technical committee. They now are and have been in the process of trying to bring them all down to a manageable financial package. At the same time, they are looking at the financing on the other side.

With respect to the questions the member has, I hope he will go to the standing committee on public accounts -- I gather it is meeting after question period -- and put these questions there. They are in the process of trying to get the price down to make it affordable. If the member has ideas on how to do that, he should submit them to the technical committee and to the board. He knows them all very well. A number of them are close friends and big supporters of his. They are very fond of him and have a lot of respect for him, and I know the member has respect for them. I am sure he could pick up the telephone, phone them and share his views with them. They would be delighted to have his advice on this matter.

Mr. Grossman: I did pick up the telephone, call them and invite them to come to speak with me, but the Premier ordered them not to. That is the circumstance.

I pose this supplementary question because the controlling shareholder of the corporation is represented by the Premier and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), not by Mr. Connell and not by those who are coming before the public accounts committee to whom the Premier keeps referring us.

The Premier does not have time for it. He will not exercise his responsibility as the shareholder with total control. I was the Treasurer and I was the single shareholder. The Treasurer now is and he has total control.

Given that, I refer the Premier to the Canadian Construction Documents Committee, which puts out this document outlining procedures in the event of the bidding circumstance to which the Premier just referred. This organization includes representatives of the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: This document, which is a guide to calling bids and awarding contracts, says on page 29 --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Forgive us for asking questions. It says on pages 23 to 29 that, should the changes contemplated result in a value in excess of 15 per cent, the bidders who submitted the three lowest acceptable bids should be invited to retender.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: Given the Premier's concern about public administration and manuals of administration, will he agree to abide by this accepted principle and invite those three firms to retender if the price change is 15 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Two points to the member: One, he suggested that I ordered them not to talk to him. That is absolutely and categorically false.

I want to say something else. This is not the first time in this House that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) has stood up and said absolutely false things about people associated with what this government has done. He is rife with inaccuracies that border on the irresponsible, in my view. I do not mind any charge he wants to make, but he does not have the licence to stand up and be factually wrong when I know he knows he is wrong.

My second point is that I do not know about the manual he has in front of him, whatever it is. I have no idea if the design changes they are contemplating and that I read about in the newspaper today constitute 15 per cent. If he takes 15 per cent of a $225-million contract, what he is saying is that the alteration in the price would be about $35 million. I have no idea whether the price is going to come down $35 million on the basis of this, or whether it comes within the rules established by the engineers or whatever.

I invite the member to go to the committee this morning and discuss it with the technical committee and the board of directors, to satisfy himself.

Mr. Grossman: I want to say to the Premier before we break for Christmas that if he wants to --

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The Leader of the Opposition is up to his old tricks again.

Mr. Grossman: Do not get nervous.

If the Premier wants to talk about unfounded allegations in this House, he might want to read his own mail with regard to lawyers' letters he has been getting about allegations he has been making in this assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Grossman: Just do it. I will compare my mail with his any time.

I will ask this final supplementary of the Premier. I am speaking to the shareholder of the company, the owner of the company. The owner of the company keeps saying to the official opposition in this province, "If you want any information from my employees, the people I hire, retain and can fire at any time, go and ask them for it."

Is the Premier now prepared to instruct his employees that, following this accepted principle, which they subscribe to as individuals in the private sector, he will ensure that if the price changes by 15 per cent, the unsuccessful bidders will have a chance to retender?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure my honourable friend understands what is going on here. We have an independent crown corporation. Yes, we are the major shareholder; the member is right. We appointed an independent board. They have made the decisions. We gathered up what we consider to be the finest people in this province who are equipped to make those kinds of decisions for us. We have faith in them.

I have a great deal of respect for William Grenville Davis. The member may not have, but I do. I think he exercises dispassionate, thoughtful, judgement on all occasions. I have great respect for Martin Connell. They have made all the decisions along the way. When they decided to hire a public relations firm, for example, they hired Foster Advertising. I say good for them, because they used dispassionate, objective judgement in doing that.

10:30 a.m.

So far, I have found they have made some pretty good decisions and that is why I have faith in them. If the member does not, I want him to go and ask them any questions. It is all there; some in the papers, some in the technical reports. He can spend the Christmas holiday reading it all and I will be delighted to have his analysis when we come back on January 6.

[Later]

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Looking at standing order 19(d)8, 10 and 11, I would ask you to ask the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: On what point of order?

Mr. Timbrell: It relates to the earlier statements by the Premier that the Leader of the Opposition has on a number of occasions made false --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It relates to a previous statement. The member has the opportunity to ask a question about it.

Mr. Timbrell: With all respect, it is under the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Under what standing order?

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to draw to your attention standing order 19(d), which says:

"In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he:...

"8. Makes allegations against another member;

"10. Charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood;

"11. Uses abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder."

The Premier alleged that the Leader of the Opposition has on a number of occasions made false statements in this House. He gave no evidence to support that whatsoever. I submit that he is out of order and should be ordered to withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is difficult, but let me speak to the point of privilege. The Leader of the Opposition made an accusation against me that was absolutely factually inaccurate. Let me just say --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just a moment. This took place some time ago. First, I do not know why the member did not --

Mr. McClellan: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe the exchange my colleague the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) has referred to took place during question period this morning. I heard the exchange. I was surprised you did not intervene and ask the Premier to withdraw his remarks.

The member for Don Mills is perfectly correct. There are precedents to go by. I think it would serve us all well if the Premier were simply to rise in his place and withdraw the remarks that were contrary to the standing order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I recall, I think I said he made a false statement. If that is contrary to the rules of the Legislature --

Mr. Timbrell: It certainly is.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is that what I said? I think that is what I said he did "on a number of occasions." What I said, and I stand by it, Mr. Speaker, as long as it is acceptable, was that he has been factually inaccurate in a number of things he has said on a number of occasions. If that is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have great respect for you and for the rules of this House. I will say, on the other hand, that when you have total irresponsibility in this House, there has to be some remedy as well.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood the Premier to say he withdrew.

Mr. Leluk: I did not hear it.

Mr. Gillies: The Premier should be out of here on the end of a sword.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Rae: I want to question the Premier on the Urban Transportation Development Corp. The minister today has said there is no deal. Is it the government's intention to negotiate one along the lines of the de Havilland deal federally; that is to say, a letter of intent setting out some basic agreements with the details to be negotiated over time?

In the event of a sale, is it the intention of the government to take that route? If that is the way to go, can the Premier give us his assurance today that no final contracts will be signed until a legislative committee of this House has had an opportunity to have a complete scrutiny of the deal itself?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: At this moment, there is no determination on which way it would proceed. As I said before, there are some interested parties in various forms. There have been discussions with all of them. There is no question at this moment the most serious one is Bombardier. That has been checked by a number of professionals who looked at the feelers or tentative offerings of certain other groups.

I met yesterday for the first time, as did the minister, with the principals of Bombardier. We had a tentative discussion about their interest and ours. At this point, their interest would be to build a national-class mass transit operation, a Canadian operation, to compete internationally. One of the problems is we have had a situation where two Canadian companies, Bombardier and UTDC, have been competing against each other. The question people are looking at is how it could enhance employment and build a company that would indeed be competitive internationally if they got together somehow.

That is the way it is tentatively being considered at the moment. The details have not been worked out, not even those on how to proceed. One of the options, as the honourable member says, is to proceed by way of a so-called letter of intent. Then they could go in and satisfy themselves about certain details, that the representations made are there, and they would come out with a price at the other end.

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The leader of the third party would like to see this deal, as others, run by a select committee of this House. I am not as optimistic as he is that this is the right approach in these kinds of transactions. It is my view that everything we do must be subject to scrutiny by this Legislature and indeed by the people of this province. There is no way around that and that is the way it should be.

Frankly, I have some reservations about whether having committee discussions prior to making a deal is helpful. I am not sure six or eight committee people sitting around and fighting philosophy about public versus nonpublic ownership, or inviting in six or eight other people to try to make a deal, is a particularly constructive way to maximize the return for the shareholders.

Mr. Rae: In his answer, the Premier is dangerously close to showing real contempt for the ability of ordinary members of this Legislature to represent their constituents effectively. I hope the Premier will reflect on that for some time.

Is the Premier not aware that, in his initial answer and the answers given by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), they are being less generous in their consultation with the parliamentary process regarding a deal affecting crown assets belonging to the people of this province than Sinclair Stevens was yesterday in Ottawa? Is the Premier aware of that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I must say that is a devastating accusation, to accuse me of being less generous than Sinclair Stevens. The member has wounded me with that assault.

