Journal des débats 1988-oct-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Mackenzie: This morning at 10 a.m., I was privileged to continue the chain of fasters who have taken over from Cesar Chavez, United Farm Workers of America, since he ended his 36-day fast to highlight the plight of grape workers and their families in the vineyards of California and to warn the public about the dangers of buying and eating California grapes.

Many public figures have worn this medal since Jesse Jackson first took it from Cesar Chavez following his fast to continue the protest. I myself took over from John Martin, president of Local 1005, the big Stelco local in Hamilton, this morning. The two days of total fasting is a very small contribution to help alert Canadians to the dangers of California grapes. Released this morning was a small study done by the grape workers on Hamilton supermarkets, which showed that 14 out of the 16 stores carrying California grapes showed pesticide residues of nerve gases, organophosphates and carbamates.

It is a sad commentary that it is the workers themselves who have suffered in the California vineyards who have to continue this campaign, who have to do the testing and the alerting of the public that should be being done by the growers, the chain stores and the government itself. I am proud to be part of this campaign and I urge all citizens of Ontario not to buy California grapes.

NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

Mr. Sterling: The last week of October has been designated National Small Business Week, recognizing the contributions made to our economy by the men and women who own and operate Canada’s small businesses. National Small Business Week finds its origins in an international small business congress held seven years ago in Canada. At that time, the Federal Business Development Bank and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce organized special events to coincide with the congress.

National Small Business Week has now become a tradition in Canada. This week gives us an opportunity to thank the true risk-takers in our economy, those who start with little more than an idea and a belief in themselves, with no corporate backing and no financial security. The hours are long and the outcome uncertain when starting a business, but the personal satisfaction can be very rewarding.

Every year, hundreds of Ontarians go into business for themselves -- an encouraging sign of vitality and confidence. Ontario has over 300,000 small businesses which account for almost half of our workforce. Recent studies have shown that 87 per cent of all jobs created in this province come from businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Another interesting trend is that half of all the new small businesses since 1982 have been started by women.

This week, we join with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and numerous other organizations in honouring Canada’s small businesses, the backbone of our economy.

RECYCLING

Mr. Daigeler: At a time when some municipalities are just beginning to use the blue box, I am proud to inform this House that the Barrhaven community in my riding has just begun a trial plastics recycling program. For the next three months, some 6,000 households will be asked to put their plastic waste products in the blue recycling containers alongside their paper, bottles and tins.

This trial program will help identify the amount of plastics the average household throws away. It will also establish the best way for getting the waste from individual homes to recycling plants. Three kinds of trucks will be used. One will grind the plastics to small pieces right on the spot. Another truck will flatten the plastics, and the compressed plastic will then be granulated at a recycling plant. The third truck will simply collect the plastics and bring them to the plant for processing.

Barrhaven, the Nepean subdivision in which I live, was chosen as the test community for this project because its residents have a 90 per cent participation rate in the blue box recycling program currently in place.

I congratulate Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. for this initiative and the residents of Barrhaven for their participation. I am sure the experiment will succeed and I encourage other municipalities to follow Nepean’s lead on plastics recycling.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Wildman: Yesterday in the House, during question period, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) reacted in a rather strange way to a question I raised related to a published report of a written statement made by his colleague the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) on Labour Day weekend in which that member indicated that the Ministry of Natural Resources would initiate a province-wide consultation on provincial parks policy within 30 days.

I simply asked the Minister of Natural Resources when this review was going to commence. The minister tried to argue that his colleague was saying there would be a review or consultation about the parks that have not yet been regulated when, in fact, that was not the case. As a matter of fact, the minister’s own director of parks refuted the comments made in writing by the member for Timiskaming and also signed, I believe, by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine), that there would be province-wide consultation.

It appears that the northern members of the caucus opposite are attempting to undermine the Minister of Natural Resources and his staff’s provincial parks policy and the Minister of Natural Resources cannot deal with the issue and so, therefore, accuses other members of untruths.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs. Marland: I rise today to remind the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) that the taxpayers of Halton-Mississauga have been without adequate ambulance service now for 10 weeks. On September 2, I called on the provincial government to move immediately to mediate an end to the strike involving the ambulance service employees. Today, almost two months later, we see no end in sight.

While the Minister of Health is obviously not concerned about the health and safety of these residents, I am. The minister has told the media that she is monitoring the situation. Obviously, the minister has had her monitors turned off for the past 10 weeks.

Daily, I am hearing from ambulance service users who have had their loved ones’ lives put at risk because of the waiting times experienced in emergency situations. With between three and five ambulances to service over 600,000 people, it takes little imagination to understand how this shortfall transpires into longer waiting times when the need for immediate response is critical.

1340

Today I am releasing a fact sheet showing some examples of unacceptable service that the ministry believes to be acceptable. Included in this list is a four-year-old Burlington boy who swallowed rubbing alcohol and had to be transferred, with his mother, to hospital in a fire truck. Firemen waited 15 minutes for an ambulance before being forced to take action themselves. How many more will suffer before this minister resolves this crisis?

JON JENKINS

Mr. Furlong: This evening, over 1,000 citizens of Durham region will be gathering at the Oshawa Civic Auditorium to pay tribute to Chief Jon Jenkins. Jon Jenkins joined the Oshawa police force on May 16, 1954. He moved quickly through the ranks to become chief of the Oshawa force in 1969. In 1974, with the implementation of regional government, he became the region’s first chief of police.

Jon Jenkins has announced his retirement, effective November 30, 1988, after almost 35 years of dedicated service to his community, He leaves behind a very reputable force with high standards. I have known Jon Jenkins for over 16 years and it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge his outstanding public service. He has exhibited an outstanding devotion to duty during a period of tremendous change which has placed an ever-increasing demand on the policing profession.

Jon Jenkins has demonstrated outstanding leadership and commitment throughout his career. In addition to his police duties, he has volunteered time and support for numerous community projects. I think it is a tribute to this man that I have never heard a negative comment about him. He has excelled in staff relations and in community liaison.

He has promoted law enforcement not only in Durham region but across Canada. He is a past president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The citizens of Durham region are indebted to Jon Jenkins. We thank him for his service. May he enjoy his retirement years in good health and much happiness.

Mr. Breaugh: We have just a few seconds left on the clock, but I want to join with the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong) in congratulating Jon Jenkins on his retirement. It will be a great evening at the Civic Auditorium, paying tribute to somebody who has served his community extremely well. This time next year, when members go to the Ontario racetracks, they can be sure that everything will be secure and kosher, because Jon Jenkins is going to look after security at the racetracks. Congratulations to him.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Last May, the government introduced proposals to co-ordinate transportation development in the greater Toronto area. One of the transit initiatives we felt would address current and future challenges was a closer link between GO Transit and the Toronto Transit Commission. Today I would like to update members on what we have done and are doing to improve service between those two systems.

Members will be aware that a monthly Twin Pass pilot project between GO and TTC began last February with the full co-operation of Metro Toronto, the TTC and GO Transit. Combining GO and TTC fares, Twin Passes were available only at GO sales locations in Union Station and were of benefit only to riders whose GO rail trips started or ended at Union Station. Projections indicated possible sales of 3,000 Twin Passes per month. I am pleased to say that in the month of October sales were in excess of 4,000. Since the pilot project began, other sale locations have been set up to meet the positive response by commuters.

To extend service further, I am pleased to announce that the November Twin Pass is now on sale at all other 14 GO rail stations within Metropolitan Toronto. With this expansion of sales to all Metro GO rail stations, transit riders will have more flexibility, since passes will now permit transfers between the two services at all Metro GO rail stations.

Among the continuing advantages will be the option of a single purchase each month, as well as the $20 saving, for the Twin Pass, as compared to buying separate passes for both services. The November Twin Pass will also have a new look, since the separate GO and TTC passes have been amalgamated into one, one-half TTC Metropass and the other GO Transit pass. TTC riders will still require photo identification.

To improve ease of access between the two systems, improvements to entrances and, in some cases, additions of walkways are in the planning and design stages at six Metro GO rail stations: Weston, Scarborough, Danforth, Agincourt, Old Cummer and Oriole.

Another service to speed processing of passengers on the GO rail system is being introduced -- next week -- in November. The proof-of-payment honour system, first introduced as a pilot project on the Milton line, requires passengers to show a valid ticket or pass only when asked to do so during spot checks. The expansion of this system will mean added efficiency on the GO Transit network and greater convenience to passengers.

We have made a commitment to provide residents of the greater Toronto area with improved transit service. I believe these projects signify important steps towards meeting this commitment.

RESPONSES

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Ms. Bryden: Responding to the statement by the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) about the updating of the GO Transit and Toronto Transit Commission fare arrangements and service integration, naturally we are in favour of improving GO service, particularly for the many thousands of people who have been forced to buy houses at great distances from the city of Toronto, where they work. Therefore, to provide them with better commuter service is a very necessary thing.

I hope the minister will also join with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) in discouraging the building of luxury, huge-lot housing at great distances just because GO Transit is available, when he needs his money for also updating TTC services and subway systems like the Sheppard Avenue subway.

I think this is something that has been announced before, but now we are getting it in one statement. I think people will be looking for more initiatives from the Minister of Transportation on how to get more people out of their cars and into public transit of all kinds, not just GO Transit.

Mrs. Grier: As someone who has two GO stations in her riding, I too welcome the statement by the minister today. The integration of the TTC and GO Transit is, of course, something to be desired.

However, there is a real flaw in this integration. I would like to point out to the minister that the station at Long Branch, which is very close to my heart, is one that serves many people from Mississauga who drive to the GO station within Metropolitan Toronto. They cannot integrate their Mississauga Transit tickets with the 60 station tickets in Long Branch and have no parking provided by GO Transit at Long Branch, something we have been asking the minister for during the last two, three, four years. We are told there are no plans to expand that parking. I hope the minister will look into that, as well as the other improvements he is making to the system.

Mr. Breaugh: Just to show the minister that I am here to help, I know of a way to sell even more of these Twin Passes. I hope that by December the minister will have the GO rail operative to Whitby. When he gets it operative to Oshawa, then he will be able to sell a whole lot more of these Twin Passes all over this whole region, and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will be so happy because there will be just gobs of money coming in from people who really need GO trains in Oshawa.

Mrs. Marland: I know of even more ways to spend -- to sell more of these passes.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: You just cannot keep a good idea down.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Marland: I would like the Minister of Transportation to benefit from this very sincere advice from someone who does have the GO Transit service going through her riding; that is, the whole system would be far more intensely used if, in fact, it had two features. One would be more frequency of trains and the other would be more locations for people to board those trains.

The solution is simply that the minister could sell more of these passes if the line were electrified. It is my understanding that unless the lines are electrified, you cannot add more stations because you need a certain distance between the stations to pick up speed. That is the answer I have been receiving for some time from the chairman of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, whom we all know very well.

1350

If it is simply a matter of electrifying those lines, which we lease from Canadian National in terms of the Lakeshore line, then I think it is something this government should consider, if it were a forward-planning government looking at the traffic congestion that exists today for commuters who would like to buy these passes if they were a realistic alternative for transportation for people who work downtown -- in fact, at the moment, it is not realistic for a lot of people because of the lack of accessibility to stations.

If we could have the minister consider that, certainly we would look forward to his next announcement, which would be a capital plan to build more stations, to have more Kiss ‘N Ride locations, to use the technical term, and to be able to do that through the electrification. Therefore, the minister’s next announcement will tell us about the tremendous increase in sales, which will mean we are looking to the real needs of transportation for the people in the southern corridor.

When we are looking at a city of 750,000 in Mississauga alone, this government today obviously has to do more than just talk. We would like to see some major plans under way to improve transportation for the public, and the trains are certainly a good beginning if they are a real alternative. At the moment they are not, but we will look forward to the government making some hard decisions about where money has to be spent for the commuters who would like to use GO Transit and indeed buy the minister’s passes.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request unanimous consent of the House to make some comments about the disaster of Hurricane Joan in Nicaragua.

Agreed to.

HURRICANE JOAN

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There are a number of members of this House present who have a fairly intimate understanding of the problems of Nicaragua, having travelled there just a year and a bit ago together to learn at first hand, and it is for that reason I would like to make some remarks about what has happened to Nicaragua as a result of this hurricane disaster.

Much press has been given to the horrendous problems that befell Jamaica and the Yucatan from the previous hurricane, but in fact very little has been said about the enormous devastation which has hit Nicaragua. In the city of Bluefields, 90 per cent of the housing has been destroyed; the Corn Islands, just off Bluefields, have had 100 per cent of their housing destroyed; 71 are dead, much in excess of the number killed in the Jamaican disaster, to which we have responded so generously; 300,00 people have been displaced. In the Rama River, 70 per cent of the housing has gone.

Finally this year they had hoped that their coffee crop, their major export crop, was going to be a boom for them after several years of bad harvests. I was informed by the ambassador this morning that the entire coffee harvest has been destroyed, that the winds were so severe that all the beans were taken from the bushes. The rice harvest has likewise been destroyed, so their staple food product has been wiped out at a time when it was already in very, very short supply.

There has been aid promised from western Europe, substantial amounts from West Germany and other countries. Our country has decided to send $250,000. I repeat, $250,000.

I think this is an incredible shame. The national government has also indicated that it would provide matching funds to the NGOS, the nongovernmental organizations, which are already providing various kinds of war relief in that country at this time. Final approval by the Red Cross has not been made official as yet because the estimates of the amount of damage are still just coming in.