That is a different situation, as I view it. They have signed a letter of intent and there has been considerable discussion. We have not signed a letter of intent and at this moment we do not know whether that is the way it is going to proceed. It is different. We are not looking at selling out to a foreign company in the way the de Havilland deal was done. We are looking at a responsible Canadian employer and company, and we are looking to use our good offices to make it bigger and better. That is why it is different.

Mr. Grossman: I have a news report that quotes a source in the government as saying: "I think we have more comfort now in proceeding to the next stage. We have just got to work out what they" -- Bombardier -- "can see and what they cannot see." So that we all understand clearly, will the Premier tell us whether, in giving them more information, which the source says the government is going to do, it is going to require a significant deposit, as the minister said the government would, and will he tell us what that significant deposit will be?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is one of the things that has been discussed. At this point, there is nothing definite with respect to that. As the member knows, one of the ways one can proceed with a letter of intent is to ask for a deposit and then agree ahead of time what information can be seen. Obviously, one of my concerns is what any potential purchaser should be able to see and not see. For example, if a deal did not go through, would revealing too much information hurt the competitive position of UTDC? There is a line one has to find in these discussions.

At this point, what would be shared and what would not be shared has not been not worked out, but one has to be fair to any potential purchaser and say that it has a right to satisfy itself as to the veracity of certain representations made by the vendor company. That is the situation we are in at the moment.

Mr. Foulds: Is the Premier aware that not only is the taxpayers' investment at risk but jobs and contracts are also at risk because of the public meanderings the Premier has had over the possible sale of UTDC? Before he proceeds with any sale, will he guarantee that those jobs in Ontario will be guaranteed and that any deal will be scrutinized by a committee of this Legislature before it is finalized?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me answer the honourable member's question with respect to the jobs. As he knows, UTDC in its present form is currently going through a job rationalization because of the cancellation of GO advanced light rail transit. He and I both know that any company can hire only according to the contracts it has. Obviously no company, including UTDC, can keep people on the payroll if it does not have contracts. The question is how we can put that company in a position where it will have more contracts and more business to enhance employment. That is the critical question.

We should take a very tough view in any negotiations on job guarantees, not just for now but for the future as well. We want to see the company grow. I think the member will be satisfied that any deal we make will be the most sensible approach that could be guaranteed in the circumstances.

With respect to putting the taxpayers' investment at risk, the member should not assume for a minute that we are doing that. This company is not going to be given away. Money will come back to the taxpayers that can be used for northern medical travel, for example. We might have to expand our university system. It could be put into research and development and other creative purposes. All the while, that company will be protecting jobs in Thunder Bay and Kingston, and growing and growing. Is that not the ideal solution? I am sure that would appeal even to a socialist.

Mr. Rae: It is quite a remarkable day when Sinc Stevens sets the standard and the Premier of this province is not prepared to commit himself publicly in the Legislature of Ontario to the same standard. It is going to be an interesting battle.

10:40 a.m.

EMERGENCY HOUSING

Mr. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I am sure the minister is aware that the death that occurred on Tuesday night came after there were public warnings from the heads and managers of women's hostels across the city of Toronto, public warnings that have been taking place for several weeks now. We have statements, for example, from the head of Nellie's Hostel, saying that women's need for shelter is definitely at a crisis level, especially for single women between the ages of 25 and 50. The head of Interval House on Huron Street said we are definitely in a crisis. We have examples of people who say they are turning away as many as 90 per cent of their female applicants.

The minister must be aware that the situation with respect to homelessness facing women is a crisis. Specifically, does he not now realize that a crisis in emergency shelter has been taking place for several years and that the reason it has been taking place is that the government has a warehousing policy, a policy for flophouses but not a policy for real homes for people who want permanent homes that make sense to them?

What is he going to do to deal with the crisis and to ensure that people have really decent places to live and not simply flophouses subsidized by the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I strongly suspect that organizations such as the Salvation Army, the Anglican Church and the Baptist Church would intensely resent the description of the accommodations they provide for emergency shelter as flophouses. I have visited several of them and I certainly could not describe them as flophouses.

This winter's emergency shelter program saw an additional 277 beds made available in Toronto. That is in addition to what was already there. The tragedy of Tuesday night, as I indicated to the members earlier, need not have happened, because only four blocks away from where it did happen, there were 19 empty beds in Walpole House.

Mr. Rae: I have not met anybody from any of the religious communities the minister has mentioned who is not seriously critical of the role that governments, Tory and Liberal, have played in ignoring the homelessness crisis. There are between 5,000 and 10,000 people wandering the streets of this community who do not have a permanent place to live. That is a reality. It has been a reality and it is growing.

The minister may defend it and say it is okay to have 60, 8O or 100 people living in the same room, which is the case in many of the places he is so proud of as offering permanent accommodation to people and which he seems to think are just hunky-dory places for people to live; but I would suggest to him that this is not the way those people feel and it is not the way the people who are running those institutions feel.

Specifically, what is his ministry doing to establish standards and the kind of quality of life for people, so they will not feel they are better off living in the back of a truck than in some hostel operated by people subsidized by his government? Why are people living in the streets if his hostels are so wonderful?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would remind the honourable member that the function of my ministry with respect to shelter is for emergency shelter; it is not for full-time housing for people.

There is no doubt whatsoever that not only in this city but in practically every other city in this province there is a shortage of regular, full-time housing for single people. That is a fact. It is a fact my colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) partially addressed in his statement on Monday of this week. It is a fact we are going to have to deal with in this government, and we will deal with it.

In the meantime, the emergency shelter that is available in this city cannot adequately be described as flophouses. We work very closely with the municipality, the churches and the various charitable organizations, and among the three partners a decent, responsible job is being done.

Mr. Eves: It is our understanding there are people sleeping on the floors of these hospitals, these emergency housing situations the minister talks about. Can the minister confirm or deny that? What specific request has he made of the Minister of Housing with respect to improving the lot of these people?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In my previous answer I mentioned there were 19 empty beds available four blocks away from where that woman died. People were not not sleeping on the floor there. These were empty beds. There could have been an additional 40 empty beds across the city that night.

For the first time, the Minister of Housing is a member of the social policy committee of cabinet. The Minister of Housing of this government recognizes his responsibility for social housing, not economic housing.

Mr. Gillies: Are they sleeping on the floor or are they not?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the members please look at the time? We have completed only three questions.

Mr. Rae: The minister must realize there are people who prefer to stay in a car all day than to have only a bed on a floor, and many of them are on the floor at night. The minister knows that; that is a reality. He knows those people have no security of tenure. In many cases, they have no place to call their own with respect to where they put their clothes or even where they put their toothbrushes.

The minister is defending that kind of accommodation. That is satisfactory to him for thousands of people. He is shaking his head, but that is not what he was saying before.

Can the minister deny there is no security for those people? Can he deny they are wandering the streets during the day and are forced to live, many cheek by jowl, literally dozens of them in the same room? Is he denying that fact? Is he saying that is satisfactory?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: What does he intend to do to set some standards so that people would prefer to live there rather than sleep in a car when it is 25 below zero at night?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am most certainly not denying the fact that there are transient street people in this city. They are in every city of this province and in every city of this country. That is a fact of life. We are not denying that. We are not denying that there is a shortage of decent housing for single people in this city, in every city of this province and in every city of this country. That is a fact of life.

I have indicated to the member that my colleague the Minister of Housing has partially addressed that problem and will continue to address it. He, I and our joint staff have discussed the way in which social policy for housing must become one of the hallmarks of this government. In the interval, my ministry is and will continue to be responsible for the best possible emergency shelter for people living in the streets.

Mr. Timbrell: The minister knows very well the Minister of Housing's proposals cannot keep up with the demand.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is more than the member's government ever did. The members opposite ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Gillies: The minister's party is responsible now. He has been playing that game so long that it is his turn now to do something.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

10:50 a.m.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Can he give this House, and through it the public, an absolute assurance this morning that when this House has dealt with Bill 94 on second reading in January, the bill will be sent to a standing committee for full and open public hearings?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I indicated yesterday in question period that this bill would be going to committee. I give whatever undertaking I can to this House. Every member who knows a little bit about procedure here understands full well that it can be referred to the committee. I am certainly agreeable to that. A major piece of legislation such as this should have the full committee work done on it.

Mr. Timbrell: Can the minister assure me that he will not try with this bill, as he has with others, to restrict access to the committee and that --

Mr. Brandt: You did it, Bradley. You know you did.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You sat for six years on that and did nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Timbrell: -- he will ensure that every interested party that supports or opposes the principles --

Mr. Brandt: You did it. All of this talk about six years.

Mr. Timbrell: -- and the detail of the bill will have the right to appear before and be heard by a standing committee of this House?

Mr. Brandt: Do not give me any of your crap. You put the fix in.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You wanted to sidetrack this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) contain themselves.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It has been the tradition in this House for a number of years, probably since it started, that committees order their business; the honourable member knows that. The only time I have seen their being prevented from doing their work is during his party's interim. When his government had a majority, it told us when we had to report back bills. I will respect the arrangements that are arrived at by that committee sitting together and deciding how it will order its business. I am not directing or instructing.

I think the tradition in this House is well known. The committee will have ample time to review the legislation. I am sure that is what that honourable member wants to know. The tradition of this House will continue, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Timbrell: All we want is open hearings. Are you going to do the same thing on this as on the pharmacy bill?

Mr. Grossman: No walls or barriers or hearings?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the last warning you will get before a recess.

TRUST COMPANIES

Mr. Swart: I want to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the imminent merger of Canada Permanent and Canada Trust to be 99 per cent owned by Genstar of the United States. I wonder whether he is aware that this additional concentration will now mean that just three trust companies will control 54 per cent of trust company assets in Ontario compared to six companies sharing 64 per cent just two years ago?

I wonder whether he knows this is being done in spite of the fact that just one month ago the House of Commons finance committee recommended that the merger be blocked until the federal government had developed an ownership policy for financial institutions.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Swart: Simply, what representation has the minister made to the federal government to prevent this merger?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Both of those financial institutions are federally chartered. I understand the federal cabinet is dealing with that. I have been in contact with them and told them of my concern, but I do not have any jurisdiction. I really have to wait and see what they do. There is really nothing we can do in Ontario because of that fact.

Mr. Swart: The Dupré report, which the minister tabled less than a week ago in this House, contained the following recommendation, "A basic principle of public policy shall be the encouragement of the development of widely held rather than closely held financial institutions." Then it goes on to elaborate to some extent on that.

Given that the minister has authority in this province to license these institutions or to refrain from licensing them, why does he not use the clout he has under this licensing power to exert the pressure necessary to stop the formation of this antisocial merger?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As the honourable member will know, I introduced loan and trust legislation that has as one of its basic precepts that we will have an equals approach, so that anybody doing business in Ontario will have to follow the Ontario regulations. This does not give us the right to interfere in the ownership of companies that are outside our jurisdiction.

11 a.m.

ALKYL NITRATE

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Health concerning the sale of products containing a substance called alkyl nitrate which are available over the counter in this city. One such product is called Rush, which I will send over to the minister.

These products are sold and are readily available in this city under the guise of being room deodorizers. In fact, they are purchased by people for the purpose of inhaling them and getting high.

I remind the minister that for years the province prodded the federal government to regulate and control this dangerous product. On October 1, 1985, alkyl nitrate was finally classified as a prescription drug.

Why has the minister not issued the proper directives to his health inspectors, who are responsible for controlling the sale of prescription drugs, to get this very dangerous product off the shelves?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable member for the question. I will look into the matter, and if there has been a problem with taking the product off the market, I will check into how it can be done if that is required under our rules and regulations.

Mr. Gillies: I ask the minister to look at this very quickly.

Yesterday, when we spoke to the ministry's health inspectors, they said they knew this was sold in a lot of stores along Yonge Street. They knew it was a dangerous product and injurious to people's health, especially those with heart conditions. However, they would not look into the sale of the product or go to a place of business unless they had a specific complaint.

Several weeks ago, a grade 10 class from my riding was visiting the Legislature, and some students purchased this product less than two blocks from here.

Mr. Speaker: Is the member going to ask his question?

Mr. Gillies: My supplementary is, why is the minister allowing the flagrant, over-the-counter sale of this dangerous and illegal product when his inspectors know about it? Will he order an immediate crackdown to remove this product from the shelves?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I already have given my undertaking to look into the matter. I will report back to the member as well as to other honourable members in the House with respect to this. I will undertake to deliver to them a review of the regulation under which this question has been raised. I will indicate what response has been made to clear up any problems that may exist as a result.

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It regards the Young Offenders Act and the recent case, of which we are all aware, of an obviously disturbed, 14-year-old Scarborough boy who has been sentenced to three years because the Child and Family Services Act fails to give to judges the power to mandate treatment for disturbed and mentally ill children. What are the minister's plans to change that legislation or to make sure that power is given to judges so we do not have inappropriate sentencing taking place in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is my understanding that it is not the Child and Family Services Act which denies judges the right to order treatment; rather, it is the federal Young Offenders Act.

I remind the honourable member that when the all-party legislative committee drafted that legislation, and I remember the discussions, we deliberately had a very narrow definition of treatment so a great number of other services could be offered outside that specific, narrow definition of treatment.

I agree with the member; I would like to see the Young Offenders Act changed.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister knows that under the Ontario act, he has the power to give the judges that power; he has that capacity, as he does under the child protection sections of that legislation, which need to be changed as well. Will the minister act to change provincial legislation to make this possible?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Because of this case, we checked with legal counsel. We have been advised that we are not permitted to change provincial legislation such that it overrides federal legislation. The prohibition on a judge is clearly federal legislation, not provincial.

As far as the regulation and the guidelines are concerned, the one thing we have done is to point out to people that within the act there is a wide range of treatment procedures that can be carried out which are not specifically defined as treatment; for example, treatment given by a psychiatrist. We will broaden that non-narrowly-defined treatment area as much as we possibly can.

However, until the specific prohibition is removed from the federal legislation, I as the minister do not have the power to bring in an amendment at the provincial level which overrides that prohibition.

Mr. Eves: Can we have the undertaking of the minister that he will definitely approach his federal colleague and impress upon him the need to get on with this? What steps has he taken and what undertaking will he make to all members of this House that it will be done?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In consultation with my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), we have indicated to federal authorities that there are some sections of the federal act we would like to see changed. I suspect the honourable member realizes the Honourable Perrin Beatty has already indicated very publicly that he agrees with us that some sections need to be changed and that he plans to do so this coming spring.

LOW-ALCOHOL PRODUCTS

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to respond further to the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who asked questions of me in this House on December 17 relating to young children buying beverages containing alcohol of less than one per cent per volume. I responded that I would look into the matter and get back to the members to let them know what we are going to do about it.

Since then, we have obtained information from the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation on this issue, and we have been contacting experts to obtain more information on the possible effects of these products on young children.

My staff are contacting the manufacturers to obtain any information they may have on the issue, but it is interesting to note that the manufacturers of Sarasoda say they have had not complaints whatsoever about their product.

We are going to continue to obtain more information on the possible effects of these products, and we are issuing a consumer alert to warn parents of the possible effects on young children.

We are going to be taking steps to encourage retailers not to sell these products to young children, and we are contacting the manufacturers and distributors to discuss taking further measures, such as putting labels on their products indicating they should not be sold to young children.

I believe this is a reasonable approach at this time. I will continue to monitor the situation and inform the House of any new changes.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Davis: I have a question of the Minister of Education. I have read his response to my leader's question regarding this government's action in dealing with the problem of school boards across this province obtaining liability insurance. In fact, his response was a nonanswer.

Therefore, I would like to ask the minister again whether he will inform this House now what immediate steps he will be taking to ensure that school boards having difficulty will obtain liability insurance by January 1, to afford protection to children in their buildings and vehicles and to the drivers and teachers, as prescribed in section 149 of the Education Act. What action will he take?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I regret my friend the member for Scarborough Centre takes such an unhappy view of what I thought was helpful. I think it is time for Christmas carols, not a Conservative cacophony.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want calmly to assure my friend that, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) yesterday, this government will not see the schools of this province closed for want of liability insurance. We are aware of the concern.

My colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) has been in regular contact about the very excellent efforts his superintendent of insurance is and has been making with respect to bringing the school community to an understanding of what its options are.

I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that one of the options that has been seriously explored is the establishment of a reciprocal insurance exchange.

Mr. Davis: The minister knows that cannot be done by January 1.

11:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: We in the Ministry of Education are taking all the measures we think are necessary to ensure the matter is dealt with and resolved. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has indicated to me he is quite confident it can and will be resolved. In the next few days my officials, who have been meeting regularly with his officials and with representatives of the school board community, will be in a position to satisfy all the concerns of the honourable member and others who have these concerns.

Mr. Jackson: I thank the minister for his Christmas message of compassion and generosity. I sense we are getting closer to the answer to the question I posed yesterday.

While we can capture the minister in this Christmas spirit, will he and his government underwrite or guarantee the cost of any damages that might be incurred by a school board that is unable to get full or adequate coverage by January 1? That is 11 days away. Will the minister please give us a Christmas message of generosity and guarantee that no school board will suffer?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not want the member for Burlington South to be unduly exercised in this matter. We will take all measures to protect the school boards and their responsibilities. These costs are provided for in the general legislative grants.