I would hope that the government today would respond to this plea to say that we should be responding in kind to the people of Nicaragua in the terrible troubles they are facing now, just as we did with Jamaica, and that we should be just as generous. It may be that our Jamaican community in this province is much larger but there are increasing numbers of Nicaraguan refugees coming to this country, though we should not be making our bequests on that kind of basis anyway.

I would hope that this government will respond to what Ambassador Lacayo told me this morning was their major need. They have need for medical supplies today and tomorrow for the wounded in the Caribbean coast communities. They do not expect that any of the relief coming from western Europe will get there before the weekend. It would strike me that it would be very possible, if our government were to work closely with the federal government and its agencies, that some medical relief and basics, blankets for instance, could be shipped down as soon as possible to help with what is a tremendous ordeal for a country which has already suffered so much.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I wish to join the member for Scarborough West in drawing the attention of the House to this particularly tragic event. I might say, on a somewhat lighter subject and in the middle of a heavy debate, that since the hurricane bears my name I feel I almost should draft special apologies on behalf of Mother Nature for the tragedy that has befallen them by my namesake.

However, speaking in a much more serious vein, I had the honour of visiting Nicaragua with other members of this Legislature and seeing, in a very personal way, the tremendous efforts being made there by a people coming out from under dictatorship. In fact, it was another national disaster that probably gave them the will to get rid of their past dictator and move towards democracy. I say in all sincerity that there is a great effort there that is very important to everybody in North America as well as Central America that this government manages to stay on the side of democracy and to become a demonstration of the fact that in the midst of that kind of poverty and upheaval, democracy can work.

Another national disaster is a very difficult thing for them to face unassisted at this time and it is a time when we need to buckle in behind them and say that we do care, we will help and we will help in the immediacy of the problem.

I would want to point out to the members that while we were visiting in Nicaragua, we saw many efforts by provincial and federal groups to assist Nicaragua in its recovery from its past disaster and its uprising to establish representative government, in its early stages at least, and that indeed church groups, charitable organizations, universities and many groups have put an investment into Nicaragua. There are dairy farms there. There is -- not hydro, that is an American term -- an electric factory -- what is the word I want? With Canada’s help, they are creating electricity there out of the steam from volcanoes. The people of Canada, through many groups, have been part of some very creative things.

We have an investment in Nicaragua that we should and need to follow up with in the immediacy of its present crisis. I hope we can find ways to do so and will support anything we can do.

Mrs. Marland: I rise on behalf of our caucus to express our grave concern and deep sympathy to the people of Nicaragua. Obviously, this kind of disaster is something that no country is in a position to bear. In particular, this country is without many of the resources that other areas of the world might have naturally.

We feel that the kind of assistance that is needed has to be assistance to the maximum potential of the countries that have the ability to help. We obviously feel that the assistance is required for all the right reasons and should be given wholeheartedly in a nonpolitical manner.

1400

I can only imagine, as I am sure most members of this House can, how terrifying and devastating that experience must be. We watched the television news and saw the typhoon in Manila. Recently, we saw the storm in Jamaica. Now, as we think today of the 300,000 people who are homeless in Nicaragua, I am sure each one of us only has to think that for those people who live in that particular part of the world it must seem like a real nightmare. How fortunate we are that we do not risk that kind of experience. However, because we are as well, as healthy and as prosperous as we are, when there is this kind of devastation in another part of the world, surely we have a very real and moral obligation to help.

I cannot help but refer to the fact that right now in the Arctic we have a wonderful example of the two superpowers or supernations of the world coming together with a common cause. Surely, if that amount of money can be expended to save two whales, we can look for far in excess of that kind of investment to be done for human families in Nicaragua.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. B. Rae: In the absence of the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), I would like to put a question to the Premier. The Premier will no doubt recall various announcements by this government with respect to the use of government land for housing. I wonder if the Premier could explain why it is that when it came to the Malvern lots, which no doubt the Premier will recall were a very substantial sale, 52 per cent of the lots were sold to Cedarland Properties and Panda Blue Construction, which companies are owned, as I am sure the Premier will be aware, by Mr. De Gasperis, Rudolph Bratty and Marco Muzzo.

These lots were sold at record-high prices, ranging from $104,750 to $147,888. I wonder why it is the policy of the government of Ontario to be selling off government land to private real estate developers, the most powerful developers now in this entire region, instead of guaranteeing the use of that land for nonprofit, affordable housing.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I recall the facts in that particular situation, the property was sold at the top of the market. I cannot tell the member how much money was returned to the Treasury, but all that money was dedicated to go into housing, As I understand the ministry’s policy, it is the following: to maximize the use of land and money. If land can be sold in certain situations to gain money to put into housing in other areas where it is more efficient and where there is more, shall we say, bang for the buck or more housing for the dollars expended, obviously those business decisions have to be made. As I understand it, that was the thinking in that particular case.

Mr. B. Rae: It is land that is the most expensive and difficult commodity to find. Once it has been sold, it is gone. In fact, it is gone for ever and, in more cases than not, it has gone for what can only be described as Liberal speculation.

I would like to ask the Premier another question about Liberal speculation. In 1984, a Richmond Hill cement company named Richvale Block and Ready-Mix made an agreement to buy a farm near Highway 404 and 16th Avenue for $4,853,000. The land was rezoned and then resold to Magna International, a company which is not unknown to the Premier and whose chief executive officer is now a Liberal Party candidate, for $13.2 million. Magna then resold the land, in August 1987, for $24.9 million to a company known as 16-3 Developments, which has yet to build on the site.

Does the Premier think this kind of speculative activity is appropriate in our current economic climate with respect to the cost of land in this province? What does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no question there has been a high degree of speculation going on in a wide variety of areas. The member points out one example, and I assume in this matter his facts are correct. We have a very hot economy, as my honourable friend knows. He has raised a question in this House before about a speculation tax, and I think the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has answered him fully on that question in the past. It is a function of the very high growth that is being enjoyed and, as the member knows, it is a mixed blessing in an area like greater Toronto.

Mr. B. Rae: By way of final supplementary, given the amount of Liberal speculation that is going on, why does the Premier continue to reject the idea and the policy of a tax on speculative profits, which might hurt some of his Liberal friends but which would do a lot in order to keep the price of land down right through southern Ontario? Why does he not do that to keep the price of land down?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is indulging in a tactic that he generally does not indulge in. I am not sure what brought about this new change in him today, but I say to him, if he has a charge to make, let him be a man and stand up and make it in this House.

Mr. Speaker: New question, to which minister?

Mr. B. Rae: The charge is quite clear: There is speculative greed going on and the Premier is not doing anything about it.

CHILD CARE

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services a question. A young woman named Cheryl Brooks, who is 23 years old and who is in the members’ gallery today, phoned my constituency office just the other day. She has tried to go back to school. She was admitted to York Humber High School. She was told by a group called the employment support initiatives -- which ironically, the minister mentioned in his answer to me the other day -- that it would be prepared to help her with her baby-sitting costs. She has now been told that in fact she cannot get help for baby-sitting costs because the budget of ESI has been fully spent or committed. In fact, the child care crisis is affecting the system all the way through the piece.

Do we really have to continue to bring cases forward again and again before he understands that there is a child care crisis in this province and that something needs to be done about it?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will perhaps recall that I shared with him a few days ago that in Metro there are 700 child care spaces allocated specifically to ESI for the very reasons that he indicated. He will also recall that I drew to his attention that we have strongly recommended to Metro that it use a priority waiting list for the distribution of its subsidized spaces.

He may be aware of the fact that in Metro -- and to the best of my knowledge this does not take place anywhere else in Ontario; at least we have not been able to discover it -- there are approximately 900 families with incomes of $40,000 who have subsidies. I do not think that is a very good use of scarce spaces, and they really do need to be reallocated on a priority basis.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister’s political party, the Liberal Party, ran in the last election saying that it wanted to create child care as a public service and it did not want to turn it into a welfare service. Now we have the Minister of Community and Social Services saying this system should revert to a welfare service in order to meet his program.

I ask him this simple question: Does he not recognize the level of human need that is there, that is causing young women to drop out of school when everything he is saying in all his public pronouncements is that he wants to encourage people to stay in school?

Judge Thomson said it should be a guaranteed policy in terms of what happens to women who want to return to the workplace. Why is he forcing women back on welfare, forced to pay for baby-sitting out of their own welfare cheques, instead of being in school on a subsidized basis?

1410

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would strongly suggest to the honourable member that he is making my very argument: that the 18,000 subsidized spaces in Metro -- which represent, by the way, approximately 60 per cent of the total 32,000 spaces in Metro -- should be allocated on a best-needs basis. That is precisely what we are recommending: that the families that have the greater need should get those spaces first. That is not what is being done in Metro.

I would remind the honourable member that even his national leader, Mr. Broadbent, in Monday night’s debate, said essentially the same thing. He said that an NDP government in Canada would continue to insist that those who can afford to do so would pay for day care while subsidized spaces would be allocated to those people who cannot afford to do it. That is precisely what he said.

Mr. B. Rae: What the minister is describing is a welfare philosophy instead of a public service philosophy. We have empty spaces in child care. We have 1,800 empty spaces. If the minister’s policy were to take effect, he would be throwing people out of spaces who are now there in order to replace them with people who are now on the list. That is not a sensible policy. That is not a sound policy. That is not a fair policy, and, I might add, it is not New Democratic Party policy. That is Liberal Party policy, which is a policy that the people of this province want to change with respect to child care.

Is the minister honestly telling the House today that there are no prospects for change in the Liberal Party’s program of child care which is forcing Cheryl Brooks to stay at home and to stay on welfare? Is he saying that she has to stay on welfare? Is that the implication of the statement he is making today? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I understand that the honourable member was part of the group in Mr. Broadbent’s entourage known as the spin doctors. I have to presume that he supports the position of his national leader, and the position of his national leader, expressed on the television debate on Monday night, clearly said that some people were going to pay while the dollars available in an NDP government -- God forbid that that should ever happen.

Given the fact that there are 900 families with incomes of $40,000 who are getting it and the honourable member suggests we should not make any change, I can only presume that he believes those 900 families should get it before somebody else, like the very person he describes, who have incomes of less than $20,000. If that is what he means, then he had better say it.

Mr. B. Rae: Are you suggesting that they should leave; are you saying that those families should leave? Make up your mind.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Give him another supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Nipissing.

Hon Mr. Bradley: You saved him, Mike.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member is waiting patiently.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Dr. Spin.

Mr. B. Rae: Are you going down there to kick those families out?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Do you know what a priority list means?

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am sure not going to go to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), I will tell you.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Premier. I would like to get a little more specific on the York region situation. In this morning’s Globe and Mail, there appeared an article that states that three York businessmen with ties to provincial and local officials have monopolized housing in that area to such an extent that their activities have inflated the price of a house in Metro Toronto.

Let me read from the article. An associate of these men is quoted as saying, “I think they are the reason people can’t afford to buy homes.” Another associate is quoted as saying, “You can’t develop land anywhere around Toronto without their okay.”

There are numerous serious charges levied in this article. Given the extent of the housing crisis we are facing and the millions of dollars we as a government are spending to try to find housing for people, will the Premier immediately order a public inquiry into the situation in York region to determine what activities have taken place and the legality of those activities?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Obviously, this government will not support any whiff of illegality or any suggestion that something is happening that is untoward or that anyone is abusing the public trust. I say to my honourable friend that if he has some evidence of that in any way, we will immediately ask the Ontario Provincial Police to look into the situation, and should the situation warrant it, obviously we will take the appropriate measures. I say to my honourable friend that if he has any of that information, then clearly we, as public officials, have a responsibility to get into that matter immediately.

Mr. Harris: We have been waiting three years for the OPP investigation of Wyda Systems (Canada).

Let us be clear about the seriousness of the situation. The Globe and Mail is stating that these three men have influenced the decision-making of elected officials to the point where they virtually control development in York region.

The article states, “The Globe found that the three men control an elaborate and effective municipal election financing machine.” It goes on to say:

“Three politicians said they were also offered or given large sums of money through the three developers’ companies for their campaigns immediately after being elected in the 1985 election.

“In fact, developers, builders and contractors contributed as much as 100 per cent of the money that was raised by some candidates.”

I think every member of this House should be concerned about these statements for they reflect not only on our present housing crisis, but also on the very integrity of our system.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Harris: Will the Premier take the very necessary step of ordering a public inquiry to get this matter cleared up?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the honourable member’s question and in some senses I have sympathy with it. I also remind the honourable member that we have brought in legislation in this House with respect to municipal reform, and indeed reform of this Legislature, that hopefully would deal with some of these matters.

We can all stand here and read an article out of a newspaper with no specific allegations, but if there are any allegations of wrongdoing, then I think we have a responsibility to look into that in great detail. My honourable friend understands the difference between innuendo and fact, I am sure. Let me assure him that this government has nothing to defend in that regard, nothing at all. If he has any suggestion that there is an impropriety, that there are things we should be looking at, if there is any criminal activity, then obviously if my friend wants to make that suggestion or give us facts to substantiate that or even a prima facie case, then I can assure him we will take the appropriate action.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to hear the Premier say that. The Premier then will certainly have no reason to fear a public inquiry, nor does my party, nor I am sure does the New Democratic Party.

I think it is perhaps the height of irony if not cynicism that this government, which has been urging regions to build lower-cost housing, appears to be in the financial back pocket of the very developers who are driving up the cost of housing in and around Metro Toronto. These three men, through their companies, in one year donated over $110,000 to the Ontario Liberal Party, over 70 per cent of all donations from York region. We already know the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) received more than half her donations from the building industry.

Given the amount of money referred to in the Globe and Mail article, I think we need a public inquiry to determine just what role developers are playing in making decisions, not just at Queen’s Park but at local municipalities and councils as well.