I am quite confident the difficulty that has been brought to my attention by my friends in both opposition parties, which my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has indicated is a widespread difficulty at present, can and will be resolved in a way that will be satisfactory to all concerned.

Mr. Swart: It is rather intriguing to hear a member of the Conservative Party asking for public auto insurance.

I would like to convey to the minister the letters I received from a number of trucking and bus companies asking that public insurance be put in place here as it has been in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Will the minister recommend that to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations so we can get out of this mess once and for all?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Welland-Thorold can and should convey that correspondence to me. I am always pleased to hear the representations and to receive the correspondence that is usually forthcoming from that distinguished member of this assembly.

TRANSIT FARES

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The minister will recall from his days on Metro Toronto council the interesting debates about the Toronto Transit Commission fare increase, which regrettably has become an annual event. Does the minister believe that a fare increase of more than twice the rate of inflation is appropriate, or will he commit his government to increasing the provincial subsidy of the operating cost of the TTC?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Unfortunately, the member for Riverdale and I did not share Metro council together for a lengthy period, but I can assure him I did not find the debates on TTC fares quite as interesting as he has indicated.

The TTC is recognized across North America as probably the most efficient, best-operated major transit system. When we use statistics, it enhances the argument for the fare increase. The 12.5 per cent increase indicated works out at one nickel per ride. The fares are set by the TTC and approved by the Metropolitan Toronto council.

The TTC has never made representations to this minister in regard to added subsidies. While we subsidize the transit system to the extent of 62 per cent of the provincial transit budget, to enhance that would mean the other 71 transit systems throughout this province might be financially jeopardized in some way.

Mr. Reville: The provincial subsidy for the TTC is known across the country as being the stingiest subsidy offered to any transit system in the country. The minister's concern about this crummy nickel adds up to $120 a year for a family of four. Is it not time the Minister of Transportation and Communications threw away the old briefing notes he inherited from Mr. Snow and started to give serious consideration to helping transit users in this province?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I can assure the honourable member that when I and my colleagues on this side entered our offices they were absolutely barren, save and except for the threshing machines or whatever one calls those things.

As the responsible minister, I am very concerned about the impact any increase would have on the users. Should the TTC, with which I meet on a regular basis, wish to discuss the 68 per cent subsidy levels, I am more than willing to do that.

LOANS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have a response to an answer given to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

Mr. Speaker: That is not really a point of order. That could have been a statement. Is it correcting the record?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Yes, it is to correct the record.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to clarify an answer given last Wednesday to the member for Sarnia on special assistance loans to the city of St. Catharines.

There was no press release issued by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs on this loan. As the honourable member may recall, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs makes a number of special assistance payments to municipalities, not always accompanied by formal press releases. I would like the answer to show the correction.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, can I respond to that?

Mr. Speaker: Not really.

Mr. Brandt: Is it within the order for me to respond?

Mr. Speaker: The order says that a member may rise and correct his or her own record. No one else can respond to that, period.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition to present in the House, signed by 198 constituents of the riding of Burlington South. This petition was prepared by the Coalition for Public Education, the text of which has been read into Hansard by several members.

Mr. Eves: I have a similar petition, signed by 153 of my constituents:

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"Ontario is a multiracial, multicultural and multifaith society that is well served by a strong public school system. Your government's proposal to extend public funding to the Roman Catholic separate secondary schools is a backward step since it will grant special status to one specific denominational group.

"We urge you and your government not to proceed with this divisive proposal and to preserve public education."

I am also sending a copy of the petition, as requested, to the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

Ms. E. J. Smith: I wish to present a petition from about 150 people throughout Ontario, several of whom are in London South, also on the subject of opposition to the extension of funding to the separate school system. I present this to the House.

Mr. McCague: I have a similar petition from members of District 27, Simcoe Division, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

11:20 a.m.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Ministry administration program, $8,311,100; industrial relations program, $6,081,800; labour relations board program, $3,498,200; occupational health and safety program, $26,734,400; employment standards program, $5,240,500; human rights commission program, $3,675,500.

And further resolved that supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Workers' compensation advisory program, $1,613,000.

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that when the House adjourns today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, January 6, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

AMUSEMENT DEVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved, seconded by Mr. Offer, first reading of Bill 97, An Act respecting Amusement Devices.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to introduce for first reading today a bill intended to increase the safety of amusement rides and other attractions used by the Ontario public. The Amusement Devices Act will regulate the operation of amusement rides in Ontario.

At present, municipalities and local authorities have permissive authority under the Municipal Act to inspect and license such rides, but recent surveys have indicated that only a few larger urban centres have the financial resources and staff necessary to carry out this responsibility.

Available statistics indicate that the majority of serious amusement ride accidents result from operator error or rider misuse; however, there have been instances where accidents have been caused by mechanical failure which possibly could have been avoided through a program of regulation, licensing and inspection.

The Amusement Devices Act will require that rides and similar devices operating in Ontario be licensed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and an annual permit issued, provided certain prescribed standards are met. In addition, the act requires that the person carrying on the business of operating rides also be licensed and makes it an offence to operate an unsafe ride or operate in an unsafe manner.

This bill also provides for the appointment of inspectors and empowers them to close down rides that are considered unsafe. In addition to traditional amusement rides and go-kart tracks, this act will govern the safety requirements of other attractions such as waterslides.

The overall safety record of amusement rides operating in Ontario is good and, in general, operators are conscious of the safety of rides under their care. None the less, I feel that provincial regulation of amusement ride safety will help to reduce further the possibility of accident and injury.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS AND TREASURERS OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Newman moved, on behalf of Mr. Mancini, second reading of Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIP OF HORNEPAYNE ACT

Mr. Martel moved, on behalf of Mr. Wildman, second reading of Bill Pr29, An Act to continue the Corporation of the Township of Wicksteed under the name of the Corporation of the Township of Hornepayne.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIP OF OSGOODE CARE CENTRE ACT

Mr. J. M. Johnson moved, on behalf of Mr. Sterling, second reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Township of Osgoode Care Centre.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL RECREATION DIRECTORS FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Brandt moved second reading of Bill Pr40, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Municipal Recreation Directors Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

Mr. Newman moved, on behalf of Mr. D. R. Cooke, second reading of Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 42, An Act to repeal the Ontario Education Capital Aid Corporation Act and the Universities Capital Aid Corporation Act.

Bill 77, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Residential Tenancies.

Bill 88, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Bill 89, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Bill 90, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

11:30 a.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answers to questions 46 to 71, 98, 129, 133, 134 and 139 in Orders and Notices, the interim answers to questions 125 , 135 and 141, and the response to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper 268 standing on notice paper 40 [see appendix, page 2721].

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 81, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before we launch fully into the debate, we are all hoping to invite His Honour into the chamber to give royal assent to some of these bills. We are also hoping the House will adjourn at the normal hour. I thought perhaps I ought to mention that.

Mr. Gillies: I would indicate to the government House leader that this is also the hope and the intention of our party.

When we adjourned the debate last night, I was giving some of the background and history of this issue, speaking of some of the challenges and some of the problems that I think face the Workers' Compensation Board. These are issues that I hope the minister will take note of, such as the unfunded liability, the increase in assessment rate, and the staffing and management situation at the board, all of which bring us to the present situation of Bill 81, which is before us.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would people please stop their many private conversations in the House? Perhaps they could go into the lobbies: the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. Gillies: I hope the minister will take note of some of these issues and challenges and act on them to strengthen the ability of the Workers' Compensation Board to serve its clients now and also to ensure that it will be able to service its clients in the future.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry. I am advised that the government House leader has moved adjournment of this debate. I am sorry; the debate is completed.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. You have already pointed out that there are many conversations going on, and I am a part of one of them. I am sorry; I did not get the drift of what you said.

The Deputy Speaker: By moving the adjournment of the debate, the government House leader indicated that the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was completed.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Oh, I see what you mean.

Mr. Gillies: That was not supposed to happen.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the member for Brantford to continue and for the debate to continue?

Agreed to.

Mr. Gillies: Again I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief.

The point is that the history of workers' compensation from the Weiler report to the present indicates a pattern of reform. Professor Weiler recommended in his report that there should be some form of indexation.

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to be clear that you will allow other speakers after the member for Brantford in order to complete the debate, not just to complete the contribution of that member.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Gillies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am really trying to get on a roll here.