I will ask the Premier one more time, will he not accept and understand that with the perception, if he wants to call it that -- the facts as the Globe and Mail reported them -- he must order a public inquiry so that everyone who cannot afford to buy a house will know whose fault it is?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand opposition politics. I understand reading the newspaper and trying to spin that into a question. He wants to make allegations about particular people’s reputations. That is fair enough. He has a forum here and he cannot be sued in this House for anything he wants to say about anybody. I understand that.

I assure my honourable friend that we have absolutely nothing to defend here. These are people who assembled the land in his administration, not in ours. These are fund-raisers for the Conservative Party -- Mr. Bratty -- not for the Liberal Party. These are his friends, not ours. I say to him that we have tried to bring a new standard to this government, be it in conflict-of-interest legislation for us and for the municipalities or limits on donations.

1420

I think my honourable friend wants to think out very carefully whom he is accusing of what, because if he has any facts of anything, I can assure him we will do everything we possibly can to root out corruption, influence peddling or any other suggestions he has in this House. But I say to him again, when one is dealing with people’s reputations, Liberal, Conservative or NDP, one wants to exercise some degree of responsibility in that regard.

His response is to have an inquiry every time somebody’s name is mentioned in the paper in this province. We support no suggestion of any impropriety that is going on. Believe me, we have absolutely nothing to defend, but I think my friend would want to build a little stronger case before he starts impugning people’s names.

RENTERPRISE LOAN

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier and it concerns exactly his new standards. It is with respect to a decision made by the former Minister of Housing, the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling), and implemented by the current Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), concerning just who exactly profits from his nonprofit and public housing programs in this province.

Specifically, I am referring the Premier to a controversial construction project in the city of Timmins that has been before the city of Timmins council in the last week. Can the Premier justify the awarding of a Renterprise approval in Timmins to his campaign worker, Joe Fontana, and his associate, Vince Ciccone, both of London, and allowing them within one minute on September 3 to flip land for a profit of $66,820?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no knowledge of the matter the honourable member is speaking of. If he wants to give me the details, I will obviously look into it.

Mr. Pope: Not only was the land acquired in one minute and disposed of the next for a profit of $66,820, but can the Premier explain to us how someone like Joe Fontana, who professes to be one of his campaign workers, with no development experience, no construction experience and no site available, would ever be approved for a Renterprise loan in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have absolutely no knowledge of the matter my honourable friend is talking about. I can assure him we will look at it. Somebody just handed me a note, and if I can understand it, I will read it to him.

Mr. Pope: The fact of the matter is that over the past few months this project has been beset by deficiencies in construction, stop-work orders, construction liens, poor quality workmanship, still not completed, occupied by tenants on a rent subsidy basis that his Minister of Housing is involved in. His Minister of Housing approved financial support to the tune of $310,000. Now they are attempting to convert the project into condominiums to get out from under.

Can the Premier explain to the tenants of Timmins, who need this housing desperately, why he has allowed deterioration in the administration of the Renterprise program in this province, and specifically the disgraceful events that went on in Timmins with respect to this land and his campaign worker?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, I will look at the facts and share them with my honourable friend. He may well know something I do not know.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. B. Rae: I want to come back to the Premier on this question of what the Legislature can do and what is an appropriate government response to the problems of concentration of land ownership, speculation in land, land flipping and the relationship between these activities and various municipal and regional governments.

Is the Premier saying that before he would order a public inquiry, he must have proof of criminal or quasi-criminal activity? Is that the test he is asking those of us who are asking for such an inquiry to meet?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is some veiled suggestion of some impropriety in this House, both by the Leader of the Opposition and the member opposite, on the basis of some newspaper article this morning.

I am interested in the member’s views. A public inquiry into what: a public inquiry into the price of land, a public inquiry into certain people’s behaviour, a certain region or members of this House? What is the member talking about?

Mr. B. Rae: Let’s be quite specific what we are talking about. We are talking about speculation. The Premier says -- well, he has to say that accusations have been made. Nobody is making allegations. People are simply describing an activity which is taking place because of a particular economic climate. They are also describing concentrations of ownership. None of these things is against the law. Maybe the law should be changed; that is another issue.

The Premier is asking me, what would the nature of the inquiry be? I would say to the Premier, why not have an inquiry into the concentration of land ownership, the price of land and the relationship between the development industry and regional and local governments?

Does the Premier not think that is a question worth asking and worth determining as to whether our laws are strong enough in terms of conflict, in terms of election expenditure, in terms of zoning decisions, in terms of activities of local governments involved and in terms of the activities and the extent of concentration of ownership within the industry? Does the Premier not think that is a subject worth inquiry? The case is clearly there that it is causing a problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure my honourable friend has thought this through very carefully. He is suggesting that we have an inquiry into the nature of speculation in land, perhaps even in securities and other goods as well, suggesting on the basis of some article that there is something strange happening, a relationship between certain developers and certain local politicians, certain names, that presumably have to come down to facts in some case or other.

I do not think it is all that hard to figure out that we are in one of the fastest growth areas in the world today in the Golden Horseshoe and that is putting enormous pressure on the system. We have people moving in all the time and the demand is exceeding the supply, particularly in the housing area. That is why we are working so very hard to bring about corrective action.

Surely my honourable friend understands the economics of that situation. If there is a suggestion that some people are deliberately doing these kinds of things and doing something illegal, then obviously we have to look at it, but I say I do not think a public inquiry or royal commission on this for the next three years is going to solve anything.

DAVID ATKINSON

Mr. Sterling: I have a question again for the Attorney General. The Attorney General yesterday indicated to me that he was not personally involved in the decision to give David Atkinson, a gangland enforcer, immunity and a new identity under the witness protection program. I am very concerned about the procedure which is now in place if what is reported is true. I would therefore like the Attorney General to clarify, for the public’s sake, what in fact transpired before giving Mr. Atkinson the benefit of the witness protection program.

Specifically, is it true that there was only consideration of his formal criminal record and one generic question as to whether or not he had been involved in other illegal acts -- a question which I believe was probably put more to determine the credibility of the witness with regard to the preliminary inquiry, rather than a concern for the protection of the public if he was given immunity?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I said yesterday to the honourable member, the decision to use the witness as a crown witness in the criminal proceedings against the Atkinson gang was a decision that was made by the crown attorney in the county of York in indicating to the court the witnesses he proposed to call. The decision to grant the witness -- who it was feared would be injured, if not killed -- admission to the program was made by the director of the program in the Ministry of the Attorney General.

At the time that application was made, the witness’s criminal record was known and it was known that he had been asked by the police if he had committed any other crimes apart from the crimes about which he made disclosure in order to provide evidence against the Atkinson gang. He apparently indicated that there were no such other crimes, and in that sense, the crimes that were described at the preliminary inquiry under cross-examination came to the attention of the police and the crown for the first time then.

1430

Mr. Sterling: Given that immunity was given to this individual not in fact on the basis of a full disclosure of the criminal activity that had been undertaken by this particular individual, does the Attorney General not think a reconsideration of the case must be taken due to the fact that the public safety is much more paramount than a deal that was given under false assumptions or false information?

Hon. Mr. Scott: First of all, I have some difficulty with the use of the word “immunity” in this case. This man came forward and said he had evidence to give that would implicate some four or five persons out of a gang of nine in a series of very large robberies. The police, as the honourable member knows, had spent eight years trying to get evidence against this gang, which is regarded as the most sophisticated, violent robbery gang in Canadian history.

This witness and one other came forward and said they would give evidence. They said if they told their story to the police, it might be that they, as well as the others, would be charged, because they had participated, I think, as a getaway driver in one of these cases. The police indicated that if they gave evidence and it was true, they would not be charged.

That happens, I must tell the honourable member, every day in our court system and it happens for the reason I gave the other day: it is virtually impossible to find evidence of many crimes, particularly gangland crimes and white collar crimes, if we do not have the evidence of people on the inside who can provide the essential identification. That is what my friend calls “immunity,” and that is a fancy word, of course, for a practice in law enforcement and in the justice system that is used in every civilized country.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: This man will never be a judge.

Mr. Speaker: It seems like quite a full answer. New question, the member for Oakville South.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Carrothers: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister is no doubt aware of a proposal by the St. Lawrence Cement Co. to bum refuse-derived fuel in its cement kiln in south Mississauga. This proposal has raised quite a concern with many of my constituents that it will cause a health hazard. Can the minister assure my constituents that this proposal will receive a full environmental assessment?

Mr. B. Rae: He wouldn’t do it for anybody else. Why would he do it for you?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Yes, I will attempt to answer the question for the member, despite the interjections from members of the official opposition.

As the member may know, it is a proposal for, I think it is called refuse-derived fuels, which the company is interested in burning in lieu of coal to produce energy in its operations.

Previous to this government’s being in power, this operation would not have come under the Environmental Assessment Act. It had one proposal for a test burn, by the way, which it withdrew, but since this proposal would involve over 100,000 tonnes per day of garbage- or refuse-derived fuel it would certainly come under the Environmental Assessment Act. It would go through a number of different stages, and one of those stages would involve rather extensive public comment on both the review that is done by the Ministry of the Environment and the reviews that are done by all government departments and by other agencies.

I want to assure the member that the proposal, if it were to proceed at all, would certainly have to go through the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Carrothers: Many of my constituents are concerned that the air emission quality standards are not strict enough and that emissions of such things as dioxins or lead may be too high. Can the minister assure my constituents that the air quality standards will be high enough if this proposal goes ahead?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may be aware that I announced in the House some time ago that there would be an upgrading and updating of the air pollution regulation. In our ministry, we call it regulation 308. It is considerably out of date, in my view. Even though from time to time, in special circumstances and in individual circumstances, we have applied new and different restrictions, the overall regulation requires updating. That is why I have put out for comment by environmental groups, public interest groups and others a proposal for drastically upgrading and updating this particular set of emission standards.

I can assure the member that the philosophy that will be followed in this will not be that dispersion will be the answer, but rather that bottom-of-the-stack emissions standards will be what is significant.

The member will perhaps know, from an approval given by the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Municipal Board just a couple of days ago, that some 40 conditions, for instance, were placed on a similar approval given for an energy-from-waste site in Brampton. Of course, this is perhaps a different kind of proposal. The board, the Ministry of the Environment and others who review them look at each one of these as to its potential individual impact.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning Bill 162 and the vocational rehabilitation provisions in the bill. The minister will know that the key recommendation in the Majesky-Minna task force on vocational rehabilitation was that every injured worker in the province who suffered a serious injury have a statutory right to rehabilitation services. He will also know that the task force defined “serious injury” as any injury that continued 30 days after the date of accident. Given that very strong and precise recommendation, why does the bill not guarantee statutory rights to rehabilitation for injured workers?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the item the member for Sudbury East raised will probably be one of the things that will be raised as the debate on second reading of Bill 162 takes place, and indeed as the bill goes before the committee. I want to try to answer her in fairly specific terms, though, now that she has raised the matter in the context of a question.

I believe the provisions in Bill 162 dealing with vocational rehabilitation get very close to the major theme in the Majesky-Minna report, which was early intervention so that vocational rehabilitation can be there for the workers who need it. I tell my friend the member for Sudbury East simply this: the fact is there are many serious injuries that have a worker away from the workplace for more than 30 days but do not give rise to the need for vocational rehabilitation.

I will give her, Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind, a simple example of a worker who breaks a leg. Sometimes the break in that leg may take several months to heal, but that particular worker is going to be returning to the worksite and to the employer he was working with before the accident. You would not want to have vocational rehabilitation services there. We have tried, in shaping the bill, to ensure that we direct enhanced resources --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Miss Martel: Not only are vocational rehabilitation services not guaranteed to injured workers who suffer a serious injury, but for the first time ever, the bill puts time limits on the length of time rehabilitation services can be offered. For example, for the first time ever, an injured worker who is seeking employment can have assistance from the board for a period of only up to six months and the board may, at its own discretion, provide another six months of assistance.

Another example is that benefits or rehabilitation services can be offered to workers on benefits only under section 40. Section 40 benefits will last for only 18 months. The consequence, of course, of that is that rehabilitation services will be guaranteed for only up to 18 months. How can the minister claim his bill provides for better rehabilitation services when for the first time ever, we have time limits and for the first time ever as well, rehabilitation services are not guaranteed to workers who have a serious injury?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Sudbury East, if I recall what she said, said rehabilitation services are guaranteed for only 18 months and rehabilitation services are not guaranteed in the bill. If she looks at the bill, the fact is that it provides that the board must and is under a statutory obligation to contact every single worker who is away from work for 45 days and advise him of the availability of vocational rehabilitation services.

Miss Martel: They don’t have to offer it. It’s at their discretion.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If the member for Sudbury East will stop screaming and shouting for a second, I will explain the other provision in the bill. For any worker who is off work for six months, away from work as a result of an accident for six months, the board is required, under the statute, to provide a thorough vocational rehabilitation assessment in conjunction with the employer and the worker’s doctor to determine how rehabilitation services can help that worker get back to work.

I think that early intervention is going to change the direction of the workers’ compensation system in this province. I look forward to the debate that is going to go on here and in committee, and to the passage of the bill and getting on with the business of helping injured workers.

1440

FINANCIAL TRUST

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. In December 1987, the Ministry of Financial Institutions recommended that $30 million be injected into Financial Trust before it could be given a clean bill of health. That occurred. Now, less than a year later, in order for Financial Trust to be sold, $84 million, including a $10-million loan guarantee from this government, is needed to rescue the sale. Will the minister tell us what happened in the last 10 months to require the $84 million in aid?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The event that occurred was that there was a transaction between Central Capital and Financial in the Financial Trustco group of companies. That was the event that arose. From my point of view, the $10-million guarantee was put in place to ensure the sale would go through.

Mr. Runciman: Since when does the government play a role in ensuring that sales like this go through? The minister clearly does not want to deal with this issue. This is the second day he has tried to blur the matter. He simply does not have a handle on it. Either that or he is covering up.

Financial Trust is a subsidiary of the Financial Trustco Capital empire, the owner of which is Gerry Pencer. Mr. Pencer has a chequered past in the financial industry, including his association with an individual described recently in the Financial Post as “organized crime’s money-mover in Montreal in the 1970s.” You would think these past activities of Mr. Pencer would cause the loan and trust corporations branch to monitor the gentleman’s companies more closely. Clearly, despite last year’s assessment by the ministry, this did not happen.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Runciman: Will the minister commit himself to having a review of the assessment of 10 months ago and table the results in this House?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There is no coverup. That gentleman opposite is absolutely outrageous in the way he tries to characterize this. He asked me the other day if there was a failure in regulation. In fact, there was no failure in regulation. That was a very direct response to his question. The insinuation he is making is really way off the mark. My friend is so out of it that he is sort of out there fishing away.

Let me tell him that these people who were around when Mr. Pencer came into the trust business in 1981 did not seem to think it important at that time that they do anything in particular about it. What we did was go through and, in a very reasonable fashion, look at the manner in which this trust company’s assets were in place. What we heard from the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. was that Financial Trustco was solvent and was a good company at the time the transaction was started in September 1988. That came from CDIC which is, of course, as the member knows, a federal organization.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that our regulatory system did do what it was supposed to do and kept tabs on this company along with all the other companies we are charged to monitor. That is what happened. His allegation that there is a coverup is absolutely one of the most outlandish types of charges he has made, and he is a master of that incredible task.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Education regarding his recent heritage languages announcement, for which I congratulate him, and indeed, his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips).

It has been brought to my attention that some Scarborough school trustees have been expressing their concern over the cost of funding heritage languages programs to their boards and to their local ratepayers. This has caused some confusion among my constituents in Scarborough-Ellesmere, who have been calling me on the subject. In order to alleviate their concern, can the minister advise this House how the heritage languages program is actually funded?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to reiterate to the member that indeed I believe our heritage languages announcement further underlines our fundamental commitment to multiculturalism in this province. I was delighted to make an announcement, on behalf of the government, that further extended a program that has been in place now for many years in this province.

Even prior to last Saturday’s announcement, my ministry was contributing something like 70 per cent towards the cost of the delivery of heritage languages programs in Metro, but as I have indicated previously, the program we put in place goes even further. For the first time, it provides funds and resources to school boards throughout this province so that they can develop made-in-Ontario learning materials that will assist boards in developing programs and provide funds for in-service training for teachers. In terms of the direct costs of the delivery of these programs, on the basis of the model we have put forward, it is designed to cover 100 per cent of the instructional cost of the delivery of those programs.

Mr. Faubert: Since the announcement has been made, I have heard statements that this heritage languages announcement was not pleasing to heritage languages advocacy groups, yet I have seen nothing but endorsements in the newspapers and from community leaders like Luke Tao in Scarborough. He is chairman of the Scarborough Coalition for Heritage Languages. Indeed, I sat with him as co-chairman of the race and community relations committee in Scarborough. He stated he was delighted that the official request has now been granted. Perhaps the minister could advise the House of the responses he has received to his initiative.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I guess I can only characterize the response of various organizations and associations around this province as one of overwhelming support. To date, we have received communications from many groups, including B’nai Brith, the Federation of Chinese Canadians of Scarborough, the Italian-Canadian Centre for Culture and Education, the Pan-Arcadian Federation of Canada, the Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples; the list goes on and on.

I think it is fair to say that our program recognizes that we intend to deliver these kinds of programs in partnership with these many organizations that have a tremendous interest in these particular matters. Indeed, it has been well received.

ADVOCACY

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Attorney General. For a long time, mentally incapable people in institutions and in the community have been vulnerable to infringement of their rights. They require a fair, impartial and inexpensive process for determining their capacity. That process must respect their rights and provide clear authority to health professionals and others to provide necessary services. The ministry has been studying this problem now, I think, for about four years. When do we see the results?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Very shortly.

Mr. Reville: The answer was, “Very shortly.” The next question is related to the fact that the delay means that other things are delayed. Last year, we received the O’Sullivan report, called You’ve Got a Friend. Also last year, we received the Manson report, called Advocacy in Psychiatric Hospitals. Both make significant recommendations. Both of those sets of recommendations are waiting on the report the minister has carriage of, that is, the Fram report.

I wonder if the Attorney General would indicate a little more specifically when we can expect the Fram report to be tabled, when we can expect the legislation that would flow from the Fram report to be tabled and when the resources and mechanisms will be in place to implement all these very important recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member is quite right. The Fram report is the third of a series of three reports, all of which relate to the same complex of difficult problems. As I indicated to the honourable member, the third part of the exercise, the Fram report, which is in a sense the most complex and detailed, will be available very shortly. I cannot predict when the legislation will follow and I would not want to, because I look forward to having the submissions that my friend and his colleagues will want to make on all three reports before the government decides how to respond to this very important issue.

1450

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr. McLean: Thank you. My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Section 179(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada indicates that it is unlawful to bet on a single sport event or athletic contest. Yet the Grey Cup Millions lottery Grey Cup point spread is based on this very thing, on the outcome of the November 27 Grey Cup game. Is the minister not aware of this illegality and, if he is, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I thank the member for his question, but I can assure him that any time before the Ontario Lottery Corp. introduces any new game, it obtains legal opinion as to whether that game conforms with the law. I can tell him that a legal opinion was rendered by the Toronto law firm of Cassels, Brock and Blackwell, which acts for the Ontario Lottery Corp., and that was that that game was not illegal.

Mr. McLean: The minister is well aware that Walter Strothers, chairman of the corporation, let half the tickets out and kept the other half. He did not put out all the 400,000 that were supposed to be for sale. Recently Ontario Lottery Corp. lost some $8 million in revenues when it was forced to withdraw more than 12 million Money Match and Double Dollar tickets. Will the minister tell the House how much Ontario Lottery Corp. expects to lose in revenues this time around?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I can tell the member that the security of the tickets is continually under review. If we find that that security has been broken, then those tickets will be withdrawn. I can also tell him that the instant tickets are tickets that provide a great amount of revenue to the Ontario Lottery Corp. We will continue to sell those tickets, but if we find that the security has been broken, we will remove the tickets from the market.

MENTAL COMPETENCE

Mr. Callahan: My question is for the Minister of Health. I have had considerable discussions with psychiatrists and with groups such as the Friends of Schizophrenics in my riding. They have indicated to me that there is concern about the definition of competence within the Mental Health Act, particularly with reference to schizophrenics.

With paranoid schizophrenics, the very nature of their illness makes them paranoid about anything that is given to them. As a result of that, they fail to take their medicine. If they are competent, they can therefore refuse their medicine and can become in fact violent, do injury to others and to themselves. What is the Ministry of Health doing about this very serious glitch in the Mental Health Act?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to thank the member both for his question and for his concern. I am aware of the issue that he has brought to my attention. I think many members in the House have also received representation. This issue raises what I think most of us consider to be a very sensitive and delicate balance between the right of the patient to make his own decisions about his treatment and the desire of society to help by treating that person who may be deemed incapable of making his own decision.

Central to this issue is the whole notion of mental competency and a decision of mental competency. At the present time that decision is determined by a psychiatrist in a psychiatric institution and his decision is appealable to a review board. Those whose competency has been determined, in other words if they have been determined competent, may refuse treatment. This is where this issue then arises.

Because of the concern of so many people on this very issue and because it is one of really balancing competing interests, I asked Dr. David Weisstub to address this issue from the viewpoint of attempting to recommend standards for determining competency before we move forward on what I believe is a very difficult and compelling issue within our society.

Mr. Callahan: The issue is of such significant concern. I have seen families who are terribly troubled by the fact that a loved one who can be made well or at least kept on a regular basis by medication will not take it, and they have absolutely no way of looking after that loved one. I have personal information of a constituent of mine who attempted to kill himself on two occasions. Fortunately, he was unsuccessful.

He is presently confined in a prison setting for having effected an assault on a rather notable person around Christmastime. I am told by the prison authorities that because of his illness, he continues to refuse treatment. Because of this concern, I had spoken with legislative counsel with a view to introducing a private member’s bill into the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Callahan: I would like to find out when this report the minister has spoken of will be available, perhaps with reference to reading that report to consider whether a private bill is required or whether a government bill will be introduced in this regard.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I agree with the member that this is an extremely important issue and my heart goes out to those families and patients who are struggling with both sides of this very important question.

I asked Dr. Weisstub to report back as soon as he was ready. In fact, I am hoping to have his recommendations by next summer at the latest, so that we will have an opportunity. He has told me as well that this is an issue that is felt about very strongly and that evokes very strong emotions as well as intellectual arguments on both sides of the issue.

I recommend to the member, and to others in this House if they have an opinion, to make sure Dr. Weisstub is aware of that opinion. As well, I recommend that the member not proceed with legislation until he sees the issue as defined by Dr. Weisstub and we have an opportunity to have that debate and discussion in this House or in forums following Dr. Weisstub’s report.

CONTRACTING OF MINISTRY SERVICES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the minister explain why he and his ministry are ducking the issue of contracting out and privatization that he says he is in favour of and supports, in that he is refusing to attend the forum which has been organized by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to deal with the issue this Saturday in Blind River? If the minister is otherwise engaged, why will he not appoint a representative from his ministry to appear on his behalf to explain why the ministry is not explaining to contractors that successor rights apply when they are hiring workers, since the minister says he wants them to hire local workers?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I certainly do not hesitate to discuss this party’s policy regarding opportunities for people in northern Ontario to become involved with my ministry.

I do not agree with this particular member standing up here and saying that I should accept their policies as we attest to the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources has a role with OPSEU. I think the OPSEU people would agree with me when I say their opportunities and working conditions in this province are as good as anywhere in the country, but there is an opportunity for small entrepreneurs to become involved in contracting, so that I can stretch my dollars to keep my parks opened, to plant my trees and do those things.

The member would close that opportunity down to those people and that is just not the way this government functions. We think there is room for everyone, even though he does not.

Mr. Wildman: With respect, the minister did not answer the question. The question was, will the minister attend, and if he cannot attend the forum that is being organized by OPSEU to discuss this issue and to put forward the position he has just put forward, will he appoint a representative, either his parliamentary assistant or a civil servant from his ministry who will attend to explain his position? Will he attend or will he appoint someone else to attend to explain his position?

1500

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yesterday, when the same member put the question to me, I said that what he said was patently untrue. I learned my lesson. I will not again say that this member says things that are patently untrue. The fact of the matter is that he has to get the whole process clear in his mind. I suggest to him that there was never a request for someone --

Mr. Wildman: That is not true. You were invited.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member should wait until he hears what I am going to say. How can he respond before I tell him what I am going to say?

I am suggesting to the member that there was no request to send a substitute in my place; and I am going to suggest to him that I am willing to co-operate with him. As unreasonable as he is, I will send someone to represent me.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Do members wish to hear the member? Order.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of Energy.

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: Well, I want to say to these Liberals over here, they are not even backbenchers any more, they are just a rump.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cureatz: As the Minister of Energy is well aware, Ontario Hydro had requested residents of Ontario to reduce the consumption of electricity during the summer. Is he and his ministry prepared, and what are they going to do, to ensure that Ontario Hydro will be able to meet the consumption requirements of Ontario residents? We cannot afford to have a lack of electricity in the winter as we can during the summertime.

Hon. Mr. Wong: I will give a very brief answer. First of all, the government has a conservation-first strategy on the demand management side, and on the supply side we are going through the review of the demand/supply planning strategy right now.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Runciman for Mr. Cureatz; on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mr. Pope for Mr. Villeneuve; on the standing committee on general government, Mr. Cureatz for Mrs. Marland; on the standing committee on government agencies, Mrs. Marland for Mr. Jackson; on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, Mr. Cousens for Mr. McLean; on the standing committee on public accounts, Mr. Cousens for Mr. Pope and Mr. Villeneuve for Mr. Runciman; and on the standing committee on social development, Mrs. Cunningham for Mr. Cousens.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for the appointment of Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House for the remainder of this session.

Mr. Sterling: Today we are resuming the debate with regard to the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House for the remainder of this session.

Perhaps I would just explain, for purposes of the debate, that the Deputy Chairman is one of the three table officers who are responsible to the Legislative Assembly and really run this place here at Queen’s Park. The people who are listening to this debate might be wondering and saying to themselves, “What are the opposition parties so concerned about in the appointment of one of the government officers?”

I think it is an important distinction to put forward at the opening of today’s debate that we are not appointing a government official; we are appointing an official of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Therefore, the procedure the government uses with regard to the appointment of people to boards, commissions or advisory boards to the government should be very much different from the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole House.

Unfortunately, what we have witnessed in this Legislature is a government that has acted as though the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole House is nothing more than another government appointment. That is what this whole debate revolves around.

I should say also to people who are listening in on the debate that this is not a matter that has brought our Legislature to debate this particular issue for two days on its own. I would characterize this particular crisis, if we want to call it that, as a culmination of a number of moves by this government over a period of time. I would characterize this as the straw that broke the camel’s back with regard to the arrogance of the present government.