The process of reform of workers' compensation that started with Professor Weiler's report has continued unabated, perhaps not with the speed many of us would like. However, we have had the recommendation of Professor Weiler that some form of indexation of workers' compensation benefits be brought in. We have had the white paper report that the former government commissioned, again recommending that in reform of compensation benefits the benefits should allow for the annual review by cabinet and possible adjustments for inflation by cabinet on an annual basis.

We then had the 1983 recommendations to the standing committee on resources development, which pointed out some of the problems with the indexation process. However, at the same time we have to consider these things against the background of annual and reasonable increases being granted by act of this Legislature to the injured workers who need them so desperately.

After due consideration, I am very pleased to be able to inform the House our party will be supporting Bill 81 and we believe the time has now arrived for annual increases, however determined, to be granted the clients of the Workers' Compensation Board, not as a matter of annual legislative review but as a matter of right and as a result of automatic increases. I believe this decision finds a great deal of support among members of the Legislature and indeed has the support of our caucus.

I want to turn to the clause concerning the one-time increase being granted dependants of deceased injured workers. Our government intended to bring that in over a period of time through a four-stage increase, I believe. Frankly, if the minister wants to bring it in at one increase, I have no problem with that and we will be supporting that part of the bill also.

The other feature of the bill is the change of the superannuation arrangement for certain employees who will now be working somewhat at arm's length from the board and therefore need changes in their superannuation package.

I would caution the minister to look back at the debate surrounding this issue in the last number of years. Concerns have been expressed at various times about indexation per se and also about indexation based on a single index such as the consumer price index.

I do not have any hesitation that the route we are taking in Bill 81 will work, but the minister may review the arguments that were made at one time suggesting perhaps it should be a blend of CPI and the average industrial wage or that, by tying to one form of indexation, we can build a certain inflexibility into the system which, depending on the inflationary cycle, may or may not be desirable.

The bottom line is that the thousands of injured workers in the province -- for whom I believe probably at one time or another each and every member of the assembly has worked, represented and tried in his or her own way to make life better -- are now going to benefit from an annual increase at the rate of inflation, which will not necessarily have to come before this chamber.

As an individual member, I have represented and worked on behalf of hundreds of injured workers. I know members of all three parties, some of whom have been here many years longer than I, who have toiled endlessly in this regard.

I believe the time has now come when the available resources should be put before these people with annual increases and with further reforms, which we were looking at subsequent to Bill 101 and which we envisioned as phase 2 of the reform package.

We urge the minister to continue his efforts to make life better in every way we can for some of society's weaker citizens, some of the people who do not have the loudest voices; to reform the operations of the board to make judgements and justice under the WCB speedier and more accessible, and to continue a pattern of reform which started with Bill 101 and which, with the support of the incumbent government and every member of this House, can continue as we reform workers' compensation into the future.

11:40 a.m.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in this debate. I cannot resist commenting on the remarks made by the member for Brantford as spokesman for the Conservative Party and simply indicate to him that I am delighted the Friday version of the Conservative Party's policy on workers' compensation has changed from the Wednesday version, which we all read about in the daily press. It is a tribute to the flexibility of the modern Conservative Party that the Wednesday policy has no obvious impact on its Friday policy. We should all marvel at one of the modern wonders of the world as the member for Brantford makes his graceful exit from the chamber.

Mr. McClellan: Actually, he changed his position overnight.

Mr. Rae: As the member for Bellwoods has pointed out, he actually changed positions overnight, which we all know is a very dangerous practice and can cause real problems to the spine if it takes place too regularly and with too great a frequency.

I wanted to participate in this debate because of my own personal feelings about the questions of workers' compensation and reforms to the act. I think I have mentioned in this House on other occasions that 11 years ago, in 1974, I was carted from the front of the Legislature by one of the members of the local police constabulary because I was involved in organizing and participating in a march and demonstration of the Union of Injured Workers.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was in the winter, in November and December. 1974, that we began systematic demonstrations at Queen's Park and across the province to get reform of the legislation.

I do not want to describe every case I have ever argued before the board since that time, but I do want to tell the minister the decisions of the House today, which will now be made apparently unanimously, to provide for indexing and to increase the level of pension benefits to survivors of those who died on the job before April I of this year, are really just symbolic gestures.

Nothing has infuriated our caucus more than the annual ritual prior to Christmas and prior to the end of June when we go through this process of trying to put pressure on the government to bring in some changes and improvements. In some years we were successful and in some years we were not.

What particularly bothered me about the Christmas approach of the previous government was that there was actually a benevolent smile on the faces of many of those in cabinet and elsewhere as they handed out what they thought was an example of Christmas charity to those people who had been injured on the job. Injured workers do not want charity; they want justice.

That message has got to be delivered crystal clear, time and again. The idea that handing out some kind of emolument on an annual basis should make us all feel good is an insult to modern relations between people.

Because of the minister's own experience as a member and because he is now responsible for the board, I know he is aware that the agenda for reform on workers' compensation is very deep and very extensive. There is a major problem which no government in this province has yet had the ability to tackle.

This major problem is twofold. First, the level of compensation provided for people with permanent disability in no way at the present time compensates people for the level of economic and wage loss they suffer. All of us in this House have faced the tragedy and the absurdity of having somebody come to our office who is in his SOs and who has a back disability which is obviously and patently serious. It is obviously so serious that he is not able to work in a job he has been doing for 25 or 30 years. When one asks what he is getting for a pension, the answer invariably is $200 a month, $250 a month or $300 a month.

The previous government was not able to deal with the issue. The process of reform that began with Bill 101 was not able to deal with the issue. The government was not able to develop a consensus among all the groups affected by injuries on the job. We are more than willing -- indeed we are determined -- to work with all those groups, the government and the board, to see that we get a solution to this problem of the extent of disability that is not compensated and is not met by payments from the board.

The second problem I want to raise with the minister is the job problem, which we look forward to dealing with again in 1986. I know the rehabilitation services have been reformed. We have all been involved and have noticed the changes that have taken place, but it is not simply a question of what the board does; it is a question of what the world of employment does.

Together with my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), who has moved many bills and private members' resolutions on this subject for many years, we are going to fight to see that injured workers have access to employment and jobs, and that they have access to guaranteed ability to work and get back on the job. That means reforming the world of private employment as well as the world of employment in the Ontario public service. That has to happen.

We are not going to deal with these problems on the basis of welfare. There are many people who want to work, and who are able to work, but for whom there are no jobs because of the nature of the labour market and the very inadequate laws we have with respect to affirmative action for people with mental or physical handicaps.

I take pride that the government has finally come around to our point of view. I take pride, as I have had occasion to do many times this week, that finally the government is moving in areas in which we have been urging it to move for many years.

I cannot help but observe that this is not the first time this amendment has been voted for by the New Democratic Party. Indeed, we have moved this amendment. We moved it last June and July, and we moved it the Christmas before. We have moved it literally dozens of times since the early 1970s.

I am delighted the members of the other parties have finally seen the light, and that literally 10 or 15 years after the New Democratic Party began moving this amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act we finally have the change. We finally have the other parties coming on side, indicating that they, too, support the principle that inflation should not eat away at the pensions of injured workers.

I take great pride in that achievement. I want to end by paying tribute to my colleagues in the party who fought for so long. With those of my friends who are here today and know how important this move is symbolically for the injured workers movement in Ontario, I say that the minister knows this is just the beginning of a reform and of a fight we have yet to win, but are still determined to win.

Mr. Hennessy: I am pleased to have the chance to speak in this debate. People judge a community by how it treats its injured workers and residents. If this bill is passed, I think people will judge the members well.

I represent the people of Fort William riding and the city of Thunder Bay. All are working to build a better life for the northwest. From the response I have had in my riding, this bill is well received by the people of Ontario and Thunder Bay.

I support indexing workers' compensation benefits. We see indexing for wages; why not indexing for benefits? Indexing these benefits moves the entire area out of the political arena. Benefits will no longer be a political football to be kicked around in this Legislature every year. People now will know what to expect from the program. Injured workers, other workers and management all will know, or at least have a good idea, what workers' compensation will have to offer from year to year.

11:50 a.m.

Few members of this House do not have to deal with workers' compensation cases. The compensation process is complex. It is easily misunderstood by both workers and management. Any move that provides an extra degree of clarity on how compensation works should be supported. Improving indexing provides clarity; that is another reason I am going to cast my vote in favour of this legislation.

I think all members agree that workers should expect compensation for injuries covered while on the job site. I do not think any member disagrees with that idea. The Workers' Compensation Board has been part of our province's history since 1914, when it was set up by one of the greatest Conservative administrations this province has seen. To my mind, indexing falls in line with the original concept behind the founding of WBC and the setting up of the benefits program.