I have had the privilege, over a significant part of my 11 years sitting as the member of the provincial Legislature for the riding of Carleton, to sit on a committee called the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. That committee deals with procedural matters before the House and with a number of matters that deal with how this place runs, how members react with regard to the Legislature. It has also dealt with a number of issues as to how open this government will be to suggestions.

Even though I am a member of the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party, I must say that when the government changed in June 1985, I had hopes that this place would reform itself in some significant way. I say that genuinely, even though this is a somewhat political debate that we are having today. I thought that when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) talked about open government, when he talked about reform, he really meant what he said.

There are three matters that we have dealt with in the Legislative Assembly committee which, if they had been embraced by the Liberal government of the day, would have done not only this parliament but future parliaments immeasurable good. We have done three major reports in the Legislative Assembly committee of this Legislature, and I am proud to have been part of them.

The one that is most relevant to this debate is the report by the standing committee on procedural affairs, as the Legislative Assembly committee was then known, on changing our standing orders. I want to note for the members that this report came out in November 1985. That was about six months after the Liberal government came into power. Since that date, that report has been sitting on the shelf collecting dust.

We had what I thought was a commitment, in the very early days of this government, to make significant reforms, to make this place a more relevant place to be for a good part of our lives and to get on with the business with regard to the people of Ontario.

There were significant changes, and one of the changes in this particular report dealt with the very problem that we are discussing today, that is, who should be the Speaker, who should be the Deputy Speaker -- who is in the chair now -- and who should be the Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole House, which is the subject of the motion we are dealing with. According to this report of November 1985, that should be done by election.

1510

After this particular report was produced in November 1985, the parties talked it over with each other. They went to their caucuses. They talked about what change of rules should be done here, what should be there and that kind of thing.

Mr. Haggerty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On such an important debate as this, I am sure the member would like to have all members in the House. I see only one Conservative. Is there a quorum?

The Deputy Speaker: Is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is present.

The Deputy Speaker: The member may proceed.

Mr. Sterling: I want to thank the member for just reaffirming to all of our listeners out there that this particular party wants to get on with the business of the House. We have only 17 members, but during question period, as the member knows, there were many pressing issues raised with regard to the legitimacy of this government. The press wants to talk to many of our members about those allegations.

Mr. Speaker, in this report there is a recommendation that your very job should be achieved only through election within this legislative chamber. They do it in the House of Commons now, as you know. If you talk to any members of the House of Commons, they think it is a legitimate procedure. In fact, it is perhaps one of the most solidifying things in terms of making the House of Commons work because every member of the House of Commons has an opportunity to have his say on who is going to be sitting in that seat which controls this chamber.

Since 1985 this has sat on the shelf. About a year ago, the government came to myself, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), and said, “Why don’t you three gentlemen get together and try to formulate a deal out of these particular orders?” We came to a deal almost a year ago. Our report has sat on the table of the government for almost a year.

What we would like is a resolution of the matter. There are a lot of things done around here that do not achieve any results and are not in the best interests of the people of Ontario. Therefore, we need changes to our standing orders. But if the government, which controls 94 of 130 seats, will not put forward its position and negotiate, we can hardly have a change.

If anybody thinks the rules around here are archaic and wrong, then the blame can fall only on the shoulders of the sitting government because it failed to put forward a position as to what rules it wants changed. They will not come to the table and negotiate.

The other two matters which we have dealt with in the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly deal with the arrogance of this government relating to other appointments of the government. The Legislative Assembly committee, which is made up of members of all parties, came to the conclusion that the existing process is not satisfactory.

When a government, this government in particular, appoints an individual to an advisory board or to a position, that individual should be subject to an examination by a committee of the Legislature. Again, the federal government has done it. They are light years ahead of us on this particular matter. They have done something about appointments.

Meanwhile, we have a government that continues to appoint its own kin and its own people to boards and is afraid to put them in front of a legislative committee in order for a legislative committee to determine whether these are competent people who are being given jobs, many of them nonpaying, but a lot of them are paying jobs. Therefore, they deny the public, through the opposition parties and through other members of the Legislature who sit on committees, the right to cross-examine people who are being appointed to very important and powerful positions.

That is number two. They have not changed the rules. They have been sitting on the shelf for about three years. Our report on appointments has been sitting on the shelf for three or four years.

The third matter the Legislative Assembly committee dealt with was the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. During the hearings that went through in the minority government, we were able to change a number of the sections of that particular act. About two and a half years after its introduction, it finally went through at the urging of the opposition parties.

Notwithstanding the freedom of information act coming into force in January of this year, I have used that particular legislative act on a number of occasions to try to get information from this government. Do members know what the response has been? The first response I got back from them was that they wanted to charge me $700 for information which they would previously give to me, as a member of this Legislature, free of charge. That is what they call freedom of information, that is what they call open government; that is what we, on our side, call arrogant government.

The second foray into the freedom of information act has been an effort, on my part and the part of many of my colleagues, to get polls which are paid for by the public to be tabled in this Legislature. It was only last week that I received a poll I had requested in the middle of July, a poll that was taken in January 1988 on free trade. This government was frightened to give me that poll because of the political nature of those questions contained in that poll. Members will see, if they read that particular poll, that it is a highly political poll and should never have been paid for by the public of Ontario.

Not only that, but I was informed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) that he did not give me the whole poll, that he had taken out parts of that poll which were of a political nature and had been paid for by the Liberal Party of Ontario, or at least we assume that at this stage. We have a government that professes to be open in terms of giving information, when it stalls, charges for information and then ferrets through the information and decides which part it wants to give out and which it does not.

I am sorry I am now coming to the conclusion that after three years of a continued exhibition of a closed government, a government that does not want to listen to the opposition, a government that is now taking steps in the appointment of the Deputy Chairman in a most arrogant and high-handed manner, we have a government that has slipped back to the ways of the old. I think the ways of the old were wrong. That is why I held out some hope that when government changes there should be some change in the rules as to how this place runs. The government should become more open and decisions should be based on fact and not on emotion.

We will support the amendment of the members of the New Democratic Party. I only want to say, with regard to our party, that it has no reflection on the person who has been nominated for this post, the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray). We have no axe to grind with the member for Windsor-Walkerville should he be confirmed as the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House, but we do support very strongly the objection with regard to the appointment by this method. We think it is time to get on with changing the rules so that all members of this House can participate in the appointment of the Deputy Chairman, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker.

1520

Mr. Laughren: I would not normally engage in a debate on a motion such as this, but I really do feel it necessary to engage in it.

If the people out there in television land, as we are wont to say, have watched this debate now for the third day, they must wonder what in the world we are doing with our time down here. They thought they sent us down to pass legislation and make improvements to existing legislation.

I must say that I agree with those people totally. We all know there are important pieces of legislation that must be dealt with. There is the workers’ compensation legislation; there is the Sunday shopping legislation; there are the tax bills that are still carried over from the budget last spring. It is not because there is nothing important to do that we are engaging in this rather strange, rather bizarre debate for the third day now.

The government members, of course, including the House leader and the whip, claim it is simple obstruction; nothing more, nothing less. I can see some members nodding their heads. But I ask the members to think about it for a moment and ask themselves whether or not it would make any sense at all for an opposition such as us and such as the Conservative caucus to obstruct without any purpose. It would be like picketing with blank placards. It would make no sense whatsoever. I think people out there watching the debate from time to time must understand that there is a reason for this debate and a reason it is being carried on so long. There is a reason.

The reaction yesterday of the two government members who spoke on this motion, the House leader and the government whip, two people who have a lot to do with how this place runs, revealed a lot about why we have a problem.

I remind members that what we are debating is a motion that would install the member for Windsor-Walkerville in the Deputy Chairman of committees position, replacing the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts). That was the motion. I know I am a bit of a rookie, having been here only 17 years, but it is the first time I recall a debate on one of the House positions. If it has occurred before, then my memory is suspect.

But I should say that this event of a prolonged debate on that government motion is not an isolated event. While the debate itself is centred on that, there was a great deal that led up to this event. What we are doing has much less to do with political parties than with the political process around this place.

I would like to back up a week or so to when we were all moving towards debate on what is known as Bill 162, amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act. Prior to that, the critic for this caucus had a meeting with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and at that meeting the Minister of Labour indicated he had no intention of having public hearings and the bill would be dealt with before Christmas.

That was very clear. That is not something that was left in a kind of grey area. It was said very specifically, very clearly and very firmly, and that is what was going to happen. When our critic the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) reported that back to our caucus, we felt it appropriate to raise it in question period.

When we raised that matter in question period and asked him for public hearings and travel across the province when the House adjourns for the winter break, we did not receive an assurance that would happen. We received some vague assurances, “Oh, yes, well, the minister wouldn’t object,” and so forth. Then, in an act that totally insulted the members of the opposition, government ministers stated, “We don’t tell the committee what to do.”

That really was an insult to members of the opposition, because we all know that when the government ministers determine that they want a certain course of action to be taken or not taken, word is passed on to the members of the committee and, because of the majority of government members on the committee, that, of course, is what happens.

I could dredge up examples from the standing committee on resources development if the members felt it was necessary.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: They had to adjourn the resources committee to get instructions on the bill of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier).

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, the day we had the demonstration out in front and the day the injured workers came very close to the door, it was because of the refusal of the government ministers to give assurances that there would be public hearings in the break. That was the reason that happened. There is no question about that, absolutely no question.

Then the House leader indicated that we could travel while the House was sitting -- the second insult to members of the opposition. How do members of an opposition of 18 members and 17 members travel when the House is in session? It simply does not make any sense.

If the government whip and House leader want to take the line that that is the way to do things, then they are sure behaving in a strange way if they are serious about getting any work done around this place. It really does not make any sense whatsoever, and I notice the Speaker nodding.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Nodding off.

Mr. Laughren: I had finished the sentence. I did not drop the word “off” -- I just said you were nodding, Mr. Speaker.

Those kinds of answers to the opposition that insulted us left us with a feeling of great mistrust and anger and frustration.

I know that as we go through this debate, for people who are not involved in the workings of the chamber it probably does not make a lot of sense, but I would simply say that having this place work fairly with a large majority in government is important to people out there all across Ontario as well, because I do not believe anybody is well served if a majority government does not respect the requirements or the needs of the opposition.

If you stop and think about it and add up the percentages of the vote the government party got versus the two opposition parties, you will know that if you do not treat the opposition party properly, you are indeed offending about half of the population of Ontario. Their rights are not being protected any more than ours are, who represent those people all across the province.

When positions are filled, such as the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the committees of the whole House and the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House, when those decisions are made, they should be made very carefully, because those people then become the servants of the House, not of the governing party. There is no question about that. I think everyone should understand -- everyone out there, not just in here -- that it is an important principle that those people, such as the Deputy Chairman, dealing with the resolution we are dealing with today, are in important positions.

I cannot imagine sitting in that chair trying to regulate the business of the House through complex amendments to amendments of bills when two of the three parties in this place do not want that person to be there because of the process, not because of the person. My House leader made it very clear that there was no objection to the member for Windsor-Walkerville’s sitting in that chair as Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House, any more than there was any objection to the member for Elgin, although we must say the member for Elgin did a superb job in that position and, in all fairness, we probably would not have moved her.

I think it is important to know that the position we are talking about is one that is important to the working of this place, and I worry about the new Deputy Chairman coming in, if the government proceeds, not having the support of two of the three parties in this place. That would be truly unusual and unfortunate.

Despite the assurances that this was not contrived by the Premier as simply a shifting around of caucus positions, still it was all part of that package when parliamentary assistants were changed and dropped or added, it all happened at the same time; well it certainly did, because those of us on this side were told about it at exactly the same time --

1530

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Some of your members told us.

Mr. Laughren: That is right. These are the moves that are being made. The government House leader can pretend all he likes, but that was, I think, a gross oversight. In a gross oversight, the House leader, the whip and the Premier forgot that the Deputy Chairman’s position is one of servant to the House, not of the government caucus. That is what was forgotten in that process. I am absolutely convinced it was.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Not true. You’re saying we shouldn’t elect our chairman.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It has nothing to do with your chairman.

Mr. Laughren: It has nothing to do with that. I am not talking about the chairman of the caucus, and the government House leader knows that. We are talking about the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole. That is what we are talking about.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am talking about what you think we did.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, though, it is clear there should be consultation with the other parties; if it is going to work properly there must be consultation. Obviously, the government House leader got away with what he did, up to a point. I suppose, with the numbers, he can ram it through. I was sitting here this Monday past, and five minutes before question period ended, the government House leader walked over and handed my House leader the copy of the motion that was going to put the member for Windsor-Walkerville in the chair.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Were you at the House leaders’ meeting on Thursday?

Mr. Laughren: I was here.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. One member at a time, please. The member will ignore the interjections and address his remarks through the Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: We believe that lack of consultation is not appropriate. That is why the bells began to ring. It is very clearly a case of protecting the rights of minorities in this place. That is what it is all about, a case of respecting the rights of the minority parties.

Once the bells started to ring, we had intended to vote yesterday afternoon. It was our intention to have the vote yesterday afternoon, not today, but then something truly unusual happened. Our House leader spoke, followed by the Conservative caucus House leader, and then the government House leader spoke.

It was a truly virtuoso performance. Unfortunately, it was to the wrong audience. That speech should have been made to the Windsor Liberal association. That speech should not have been made in this chamber. I am sure the Liberals in Windsor would have found that a highly entertaining speech, although I bet they would have winced at some of the things the House leader said.

This is absolutely accurate. I am quoting from Hansard of yesterday afternoon. This is the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), the government House leader, “The thing that troubles me most about the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) is that he recites things that I think bespeak a malady that may be more serious than paranoia.”

The government House leader may think that is humorous, but I do not think it is, because if you think about what that says, it is accusing or at least charging that our House leader does not have all his faculties available to him.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Absolutely not

Mr. Laughren: That is exactly what it means.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have been accused of far worse things here.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. One member at a time. The member for Nickel Belt has the floor.

Mr. Laughren: That is just one sentence. That was a highly vitriolic, highly personal attack on my House leader. It was surprisingly personal and unfortunately personal, I might say.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You’re being precious and you know it.

Mr. Laughren: No, I am not being precious. I want to tell members that when the government House leader was appointed to his position by the Premier back in 1987, about a year ago, the media in Sudbury came to me and said, “What do you think about the appointment of Mr. Conway as government House leader and Minister of Mines?”

I said -- as a matter of fact, some of my friends in Sudbury wondered why I was being so kind -- that I thought it was a good choice, if not inspired, and that it was an indication the Premier was worried about the way a massive majority, given legitimately by the people of Ontario to his government, would treat the two opposition parties in the Legislature.

I said for that reason that I thought it was a good choice, because I do not know of anyone who appreciates more the political history of this province and of this chamber than the member for Renfrew North. I do feel, however, that this appreciation and this capacity to appreciate the political history of our province and of this place is being frittered away with the kind of performance we saw yesterday afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Do you want me to take everything and give nothing?

Mr. Laughren: No, that is absolutely not the issue at all.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to tell you there are tapes around here -- things that have been said about me.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. One member at a time.

Mr. Laughren: I said earlier that the speech the government House leader gave should have been given to a partisan riding association such as the Windsor area Liberals. That would have been an appropriate forum. This was an inappropriate forum. I will say something else. The speech the government House leader should have given was given by our member for Oshawa. That is the speech the government House leader should have given, not the one he gave. I would be very surprised if the government House leader has not had some second thoughts since he spoke yesterday afternoon.

It should be clear that the opposition we have now in Ontario faces four years of losing every vote in this chamber. We face four years of the government having its way on almost every issue. We have some tools available to us in order to make this place function, in order to make sure that there are checks on the power of such a massive majority.

One of those tools is our right to ensure that issues, bills and so forth get referred out to committees. We also can engage in the odd filibuster, engage in the odd bell-ringing and have emergency debates. Those are all legitimate tools in our system. They are there for the opposition to use. It is not an accident that the opposition is referred to as Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. That is our role. It is an honourable one at that. For the government not to appreciate that speaks volumes about its attitude.

I am not a House leader or a whip, so I do not attend the meetings with the House leaders, but I get the feeling that one of the problems with the government is that it does not build into its legislative timetable those things I just mentioned: bell-ringing, emergency debates and filibusters. For a government not to build those in, given its huge majority, does not make any sense. Therefore, they become frustrated when things go off the rails according to the timetable they have set for themselves.

There is another problem. I think it is just as fundamental when dealing with a substantial majority. That is what happens to the negotiations process. When there was a minority government between 1985 and 1987, negotiations were just automatic. They had to occur or nothing happened. The negotiations went on for almost two years.

A good example is the referring out of the hearings on the Workers’ Compensation Board. I will go back to that because I think that started this problem and caused a great deal of anger and frustration on this side of the House. The government should have known that there was a long tradition of referring out compensation bills to committee for public hearings and travel across the province. There is a very long tradition of that. Besides, it is going to happen now. Think of all that could have been avoided if they had agreed to do it in the first place.

1540

Mr. Reycraft: Who said it wouldn’t?

Mr. Laughren: Well, the Minister of Labour said it would not be done.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: As long as the government whip persists in the argument that there was no problem, then obviously he is not going to understand the problem, and that seems to be his problem.

If the House leader and the whip continue, then the distemper of these times will continue. If they do not change their views and attitudes, we are in for a long session. I know that may very well be appropriate, but I am telling members that people are going to start asking: “What’s going on down there at Queen’s Park? Didn’t we elect a huge majority government? Why don’t they get on with the business of running Ontario?” Some people, of course, will blame the opposition, and that is fair, but in the final analysis, it is up to the government to make this place work, and it can work.

We have dealt with majority governments before. This place has functioned with majority governments. It functioned for four years in a minority government, for heaven’s sake, and it has functioned for years with majority governments. There is no reason majority government cannot work, but it is not going to work if we keep things going the way they are now.

If the government House leader continues to make speeches such as he made yesterday, with personal attacks on a House leader he has to negotiate with, day in and day out, week in and week out, the system is not going to work. Now, he should think about that.

My House leader is expected to go in to a meeting of the House leaders tomorrow morning and negotiate with the government House leader who made that kind of speech yesterday afternoon. I would find that extremely difficult to do. Surely to goodness, given what has gone on around here in the last couple of weeks, yesterday was a time for the government House leader to be building bridges, not lobbing personal grenades over here at our House leader, but that is exactly what the government House leader did.

I know that our House leader is a tough negotiator. I know he is partisan. But Mr. Speaker, can you imagine our House leader, with 18 arrows in his quiver, going up against the government with 94 arrows in its quiver? What kind of a --

Mr. B. Rae: Sentence is that?

Mr. Laughren: I want to start again.

Mr. B. Rae: What kind of metaphor is that?

Mr. Laughren: What I am trying to say, and not saying it very well, is that the odds are not even. We expect our House leader to be partisan; we expect him to be a tough negotiator. He is both and we are happy with that. For the government House leader and the government whip to complain about that is downright silly. It is to not understand the process. It is to not understand the role of our House leader and the role of the opposition.

Mrs. Grier: He is elected, not appointed like theirs.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, we even elect our House leader, and he has cemented his position for ever.

I suggest that the government House leader and his caucus have as much to lose -- I think more --than the opposition if some civility is not returned to the process. I think the government leadership should reflect on that, because after yesterday, it is going to be increasingly difficult to carry on negotiations that will lead to the proper management of this chamber.

I suggest it is time for us to move on to legislation and to do the business we were sent down here to do, but I really believe it was fundamentally wrong for the government to have made those heroic assumptions it made on the sending out of the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act and on the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House. Those issues would never have blown up in the face of the government if there had been proper negotiations in both cases, and we would now be well through the workers’ compensation legislation.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that these incidents will be avoided in the future only if the opposition starts to feel like a partner in the business of managing this place.

1603

The House divided on Mr. D. S. Cooke’s amendment to Hon. Mr. Conway’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Eves, Grier, Hampton, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, Morin-Strom, Pope, Pouliot, Rae, B., Runciman, Sterling, Wildman.

Nays

Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Cleary, Conway, Daigeler, Dietsch, Epp, Faubert, Fleet, Fontaine, Haggerty, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McGuigan, Miclash, Miller, Nicholas, Phillips, G., Poole, Ramsay, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wong.

Ayes 21; nays 48.

The Deputy Speaker: Are we ready to vote on the main motion?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if it would be possible to hear from the candidate.

Mr. Reycraft: Speaking to the point of order, I am sure the candidate would love to oblige. However, apparently he has been called to his apartment building, where there is a fire going on this afternoon.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Since we are not going to have an emergency debate, are we ready for the main vote? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Conway has moved that the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray) be appointed Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House for the remainder of this session.

Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry? Same vote? Two members have come in, three members. We will have to have a count if some more members come in.

1609

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Conway’s motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Cleary, Conway, Daigeler, Dietsch, Epp, Faubert, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Haggerty, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McGuigan, Miclash, Miller, Nicholas, O’Neil, H., Phillips, G., Poole, Ramsay, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wong.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D, S., Cunningham, Eves, Grier, Hampton, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, Morin-Strom, Pope, Pouliot, Rae, B., Runciman, Sterling, Wildman.

Ayes 51; nays 21.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Deputy Speaker: If I remember well, the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) had the floor. Is he finished? Any other debate? The member for Halton Centre.

Mrs. Sullivan: I am pleased to take part in this debate, particularly since it provides the first opportunity for me to speak as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour and the minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr. Sorbara).

Bill 162 is a reform bill. It provides an opportunity to bring positive change to a system that all of us in this House and many outside recognize is not working well. Whether you come from Milton or Markham, from Windsor or Wawa, from Nipissing or Nepean, you know that this reform is necessary and this reform is timely. This debate, and the conclusions which will come from it, will mark an important point of departure for the workers’ compensation system in Ontario. It is both the culmination of the 1980 round of workers’ compensation reform and the beginning of new efforts that will take us towards the next century. It meets head-on some of the urgent problems of the workers’ compensation system in Ontario, particularly those dealing with permanent partial disability.

I would like to trace some of the steps, beginning in the late 1970s, which led us to this particular bill, a bill which provides certainty for both the injured worker and the employer and further brings a sense of dignity and fairness into the process.

The current round of reform began in 1978, when the Wyatt Co., independent actuarial consultants, conducted a study of the Workers’ Compensation Board and examined its financial arrangements and its system of disability compensation. One of the recommendations from that study was for a reorganization of the permanent disability pension scheme which would base compensation payments solely upon workers’ monetary losses.

A year later, in 1979, the WCB published a discussion paper called Current Issues in Workmen’s Compensation. That paper examined the trend to wage loss as a reform model for permanent disability compensation.

In January 1980, the government appointed Professor Paul Weiler to conduct a comprehensive review of workers’ compensation in Ontario. The initial report of that review, published in November of that year, made several recommendations for reform, including a proposal for a dual award system for compensating permanent partial disability claims, that is, a lump sum for impairment plus a continuing payment to replace actual lost income.

In 1981 the Minister of Labour published a white paper containing policy proposals and draft statutory language. Once again, a central change advocated was for a dual award method in PPD compensation. Public discussion of the dual award approach to PPD reform continued for two years. It included extensive debate before a standing committee of the Legislature. That committee’s report in December 1983 indicated basic agreement with the dual award model. In June 1984, the government proceeded with a package of WCB reforms including new administrative structures and a new survivor benefit system. Implementation of a new PPD system was deferred, however.

I would like to remind members that during the last decade, four provinces -- Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, plus the Yukon territory -- have proceeded to implement a dual award system. Manitoba and Alberta have recently published reviews of their workers’ compensation systems which also recommend adopting this report.

In early 1985, the government asked Professor Weiler again to review his initial 1980 proposals for a dual award model of PPD compensation. He reported in December 1986 and his report included some revisions to his earlier recommendations. The report was circulated and comments were solicited from all parties.

Members will recall that in the fall speech from the throne of 1987, the government indicated its intention to proceed with the reform of the permanent partial disability compensation system. The proposed reforms outline a comprehensive dual award and workplace reintegration scheme which is in many respects quite distinct from earlier models. Nevertheless, financial compensation for noneconomic loss and for future loss of earnings remains central to the model.

The purpose of the award for noneconomic loss is to compensate a permanently disabled worker for injury-related losses that may not be reflected in his or her post-injury earning capacity. The noneconomic losses suffered would include physical impairment, physical and psychological distress, loss of capacity for leisure activities, loss of companionship and loss of enjoyment of life.

To assess these intangible results of permanent disability, the WCB will determine the extent of the predictable noneconomic loss that an average injured worker may experience, based on the degree of his or her physical impairment. The amount of the award will be modified according to the injured worker’s age at the time of the injury and the severity of the impairment arising from it. The maximum award provided for a noneconomic loss in 1988 would be $65,000. The minimum award would be $25,000 for full disability.

As the minister mentioned in his opening remarks in this debate, the proposed maximum benefit exceeds noneconomic-loss compensation available in any other provincial system that has adopted the dual award approach. An age adjustment will be applied to the award by adding $1,000 to the minimum amount of $25,000 for every year of age that the worker is younger than 65.

The principle of age-adjusting compensation for a loss experienced over time has been long accepted in the courts as well as having been applied in the workers’ compensation system. Age adjustment is also implicit in the existing disability pension program. Younger workers receive greater total benefits than older workers because the term of pension payments to them will be longer.

Awards for noneconomic loss will customarily be paid as lump sums to enable workers to determine their own personal financial choices and adjustments to their disabilities. Nevertheless, a worker who is entitled to an award of $10,000 or more may elect to receive it as a periodic pension payment.

1620

I want to talk about how the noneconomic-loss benefits are determined and the appeal process associated with these decisions. Initial entitlement decisions about awards for noneconomic loss will be made by medical practitioners and an appeal process relating to these medical decisions is implicit in the bill. The decisions will be subject to internal review and to scrutiny by an independent medical referee upon request by either the injured worker or the employer. The choice of the referee must be acceptable to both parties. The referee’s reassessment for the worker’s degree of permanent impairment, a medical assessment, is binding upon the parties and that may not be appealed to the external Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal for the simple reason that it is a medical assessment. However, a worker may seek reassessment of the award for noneconomic loss, if a significant and unforeseen deterioration occurs in his or her physical condition. Opportunities for this type of reassessment are included in the bill.

I would like to describe benefits for economic loss available to permanently disabled workers under this legislation. Permanently disabled workers, those who receive 12 continuous months of temporary compensation, will be assessed for compensation for future loss of earnings. The projected earnings loss method will be used to calculate how much the worker is capable of earning in suitable and available post-injury employment. Benefits for future loss of earnings will be 90 per cent of the difference between a worker’s actual pre-injury net earnings and his or her projected post-injury earning capacity.

Statutory criteria used by the Workers’ Compensation Board to project the injured worker’s post-injury earning capacity include, first, the actual post-injury net earnings; second, disability benefits received from the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan; the personal and vocational attributes of the worker; the future vocational and medical rehabilitation prospect, and the availability of suitable employment for the injured person. After the board has assessed the worker’s future earning capacity and calculated a projected earnings-loss benefit, the benefit is fixed at the assessed level for two years. This enhances the worker’s incentive to reach his or her maximum post-injury earning potential, since benefits will be paid for the initial two-year period without reduction for any increase in actual post-injury income.