Injured workers and their families suffer enough when dealing with the reality of their injuries and the slow, painful task of recovery. They should not have to worry about the level of support they will be receiving from the province. Indexing removes that worry. The benefit is that they know it will be fair because it represents the performance of the economy that year.

Let me remind all members that each and every one of us was sent here to represent a riding. We were all sent here to do the best we could to represent the people who elected us. I know how important the bonds of parties are. I know that the whip, the House leader and my leader are all aware of my stand on this issue. The people in my Fort William riding and my conscience have told me to vote for this bill. I know all my colleagues will understand my position. I thank them for their understanding and respect.

In conclusion, I will vote in favour of this bill. I believe it will help reduce many of the problems that injured workers have had with the compensation system.

With regard to a regional office in Thunder Bay -- I understand there is going to be one in Hamilton, perhaps another in Ottawa and another in Windsor -- I ask the minister to give serious consideration to instituting a regional office in Thunder Bay, as we discussed the other day, if he would be so kind.

I wish to thank the minister for bringing in the bill. I think it is a good bill. I wish him and his family a merry Christmas.

Mr. Mackenzie: My remarks on this bill will once again be very brief. I want to indicate to the minister and to the House the pleasure I feel that we are dealing with this item, probably as the last item here today, and that it will be through and be in place for the injured workers of Ontario.

I want to indicate briefly that we still have some problems to deal with regarding the Workers' Compensation Act. We have to take a look at what is probably the major issue, which is the access of injured workers to employment or work and what I call the light-work syndrome, which is a bit of a farce as far as employment for injured workers goes. It just does not exist in most places of business.

However, I think we may be on the way. With the continued concern and support of the current minister, I hope we will see the additional changes that are needed to update worker's compensation in Ontario.

With regard to the bill itself: while I am pleased to see it, what we have really done here today is to answer a commitment I have heard members of all parties make to injured workers for far too long, a commitment based on just a little bit more fairness, a commitment that should have been fulfilled a long time ago. However, I am extremely glad to see it put in place here today and I do support Bill 81.

Mr. Shymko: I, too, join my colleagues in supporting this bill, which I intended to support from the very first day it was introduced. I want to reiterate the words of Professor Weiler, who said:

"It is long past time for Ontario to make an explicit judgement of policy about the problem of workers' compensation and inflation, and to develop legislative criteria and a procedure which will deal with the issue in a relatively principled and nonpartisan fashion."

This is what we are seeing today. I know the present Minister of Labour, when he was Labour critic, quoted these very words in committee in expressing his views, which at the time were to tie in the injured workers' benefits, not with the consumer price index but with the average industrial wage.

Something has happened since. I am sure he has had more consultation and decided to change this. I would like to know what transpired and why he has made this change, but I do want to say that since having been elected to the Legislature, I fought for every appeal and every WCB case that came before me, and I am proud to do this as are other members. The member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) certainly has done this over the years.

I am pleased with many of the changes, such as the worker adviser who will help us, but in case after case I saw the tragic state of many injured workers who could not keep up with inflation. No matter the great eloquence we may hear in these chambers on some of the objections or problems that people may have surrounding this, there is a saying which is perhaps not as eloquent, namely, "You can go a long way with your mouth, but you go all the way with your facts." The facts and the credibility based on facts have made this legislation possible.

I want to say, and these are the facts, that since 1975 to this day we have had an increase in inflation with which the injured workers did not keep up. For example, from 1975 to 1979, the inflation adjustment increases of benefits were 37 per cent, while the CPI increases were 45 per cent. The injured workers were behind by eight percentage points.

From 1980 to 1985, the benefits these injured workers receive increased by a total of 43 per cent, while inflation was at 48 per cent. Again, the injured workers were five percentage points behind. That is a total of 13 percentage points by which benefits have lagged behind the inflation rate over the last 10 years. These are the facts and they have made this legislation possible and have the support of all of us.

In conclusion, there are some serious problems that will have to be addressed. I know the present unfunded liability is at some $2.7 billion. I do know it is, and we all share that it is, becoming a great burden on many employers. We may want to try to address this very serious matter before it reaches crisis proportions and to look at some options of shared responsibilities between employer and government in order to alleviate this trend.

While addressing the issue in principle, Professor Weiler said, "There should be no question about the entitlement of workers' compensation claimants and pensioners to inflation adjustments as a matter of right." We recognize this as a matter of right today. We know it will be of great benefit and appreciated by many families of injured workers.

Although he claimed these adjustments should be made automatically for almost all new claimants, he did indicate one point which I hope the minister, if he listens for a minute, will address. I know he is deep in conversation with an honourable colleague, but I want the minister to listen to what Professor Weiler said. He said:

"However, this would not be true of existing pensions, those which were granted to workers some time earlier. These benefits must initially be calculated with reference to the wages then paid the injured worker. As these figures are eroded by inflation, a positive initiative is needed to revalue them."

We really have to revalue some of the benefits injured workers received when they were injured 20 or 25 years ago. There is a crying need for that. I hope the government and the present administration will also address the problem of a freezing of injured workers' incomes at levels without regard to the normal increases that have accrued to their peers over the years.

I again compliment the government. I believe it has the support of all the members of this Legislature. If there is any measure of a civilized and compassionate society, it is the way governments treat those who are at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale, those who are in dire straits and those who need a helping hand. This is what we have done today.

12 noon

Mr. Laughren: I too would like to speak very briefly on this bill. I am not sure I thought I would ever see the day when we would be indexing injured workers' benefits. I am certain of one thing, that we would never have seen the day if the government had not changed.

The Conservatives had an unbelievably paternalistic attitude towards injured workers. If workers wanted an increase, they could come before the Legislature with a tin cup and plead for it once a year. There is no question about that; history speaks for itself. I am very pleased we are able to be here today debating this very bill.

I do believe some credit should be given to the injured workers' groups, the Association of Injured Workers' Groups, the Union of Injured Workers and all the other organizations, the legal aid clinics, etc., that made a tremendous effort. They never gave up over the years in fighting for this to happen.

It is not the kind of thing that is going to bankrupt the private sector. The injured workers were getting an increase every year anyway. The only difference was they had to plead for it; so why not index it so they do not have to do that?

There has never been a question in my mind, if I could paraphrase what the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) said, that the way one judges the civility of a society is how it treats its people who are not so young and not so swift. Injured workers are a good example of that. We simply must provide for them the standard of living to which they are entitled.

I have always felt it was hypocritical of society to say to workers: "You are engaging in something we consider to be good, namely, the work ethic. But if as a result of engaging in that work you are injured, society is going to penalize you for having believed in the work ethic so strongly." That is why I am very pleased about this change.

I have seen nothing over the years that has changed my mind about the long-term answer to the problems of injured workers, which is to abolish the Workers' Compensation Board as we now know it and to put in its place a comprehensive social insurance system that pays people regardless of the source of their injury and regardless of fault. The employers would still pay their share. As a matter of fact, for the first time the employers would pay their share. I do not believe they do at present.

As a long-time member and present chairman of the standing committee on resources development, I have heard the argument about the unfunded liability; and while I do believe it is a problem, I think it will be addressed most appropriately when employers in Ontario collectively manage to reduce the accident rate to more civilized levels.

I am pleased to be able to engage briefly in this debate and to commend the minister for having brought this bill through his caucus.

Mr. Barlow: I too would like to join briefly in the debate, having been involved, as have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), from the time we were reviewing the Weiler report and the white paper. There was a lot of debate and consideration at that time on the route to take in relation to inflationary problems that arise and how best to address them.

During those debates and in our response there were two dissenting reports on this item. One dissenting report, from the Liberal Party, the official opposition of the day, was to tie indexing to the average industrial wage. The third party recommended tying inflation to the consumer price index. Perhaps the minister in his response can say why he made the choice he did.

Although it seems the bill will have the unanimous support of the House, there is one item I am glad the minister has addressed; that is, the differential in spouses' allowances, where they will get an extra 10 per cent, which they certainly deserve. As my colleague the member for Brantford pointed out, we were going to stage it over a period of time; however, it makes no difference whether it is done all in one move or staged.

I want to address briefly the major concern of the employers, who I believe are paying their fair share of workers' compensation, and more than their fair share in many cases. The unfunded liability is a very sincere concern of employers.

As the minister knows, all the employer groups that came before us, as well as some of the injured workers' groups or labour-related groups, expressed their concerns about the unfunded liability.

The minister is going to have to take a look at that. The ball is now in his court. It was in the hands of the previous government, which was looking at many options at that time. I am sure those options are still out there to be looked at.

I am sure also that the entire community-that is, those who are involved from both the workers' and employers' points of view-will support the idea that we want to look after injured workers on pensions, who require the assistance of indexing of their pensions.

The consumer price index is one alternative and perhaps one that will work. However, the workers must realize they will be getting this increase of 1.7 per cent or 1.9 per cent in January or as soon as the mechanics are worked out. They will not be getting what has been the traditional five per cent in July. That will not happen in July 1986; from then on, as the consumer price index fluctuates, so will the remuneration that the injured workers will receive.

I will conclude my remarks by commending the minister for this step. It will certainly get my support and that of my colleagues.

Mr. Lupusella: I am pleased to rise and join in the comments that have been expressed by other members on the floor of this Legislature in relation to the principle and contents of this bill.

I want to remind the minister of two items for which I think he has a responsibility and to make sure that all these benefits will be closely monitored by the minister. I hope I will not get phone calls in my constituency office from injured workers saying they got the increase late, or they were not aware of it or learned about the increase by talking to others. That procedure has been used in the past by the previous administration, and it is surely a very paternalistic way of dealing with injured workers.

I remind the minister that since three or four years before the time I was elected a member of the provincial Legislature to represent the riding of Dovercourt, this issue, in addition to the other issues that have been pursued by the organizations representing injured workers across Ontario, has been a basic item that has occupied the members of this provincial Legislature.

12:10 p.m.

In the estimates of his ministry, the Minister of Labour made one comment which impressed me very much. He stated: "Early on in the government's mandate, I publicly described my function as being minister for labour as well as of labour. This casual description evoked many telling remarks of rebuke and reproach from certain sources decrying an `ever-expanding, intrusive' ministry mandate."

If the minister keeps in mind the principle contained in this paragraph from page 3 of his opening remarks on the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, injured workers across Ontario should feel safe.

Another point that should be brought to the attention of this Legislature is that injured workers have been exploited through the years. We have been exploited ourselves, considering the work that has been done by so many members of this Legislature in appearing before appeals boards and trying to present the needs of injured workers which were not taken into consideration by the legislative principles contained in the Workers' Compensation Act.

While members of the public may think the increase for injured workers in this bill is generous, I have to show the opposite side of the coin. It is not generous at all if we consider the increases that were granted on the floor of this Legislature by the previous administration and other legislative penalties that have been imposed on members of the public at large in Ontario.

We have to draw the final conclusion that while injured workers eventually got a five per cent increase, perhaps the Minister of Revenue in the previous administration was stealing the injured workers' money from other sources, especially when property taxes went up.

If we consider other generous increases that took place on public sector rents, for example, or even for the managerial staff at Queen's Park, and compare those to the increases for injured workers, it is fair to say "Mea culpa" in trying to consider the seriousness of the social problems encountered by injured workers.

I may talk for too long, or I may talk for hours, but I want to remind the minister that I am not extremely happy. I can demonstrate why I am not too happy. Next year, I hope he will not come out with amendments affecting injured workers before Christmas. We must have a reasonable debate on changes affecting injured workers at large in Ontario. I do not think I should feel compelled by the fact that we have to rush legislation all at once.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member would like to reconsider the word "stealing," which he used about the previous Minister of Revenue. Perhaps he would like to withdraw that word and change it to another.

Mr. Lupusella: I will withdraw that statement. I will say instead that other agencies of the government, through legislative proposals, have taken away some money from people in Ontario. I am sorry if there was an innuendo involved in that statement, which was not clearly described in my mind.

If I may, I will continue with my remarks. The minister was so proud to introduce this legislation by stating that the Liberal Party had actually run on this issue. Members of this Legislature stated that part of the credit should go primarily to injured workers' organizations across the province that are fighting for injured workers. Of course, we give credit to the new government for introducing this bill, which is finally going to end one of the major demands that has been pursued by injured workers in front of Queen's Park.

I want to conclude my remarks with this statement. I hope that when the House reconvenes, the Minister of Labour will introduce some unsettled items affecting injured workers across Ontario. I hope he will give us a political forum in which we can make adjustments and modifications and in which the concerns of injured workers can easily be taken into consideration.

I remind the minister in a final comment that we have been faced with study after study and with different reports through the years. It is fair to say that all these needs will be addressed, but I hope the minister will share my sense of frustration along with the sense of frustration experienced by injured workers across Ontario for so many years.

Mr. Gordon: I consider it a privilege to be able to rise at this time to add my voice to those of the other members of the Legislature who have spoken so eloquently about the necessity of seeing that injured workers benefit from the indexation of the moneys they receive. Any of us who have worked with disabled or injured workers are very conscious of the trying economic circumstances they face and the hardships that are placed upon their families by disability pensions that are quite often very low.

When one considers the concept of the work ethic, which we talk about from time to time, the majority of the injured workers in the province today are certainly people who exhibited that work ethic. They are people who were not hesitant to go in, work as hard as they could for whatever company they were working for and try to do more for Ontario and for their families, but who had the misfortune to be injured on the job.

As a result of those injuries, many are denied the opportunity to have the same kinds of luxuries and opportunities as others have to travel and to give their families the kinds of things they like, because they just do not have the money. I do not think that by indexing this to the CPI we are being overly generous. As a matter of fact, we are going to have to look for new policies aimed at finding better ways to develop a better system to compensate injured workers in Ontario.

I would also appreciate it very much if the minister would look seriously at encouraging the Workers' Compensation Board to establish a rehabilitation centre in the Sudbury region for injured workers in northeastern Ontario. I say this because it is very difficult for northerners to travel constantly down to Toronto at a very difficult time -- when they are suffering from the aches and pains of their injuries. I ask him to remember too that not all those workers are males; many are women, who often have to leave their children in the north when they come down here for a period of rehabilitation.

12:20 p.m.

I ask the minister to take that under advisement, and I look forward to a positive reply at some time in the future.

Mr. Grande: I want to participate in the debate for a few minutes. When victories finally come, words are not necessary.

Over the years, members of this party in particular have had to speak at length, to yell and scream in concert with the injured workers who were demonstrating outside this Legislature. We joined the injured workers at Bloor Collegiate Institute almost on a yearly basis, if not more often, when they were trying their best to inform the former government of their needs and their concerns.

Today, therefore, is what one may define as a moral victory for injured workers in this province, for the Union of Injured Workers and for many others who have been battling alongside them for indexation. They will no longer need to come here on a yearly basis and demonstrate. They will no longer need to demonstrate in front of the Ministry of Labour headquarters. For that reason, this is a good reform.

It is a reform for which the injured workers and this party have been calling for a long time. To give an idea of the length of time, it was in 1968 or 1969 -- I do not remember the exact year -- I attended my first meeting with injured workers in this province at Bloor Collegiate Institute. At that time, the injured workers were making three demands, first for indexation of pensions, second for proper compensation and third for rehabilitation.

We still have to work hard to get proper compensation, rehabilitation and jobs. The reforms seem to be coming in dribs and drabs, but I am happy about this development. I am happy about this bill and I am happy for the injured workers. At last they do not need to come to this place, cap in hand or cup in hand, demanding increases every year. We can say, on this point at least, that justice has been done. All the injured workers ever wanted was justice.

I agree with the member for High Park-Swansea who said the increases in injured workers' pensions have been lagging behind inflation for 10 years. That is when I arrived in this Legislature and I fully concur with the member that the increases have been lagging for 10 years. I am happy to see that today he is supporting injured workers, so they no longer need to lag behind inflation in Ontario.

I do not want to say anything else. As I said, words are not necessary. People know who has been in power for the last 10 years, so I do not need to discuss that.

I do want to say to the minister, however, that jobs are important for injured workers. When injured workers are told to go out and find a light job, the WCB and the minister know the jobs are not available. Those jobs cannot be found. It is tremendously difficult for them to go around and find jobs.

Many show me their job searches, which speak volumes about the number of places they have gone to, the doors they have knocked on and the job refusals they have received. The rehabilitation department requires these job searches and so they continue. It is most degrading for any human being to subject himself or herself to that. It is not that they should not look for work, work is dignity; however, to be subjected to that undignified situation is not dignity for a person.

Therefore, sooner or later we have to come to this Legislature with a bill that will guarantee injured workers a certain percentage of jobs at a company, jobs that are light in nature and that an injured worker can perform. Those jobs have to be guaranteed to injured workers. That is another reform that is required in Ontario. I am certain we will move towards it.

As I said before, I want to pay tribute to the members of this political party, to other members of this Legislature who are supporting this bill today and to the injured workers movement which for many years spent a tremendous amount of energy in battling under tremendous pain for this reform. I hope everybody in this Legislature appreciates that people were coming before us in pain, asking for and demanding certain things. Basically, what they were doing was asking for nothing more than justice.