As is currently the case, additional payments will also be available for workers enrolled in rehabilitation programs to supplement the future loss-of-earnings benefit they receive. Total compensation, including the rehabilitation supplement and the loss-of-earnings benefit, would be 90 per cent of the worker’s pre-injury net earnings during this period.

Basic benefits for future loss of earnings apply to older workers 55 or older, who are unemployed and unlikely to obtain future employment. Payments to them must equal federal old age security benefits or approximately $300 per month. At a minimum, this benefit is payable until the worker reaches age 65.

The level of earnings loss compensation is reappraised twice during the life of the claim. First, two years after the benefit is established and second, three years after the first review of the benefits. A review of the benefits for future loss of earnings is also triggered within two years, where the injured worker has requested an assessment because his physical impairment has increased. In that case, a worker may petition the board to revaluate physical impairment where a significant and unanticipated deterioration has occurred. Where an increased level of impairment is found, the bill provides that entitlement for earnings loss compensation will also be reassessed.

These reviews of a worker’s continuing entitlement to benefits for future losses of earnings permit the board to compare its forecast of a claimant’s post-injury earning capacity with the worker’s actual labour market experience. The reviews can therefore allow for more accurate compensation for worker’s actual economic losses and either the current permanent partial disability pensions’ scheme or simple projected wage loss system. Between the required reviews, the injured worker can be certain of the benefits he or she will receive, and in each review, inadequacies or excesses in benefit payments will be subject to adjustment.

As the minister pointed out, board decisions on wage loss payments will be subject to the same appeal process, including appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, as currently apply to board decisions and awards.

Compensation for future loss of earnings ceases when a claimant reaches age 65. It is then replaced by a retirement pension which the board will finance and administer for recipients. Retirement income for a permanently disabled worker will be financed by board contributions of 10 per cent of the annual benefits received by a claimant who is receiving compensation for future loss of earnings. When the worker reaches 65, the portion of retirement income that comes from the WCB will be determined by the accumulated contributions plus investment income.

The form of retirement benefit paid by the board will also be in the claimant’s discretion, but if the annual retirement income payment will be less than $ 1,000, a lump sum payment may be made.

Survivors and dependents of an injured worker entitled to a retirement pension will be compensated according to pension fund regulations that the board will be drafting.

Bill 162 introduces long-overdue fairness and security to the compensation of permanently injured workers. In so doing, it will restore the basic principle of workers’ compensation that the economic loss resulting from workplace injuries should be fully compensated, while also recognizing that permanent injuries may result in noneconomic losses as well.

As a member of this assembly and as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, I urge colleagues on all sides of the House to give this bill their consideration and support.

Miss Martel: I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the last speaker. First, when she was going through the history of the permanent partial disability pensions system in Ontario, she forgot to mention that after the draft bill was seen by the standing committee on resources development, even the Conservatives did not have the audacity to bring it forward into this House as part of their proposed amendments under Bill 101. Even they recognized how bad the dual system was and it did not appear in their series of reforms in 1984-85.

I go back to the purpose of the dual award system. The previous speaker talked about noneconomic loss and future loss of earnings. Let me just deal with the future loss of earnings because I think it is an important point to make. It would not be so bad, although we probably still would not agree with it, if a person’s loss of earnings were going to be based on what they actually lost. The problem in this bill is that that is based upon what the board considers the worker is capable of doing. It has nothing to do with what job the worker may or may not have, what they are capable of doing or if there is even any employment in that particular industry. It is completely based on the discretion of the board and has absolutely nothing, or very little, to do with what the worker actually did before and what his actual loss of earnings are.

Second, if one goes back to the bill, one will see that the review will occur as the board considers it appropriate. There is no guarantee in this legislation that the worker will be paid that supplement right until age 65. It can be cut off at any time as the board reviews and makes a decision upon that payment. That is completely discretionary and certainly provides no guarantee for injured workers.

I am a little disturbed by the fact that there were a number of concerns I raised last Thursday about reinstatement and rehabilitation which were not addressed by the speaker. I am hoping some other government member is going to look seriously at that and try to respond to some of the concerns I made.

Mrs. Sullivan: In relationship to the first point raised by the member for Sudbury East, I would like to reiterate that this has been a long and difficult process and, as she understands, along with other members of the House, the bill is a complicated bill that has benefited from the experience and study that occurred over that period of time.

1630

In reference to her second point, I would like to refer her to subsection 45a(2) of the bill, which contains the key feature of setting PPDP benefits at 90 per cent of the difference between the worker’s actual pre-injury net earnings and the worker’s projected post-injury earning capacity.

Those benefits will be determined no later than 18 months after the injury and will be reviewed two years after they are established. I am sure that, as the debate proceeds, other questions which are of concern not only to the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) but to other members of the House will be discussed by members on all sides.

Mr. Laughren: I would not miss an opportunity to engage in debate with the minister on a bill as important as Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act. There is a great deal at stake for a lot of people with this bill.

Complaints about the Workers’ Compensation Board have echoed loudly in this chamber many times during the 17 years I have been a member. Without exaggeration, I can say that if I had a dollar for every time there has been a compensation problem raised either here or in one of the committees, I would be a very rich person indeed.

Last week we heard in this building more than just the voices of members speaking against the injustices of the system. We heard the building itself reverberate to the yells and the shouts and the chants of injured workers, men and women who are very fearful of what is going to happen to them under Bill 162. I do not remember any other group of people storming the Legislature. That should tell the minister something.

We in the official opposition pledge to continue our assault against the minister’s flawed thinking as seen in Bill 162. He should understand that injured workers do not willy-nilly come down to the Legislature and have a demonstration and then get so agitated. As I understand it, when they heard the response of the minister to questions from my leader, that is what triggered their movement into the building itself from outside. The minister has indicated on several occasions that we were responsible somehow. He did not say for that --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is not true.

Mr. Laughren: No, the minister has indicated that at least we were responsible for getting them down to the demonstration, that that is how --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I did not indicate that at all. Do not get on that line.

Mr. Laughren: That is what the minister has said on several occasions. I just want to say to the minister that unless there are some very fundamental changes made in Bill 162 through the amendment process, that unhappiness is going to continue. I hope, despite the majority his party has and despite the majority on whatever committee this bill is referred to, that the minister will not close his mind to the acceptance of some amendments that would improve the bill. Obviously, any amendments must be in keeping with the principle of the bill, so it is not as though amendments could be put that would be contrary to the purpose of the bill itself.

The minister has already got off to a bad start with this bill, I might say, by implying that we could get through this bill without holding public hearings, without travel across the province. These changes are far-reaching for injured workers and --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Floyd, you know I never said that.

Miss Martel: You wanted it by Christmas. That means no hearings.

Mr. Laughren: It is my understanding that at a meeting with our critic, the member for Sudbury East, the Minister of Labour indicated that he wanted this bill completed by Christmas, which, of course, means there would be no public hearings and no travel across the province. If there were public hearings, they would have to be in Toronto, because how do we travel with the House in session?

I have already had calls from Thunder Bay, because I chair the standing committee on resources development, from people wondering if that committee is going to be holding public hearings on the bill. I am indicating to those people who call that it is going to be referred to a committee, that it has not yet been determined which committee, but it traditionally goes to the resources development committee.

I think what bothered people was the gall of the minister when this has such an impact on 450,000 people a year -- those are claims of people who are injured on the job. He simply cannot do that to people. People will no longer accept the government altering their lives without their having a say in it, so of course they demand public hearings. There is such a tradition of it anyway, why resist it? Why did we not just get on with the business and agree to have public hearings without going through all of the agony that we did?

Of course, there is a reason the minister was not enthusiastic about the idea of putting this bill under the intense light of public scrutiny. He knows this bill will not fundamentally change the plight of injured workers in Ontario. He knows it is not going to stop the flow of injured workers into my constituency office. It will not stop the problems of bureaucratic red tape at the board level.

I can tell members without a word of exaggeration that at least 70 per cent of the people’s time in my constituency office is spent on workers’ compensation problems. I recognize the fact that I represent a highly industrialized area with a lot of mining and forestry, but that is not the point. The point is that the compensation system is not dealing appropriately with these people when they have a problem. If it is a straight broken arm, then usually that is resolved. If there is any kind of hitch or anything unusual about an injury or an industrial illness, that is when the problem really gets serious. If it is a recurrence of a previous injury, the board really has difficulty dealing with that as well.

One reason I do not think the situation will change very much with this bill is that when the minister was drafting the bill, I do not think he was listening to the injured workers of the province. I think he was listening to the employers of Ontario through the Employers’ Council on Workers’ Compensation. That is what I suspect. That is why this bill was drafted the way it was.

Given the enormity of the problems facing the Workers’ Compensation Board, one might think the government might be inclined to arrange the system so that more money goes to those people whom the system is designed to serve: namely, injured workers, particularly those with temporary and permanent disabilities or those in need of rehabilitation services.

This is not the case, however. The minister showed his hand back on June 20 in his announcement, when he discussed the financial implications of the bill. He stated: “The overall financial impact of these reforms will be revenue-neutral. They will reallocate resources within the workers’ compensation system.” Surely to goodness if the minister is going to reform the workers’ compensation system, he knows that simply reallocating funds among people who are injured is not the answer. Surely to goodness he knows that.

It is totally inadequate, it is totally impotent and it is irresponsible, in my view, considering the very serious problems facing the workers’ compensation system in this province. My leader called it the sheriff of Nottingham approach, robbing the poor to pay the poor. It really is unfair.

While it may very well have been an honest statement on the part of the minister -- and I would rather have an honest statement than a dishonest one from him -- can members imagine the feelings of the injured workers out there? They are following the workers’ compensation legislation very closely and they are hurting, That is why they are out here every year demonstrating.

They hear the minister say, “We are going to bring in some new legislation that is going to resolve a lot of problems, and it is revenue-neutral.” Well, whoop-de-do. The people who are living at an inadequate level of income must have just sagged, physically and mentally, and thought, “How in the world are they going to improve my lot in life with a revenue-neutral change in compensation?” By simply shuffling the cards, which is another way of putting it, the minister will not change anything. What he has really done is just flaunted this bill in the face of Ontario workers.

Today I would like to look at what I see as some of the problem areas in the bill.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1640

Mr. Laughren: I was indicating that I intended to look today at some of the problems in Bill 162. One of the problems is the whole question of discretionary powers. In fact, because of the increased discretionary power Bill 162 proposes to give to board officials, I do not hesitate in saying that we may very well see an increase in complaints related to the Workers’ Compensation Board. As my colleague the member for Sudbury East so eloquently pointed out last week, the board is remarkably adept at twisting what we in the Legislature deem to be or declare to be law, given the opportunity of board officials to interpret what is already essentially bad legislation. I would submit that there is a potential for disaster.

As I said earlier, with 70 per cent of the time in my constituency office already devoted to compensation matters, the prospect of Bill 162 coming into law unsettles me a great deal, not just because it is a change but because I can see all sorts of problems because of the nature of Bill 162.

I would like to turn my attention, first of all, to section 45a, compensation for economic loss, which is one of the fundamental principles of this bill. In his statement in the Legislature on the implementation of the dual award system, the minister stated: “It’s time to go beyond the meat chart and treat people as human beings. The new system will ensure that injured workers receive compensation for the economic loss associated with their injury.” That was the minister speaking. Unfortunately, the new system will not ensure any such protection. One does not need to see into the future in order to predict that section 45a, as it is now worded, will be the source of numerous problems.

I am not saying I like the meat chart. I am glad the meat chart will be thrown out regarding attempting to determine compensation for the economic losses experienced by workers with permanent disabilities. As we all know, it was merely coincidence in the past whenever a percentage award assigned to the various body parts bore any relation to the financial loss suffered by the worker. For example, a person could have a 15 per cent back injury and a 100 per cent financial disability. I have all sorts of constituents who work in the bush, for example. They get a 15 per cent back disability payment. In fact, that is 100 per cent disability. That worker is out on the street. That idea of the past of that percentage simply was not working. It was not fair.

One thing that can be said about permanent disability pensions, though, is that no matter how demeaning and arbitrary the process is, the pension represents something certain for the injured worker. WCB pensioners could always count on getting that monthly cheque even when, as a result of their inability to physically perform their pre-accident job, workers found themselves out of work and on welfare. That WCB monthly cheque would always be there for them. That was of some comfort to them at least.

Though I feel the dual-award system, as proposed by this government, is quite inferior to the model we propose, I would like to offer some specific criticisms of Bill 162 as it now stands. I hope the government will listen to the suggestions put by the injured workers and by the opposition members, because I think they have a lot to say. The opposition and the injured workers have a lot of expertise in the whole question of workers’ compensation. I have the feeling that if section 45a remains as it is, injured workers will not be as certain as to what they can expect from the board.

One of the sources of this uncertainty is the wording in subsection 45a(2), which reads that compensation is payable, “for such period, up to the time that the worker reaches 65 years of age, as the board considers appropriate in the circumstances.” Because of that wording, injured workers could not be blamed for thinking that the sword of Damocles was hanging over their heads. How are injured workers supposed to feel, knowing that at any time a board employee could decide it was no longer appropriate to pay the economic-loss benefit?

Can the minister tell me why that phrasing was inserted in the legislation? Go back to that wording again: “for such period, up to the time that the worker reaches 65 years of age” -- and this is the part that is so bothersome -- “as the board considers appropriate in the circumstances.” That is a very troublesome phrase to be in there, and I can see why the injured workers have already raised a red flag over that. We are doing the same thing to the minister.