Mr. Foulds: I want to speak briefly on this bill. Of course, we support it. It is an important reform. My colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) said that words are not necessary; I say that words are not enough.

The principle of indexation of pensions is a minor but very important reform. Like many members of this Legislature, my very first constituency case after I was elected was a compensation case. More than 50 per cent of my constituency time deals with compensation cases. I suspect the last case I do before I die will be a compensation case.

One reason a member gets so many cases is that he often gets workers who come to see him who do not have enough money to live on to keep their homes together, to keep their homes, period.

As my colleague said, it is not merely the money, it is the dignity that is involved. It is the indignity of having to wait every year for a pension to be increased. This bill will remove at least that indignity and therefore the bill gives not only justice, but also a sense of dignity.

Compensation generally needs to be reformed in a major way. Instead of going down, the compensation load in Thunder Bay, including in my own riding, has increased. It got so bad that in the early part of November the legal aid clinic in Thunder Bay had to tell injured workers it could no longer take any further cases or appeals. After another week, my office had to say the same thing, that we simply could not take any more compensation cases before Christmas because we could not do them justice along with the ones we already had. That is a very serious thing that needs to be undertaken.

12:30 p.m.

I have written to the new director of the workers' advisory branch and he has told me they will be establishing an office in Thunder Bay with three workers there. However, that is not yet in place and it must be one of the next significant thrusts of a major upgrading of that branch in locations across the province.

In conclusion, I am delighted to be here today. I am delighted the voices representing the Tory party overcame their initial reluctance to support the bill and that they did not see this as an act of terrorism against the companies but as an act of justice for the workers.

Mr. McClellan: I want to take a few minutes to participate in the debate. For many of us, this is a red-letter day, to see an act in this Legislature that brings in an automatic cost-of-living increase after so many battles and struggles going back so many years. It is a very special moment for me and many of my colleagues.

I got interested in politics and ran and worked in the riding I represent prior to 1975 largely because of the workers' compensation issue. A number of us who are still in this House were involved in the early struggles of injured workers to organize against the injustices and racist discrimination of the WCB in the early 1970s, particularly against Italian construction workers. Fortunately, those days have gone for ever and are nothing except a bitter memory now.

The question of an automatic cost-of-living increase became a symbolic focus for all the injustices the compensation system inflicted on workers in this province. Efforts to organize and fight for the rights of injured workers focused on the issue of an automatic cost-of-living increase. There are still many issues that need to be resolved and many reforms that have yet to be introduced, but it is a major victory for injured workers to have a bill passed in this Legislature which establishes that injured workers have a legal right to an automatic cost-of-living increase and do not have to go cap in hand to the government of the day to beg for what is rightfully theirs.

There are a number of other concerns we will continue to address. We encourage the Minister of Labour to continue to fight within his ministry and the Workers' Compensation Board. We are pleased about the establishment of the workers' advisory system and are looking forward to working and co-operating with the workers' advisers to assist our constituents.

We feel that office will have to be expanded even before it has been fully established. I am sure the minister is aware there has been a tremendous flood of applications and requests for assistance directed to the workers' advisers. It is a measure of the trust the new workers' advisory system has been accorded by the community; a recognition it is independent, impartial, fair and separate from the WCB. For the first time there is a government agency that is seen as impartial, offering real, effective advocacy service. It is a measure of that acceptance that it is flooded with requests for assistance.

I know the minister is monitoring that very carefully. He will make sure the new workers' advisers have the resources they need with respect to advocates on staff to do the job, and that branch offices in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, and eastern and western Ontario will be set up and staffed as quickly as humanly possible so that injured workers in all parts of this province will have an opportunity to receive effective advocacy service from the government.

Again, we rejoice at this legislation. A number of initiatives have come through this week, starting with rent control, to a new housing supply program, an end to extra billing and acid rain; but the one that touches my heart most is this one.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank my colleagues for their very positive remarks in the debate. I want to touch on a couple of matters.

First, let me touch on one matter I did not mention in my earlier discussion on second reading but that I think honourable members will want to know about as they go back to their ridings for Christmas. I am informed by the Workers' Compensation Board, as I look forward to passage of this bill in the next few minutes, that the adjustments we will be voting today are the first steps to formalize the indexation. Those adjustments will be in effect for the beginning of January. This is an added small Christmas present and we will have it under way right away.

The member for Brantford in his remarks this morning, when he got around to indicating his position on this matter, commented about the indexation factors and whether we ought to blend them. My friends the member for High-Park-Swansea and the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) also spoke of the earlier comments and the earlier position that I and our party had taken with respect to the use of the average industrial wage.

Quite candidly, last summer we indicated to the House that we would be consulting with both business and labour. We did so and it was the view of both communities that if the government chose to move forward with a formula of indexation, the consumer price index should be used.

In addition, in reviewing very carefully the decision to use the CPI or the AIW, the AIW provided some degree of lag that was not present with the consumer price index. As a result, the government decided that the CPI, which over the decade -- not every year, but over the decade -- has yielded about the same change as the AIW, was the method of indexation to use. With respect to the comments of the member for Brantford as to whether we might have used a blend of indexation factors, I do not think they would have yielded a substantial difference and they might have been confusing to all.

The member for Cambridge and a number of other members, from the official opposition in particular, spoke of the issue of the unfunded liability. We as members of the Legislature have to be sensitive to that issue. I believe the board is moving to address that very important question in a very meaningful way.

The presence of Doug Peters on the new corporate board of the WCB indicates the commitment of this government towards putting on the corporate board the kind of expertise to deal with that very important financial matter.

I am delighted there is the spirit of unanimity as we move towards Christmas. I am not sure there was total unanimity in this Legislature on Tuesday. I want to be gentle because we are in a season of goodwill, but I listened to my friend the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) and his remarks seemed to anticipate a difference and divergence of opinion with what might have been an earlier point of view of the caucus of the official opposition. However, I am delighted that he and my friends the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and the member for High Park-Swansea and others who have spoken so eloquently today were able to bring their somewhat reluctant colleagues around to this position.

12:40 p.m.

Let me wind up my remarks by indicating that in the remarks of my friend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), he touched on an important word, "dignity." This is an important symbolic change. This legislation speaks to the overall issue that the government believes in, that we should be moving to bring dignity to injured workers.

As the government moves forward in the next months and years to address the other very difficult issues -- issues of rehiring of injured workers, of rehabilitation of injured workers, of how we deal with the permanent disability rating -- the government is committed to moving forward in a new spirit, a spirit which all but guarantees that in our changes we will attempt to bring real dignity as well as real justice to injured workers in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor is waiting to give royal assent.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 17, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 42, An Act to repeal the Ontario Education Capital Aid Corporation Act and the Universities Capital Aid Corporation Act;

Bill 77, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Residential Tenancies;

Bill 80, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983;

Bill 81, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act;

Bill 88, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act;

Bill 89, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act;

Bill 90, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act;

Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario;

Bill Pr29, An Act to continue the Corporation of the Township of Wicksteed under the name of the Corporation of the Township of Hornepayne;

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Township of Osgoode Care Centre;

Bill Pr40, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Municipal Recreation Directors Foundation; and

Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Mr. Warner: On a point of order and on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The point of order arises out of standing order 2(a) and my point of privilege is under standing order 18(a).

The government House leader announced earlier that this assembly would reassemble on Monday, January 6. I submit that this is an inappropriate date to choose, as it is Christmas Day for those of the eastern Christian Orthodox faith. I would ask that the House leader withdraw the order he placed and place a new order that we sit instead beginning on Tuesday, January 7, out of respect for the Christmas Day that is enjoyed by so many thousands of our citizens who are of the eastern Christian Orthodox faith.

Mr. Speaker: This could be a point of order. However, I must inform the members that a motion had been put to this House, the members at that time had an opportunity to speak to that motion and the motion was carried. The matter has been dealt with and, therefore, I feel I should say the point of order is out of order.

Mr. Shymko: Since I had raised this question to the House leader originally --

Mr. Speaker: On another point of order?

Mr. Shymko: On a different point of order. I want to thank the House leader for raising this with the Premier (Mr. Peterson), but I am somewhat disillusioned that the government, which is sensitive to minority issues, would reject the suggestion.

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

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 48, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act;

Bill 49, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act;

Bill 50, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act;

Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Just before we put the motion of adjournment, on behalf of my colleagues in the government, I want to extend to you, Mr. Speaker, to the staff of the Legislative Assembly and to all honourable members our best wishes for a merry Christmas and a very happy and productive new year.

Mr. Speaker: I also wish everyone a healthy, happy and safe holiday.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

20 décembre 1985