I have seen the board in action long enough to know that if there is any way it can seize upon an injured worker’s noncompensable problems as being a possible cause of that worker’s not being able to work, it will not hesitate to do so. I expect that, as a result of these reviews, we will undoubtedly encounter many instances in which the board says to the injured worker, “Look, it is no longer our responsibility to pay you loss-of-earnings benefits, because we have discovered you now have a noncompensable problem that, in our opinion, is the main reason you cannot do your pre-accident job.” That is how I see the Workers’ Compensation Board behaving when the government gives it all that discretionary power. They do it now, and it is no wonder that there is the level of cynicism there is out there: anger, distrust and frustration at the Ontario compensation board.

To my mind, on the basis of the same reasoning, there should not be a need for the earnings-loss review slated for two and five years after the initial determination. As far as I am concerned, recalculations of earning loss should be undertaken only if the worker makes an application because of a deterioration in his or her physical condition or when there is a significant reduction in the income of the worker that can be attributed to the injury. That is the only time.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That can happen at any time.

Mr. Laughren: Well, of course it could happen at any time.

Section 45a, believe it or not, contains something even more insidious than the threat posed by the minister’s insistence that the board have the right to review earnings loss, something that is sure to give injured workers greater cause for alarm, and the member for Sudbury East talked about it last week. That, of course, is the so-called deeming clause.

The wording of the clause appears rather innocent at first glance. In calculating the amount of compensation to be paid, the board will have regard for the worker’s net average earnings before the injury and “the net average amount that the board considers that the worker is able to earn after the injury in suitable and available employment.” The wording “suitable and available” gives enormous discretionary powers to the board and leaves me extremely worried.

On the basis of the experience to date with the new policy on supplements enacted by the board about a year ago, I have reason to be worried. Perhaps I could give one example from my constituency association.

A young man named Gary was employed by a diamond-drilling company when he was injured in the early 1980s. He was unable to return to his job. In May 1988 he completed a two-year audio-visual program at Cambrian College, sponsored by the board’s vocational rehab department.

The logical, commonsense thing for the board to have done when Gary graduated would have been to give him a supplement while he looked for work in the field for which he was newly trained; but, no, that is too much common sense for the board. Instead, he became a victim of “deeming.”

On May 26 he got a letter from the board that reads as follows: “We have used information available from Statistics Canada and have determined that the average weekly wage for these positions” -- he had been trained, by the way, as an audio-visual technician -- “is $400. This has now been deemed to be your post-accident earning capacity. Your escalated pre-accident earning capacity is $504.63 weekly. The difference between these two figures when compared with your permanent disability award does not constitute an impairment of earning capacity which can be considered significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of your injury. Thus, your request for temporary supplement benefits beyond May 6, 1988, is denied.”

1650

Miss Martel: You are making it worse.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: The government is going to make it worse. What could be stupider? Surely to goodness, this person graduates newly from the program, he is trained in audio-visual, and instead of saying to that individual, “We’re going to give you supplementary benefits while you get out there and get a job in your field,” the government just cuts him off. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Miss Martel: Cheaper.

Mr. Laughren: It is absolutely cheaper, that is exactly right. I really do have to slap my head sometimes in disbelief when I see some of the letters workers get from the board. There was not even a job available for this young man, Gary, and the board cut him adrift. That is what they did. Let the minister tell me how that makes any sense at all. I am worried that we are going to see more of that kind of weaselry if the minister has his way with this bill.

Indeed, I would not put it above the board to say, with the acquiescence of this government -- and I hope the minister will listen to this -- that deeming shall take place six months after recovery from an injury, thus virtually eliminating the need for intervention by the voc rehab department. I can see it now. They will very tightly intervene and do their deeming process, which means it will be too late then for voc rehab to get involved.

Miss Martel: Cheaper.

Mr. Laughren: Much cheaper, and that is what we are really worried about with that section of the bill. I really do believe that in its ongoing crusade to save money, the board will say to the injured worker, “Here are two or three jobs we think you should be able to do; therefore you are not going to get supplementary benefits.” That is what they are going to say to the injured workers.

Miss Martel: They are doing it now in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Laughren: They are going to be in our offices and in other members’ offices. They are going to be at the Office of the Worker Adviser, they are going to be at the trade union offices, the legal clinics, saying, “What’s going on here under the deeming process?” There is experience now from Saskatchewan that it is how they deal with deeming there.

We are very much opposed to that. We are told by the government that a number of factors will be considered when the determination is made of just what constitutes suitable and available employment. Included are the personal and vocational characteristics of the worker, the actual earnings of the worker at the time of the determination, receipt of payments under the Canada pension plan and the prospects for successful medical and vocational rehabilitation.

That is what we are told. The most worrisome of the factors listed, if members look at clause 45a(3)(f), is that the board may also have regard to “such other factors as may be prescribed in the regulations.” Talk about trapdoors in this legislation. The regulations, of course, will be beyond the members of the assembly here. They will be established by cabinet. I do not want to see the board officials drafting regulations whose effect will be to restrict the number of workers who qualify for compensation because of wage loss.

I am really concerned that the minister is going to allow that to happen and I can see now who will draft the regulations. It will not be the minister and it will not be his parliamentary assistant, although they both have the capacity to do so. That is not who will be drafting the regulations. They will be sent down from 2 Bloor Street East, head office of the compensation board. That is who will be drafting the regulations. It is up to members on both sides of this House to insert in Bill 162 amendments which will ensure that injured workers will not be deemed in the manner I described for Gary, who graduated from the audio-visual course.

The wording of other parts of section 45a give me problems as well. We are told in subsection 45a(1) that compensation for future loss of earnings is open to “a worker who suffers injury resulting in permanent impairment or resulting in temporary disability for 12 continuous months.” The parliamentary assistant referred to that in her remarks, as a matter of fact.

Let me cite one example from my own constituency office as to why this wording needs to be changed. I want members to imagine this happening after the bill has been proclaimed. The injured worker, a woman from the community of Azilda in my constituency, developed a severe reaction to one of the chemicals in the workplace. When removed from the workplace, the reaction went away or at least subsided. How would such a person be treated under Bill 162? She would not be able to return to her job, because she would not have a disability for 12 consecutive months. It would seem to me she would be excluded from consideration for future loss of earnings. Where in the world is the justice in that system?

I see the minister shaking his head, but the way the bill is written, that is what could happen. We are very worried about that. Surely the minister should agree that anyone who, because of a work-related disablement, is unable to return to his pre-accident job should be entitled to compensation for loss of earnings. That is a very simple, very fundamental principle. If a worker cannot go back to his regular job because of a work-related injury, then there should be compensation for that. If the government does not establish that in a very clear statement of principle in the bill, the board will play games with it the way it plays games with so many other parts of the legislation.

I do not think that is a difficult concept. I think it is fair and would serve notice to the board that there are to be no games played. Perhaps an amendment can be made at an appropriate time that says that anyone who cannot return to the job he held prior to his accident will get compensation for wage loss because of the disablement. It is a simple statement of principle.

Subsection 45a(6) also gives rise to a number of questions, at least in my mind. Apparently, the loss-of-earnings benefit will be determined within one year after a WCB claim is filed and accepted by the board. If the injured worker has not sufficiently recovered from his or her injury and future earnings loss cannot be assessed, the period during which earnings loss is to be determined may be extended by six months. This appears to me to be nothing more than an attempt by this government to limit the amount of time a worker can be on total temporary or temporary partial benefits under section 40 of the act. If that is not the purpose, why is the minister doing it and why is that part of the bill?

It seems as though the minister does not understand the problem of injuries, which can often take a lot longer to heal; people’s injuries do not heal at the same rate, even the same injuries. I am worried that this section will be used by the board in a rather mean fashion as well. It seems to me it would make common sense that the calculation of compensation payable for earnings lost should be made either after actual recovery by the worker or after that worker’s ability has been established through a job or following rehabilitation. Once again, I think that is a simple statement of principle that should be made in the bill.

Last year in Manitoba, a review committee analysed the dual award system and recommended the following: “A prospective wage loss pension should be set as soon after the injury as possible, i.e., immediately after the following events have taken place” -- this is what is different -- “optimal recovery from injury, rehabilitation measures completed and either a job found which suits the impairment or a determination made that the worker is unfit for further employment.” That is a very clear statement.

Bill 162 seems obsessed with mandating all sorts of arbitrary time limits, whether for initial calculation of compensation for earnings lost or the periodic review of those calculations. Workplace injuries -- indeed, workers’ lives -- cannot and should not be put into categories which have no basis in reason. Think of the difference between that statement from the Manitoba review and what I quoted, what Bill 162 says. There is quite a difference in the way those things read.

Ultimately, it seems to me that what these provisions do is give the board an inordinate amount of control over workers’ lives. It is bad enough that their injury already dictates restrictions for them without a WCB employee with a stopwatch hovering over them to see whether their injury has healed, not medically but because of time. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I do not even see a quorum, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1701

The Deputy Speaker: There is a quorum present. The member may continue.

Mr. Laughren: I would like to turn to section 45, the noneconomic loss section of the bill. It was somewhat gratifying to see the government recognize that there are noneconomic losses which result from workplace injuries. The philosophical advance made in the adoption of subsection 45a(2) however, is more than tempered by the realities of how such losses will be calculated.

I guess it was just too much to ask that the meat chart be permanently assigned to the Archives of Ontario. We see it rear its ugly head once again in being used as a guidepost in determining noneconomic loss. As it now stands, the minister obviously does not place a very high value on noneconomic losses, things such as pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment and expectation of life.

Most injured workers will receive a small amount of money, less than $10,000. That makes the minister a miser. There can be no other explanation as to why today the minister is offering injured workers less than they were offered in the 1981 white paper on the Workers’ Compensation Act. That was a white paper brought out by the Conservative government and this government is offering less than even it offered. This is some reform-minded government we are dealing with here.

In sections 18 and 22 of the draft bill attached to that white paper, the noneconomic losses were to be determined as follows: A worker’s percentage of permanent impairment would first be multiplied by 250 per cent of the average industrial wage in Ontario. That sum would then be added to or subtracted from, based on an age adjustment factor of two per cent per year for each year of the age of the worker below or above the age of 40.

Incidentally, the Minister of Labour at the time of this more generous way of calculating noneconomic losses was Dr. Robert Elgie, the present chairman of the Workers’ Compensation Board in Ontario. Surely the current minister can do better than that. Let him use, as a guide, the damages obtained for nonpecuniary losses through the courts. Research shows the average for minor injuries in personal injury awards to be two to three times what the government proposes in Bill 162.

The government has taken a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, most injured workers’ reaction to its rather half-hearted attempt at compensating for noneconomic losses is to tell the minister to take a hike. They do not like it.

I am appealing to the minister now not to be so tight-fisted. Goodness knows, no one will be able to appeal an award under section 45 if Bill 162 is not changed. Sure, there are provisions for a worker to request a reconsideration within 90 days after medical assessment, but what I am referring to is the right to a real appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

I really was taken aback to read the provisions of subsection 45(15), which states that no application can be made to the appeals tribunal for a reconsideration of the amount awarded for noneconomic losses. This is not the only section in Bill 162 in which the appeals tribunal is snubbed by this minister. That is a very fundamental flaw in this bill.

I know the board does not like the appeals tribunal, I know the employers do not like it and I know the minister does not like it, but it is there and it is there for a reason. In Bill 162 I detect a concerted attempt by this government to muzzle the body which finally brought some humanity to the workers’ compensation system in Ontario. It is no secret that the employers are unhappy with the decisions that have been made by the appeals tribunal. The minister is attempting to mollify them somehow, by writing the tribunal out of the picture in cases like this, such as noneconomic loss.

While I am on the subject of the appeals tribunal, let me read one brief quote from the Workers’ Compensation Board 1987 Year-End Review and 1988 Agenda; that is this document. According to the document, “Decisions have to be reasoned and explicable to the board’s clients. They have to be based on a coherent body of policy and law and they must be subject to an open and credible appeal process, both internal and external.”

Does it embarrass the minister that even the compensation board that does not like the WCAT, despite all its quarrels about the tribunal, sees there to be a need for a continuing role for the appeals tribunal? Even the compensation board has gone further than he has. Yet here he is writing out the appeals tribunal in the act. It is as though he is saying that while there are certain things on which the workers can appeal to WCAT, there are other things that the board will decide. Why? Surely to goodness it should be able to be appealed to WCAT.

WCAT was set up because, at least in a layman’s view, there seemed to be an injustice in appeals going to the same body that was denying them in the first place. We said the compensation board should not be able to deny appeals when it made the original decision. I think it was a very progressive decision to establish the WCAT so that it was separate from the board and the board was not ruling on its own decisions. Now the minister is slipping back into that old mode where the board is going to make the final decision.

I do not know how he justifies that on the ground of common justice. He is establishing one set of rules for certain things in the act and another set of rules for other things in the act. It is as though he is saying that in one case they are not really rights for the workers; they are something that the board will decide.

I think it is viewed to be much more of a right if there is an appeal to WCAT. If there is not an appeal to WCAT, then it is more a case of -- and I will exaggerate to make the point -- “We are doing you a favour and we will decide internally. But because we are doing you a favour, of course, you cannot appeal it to WCAT.” That is the impression this part of the bill will give to injured workers. That is certainly how it strikes me. Heaven knows, the last thing I would want to do is refer things to the courts, but I really wonder whether something like that would even stand up in court. But, as I say, that is a layman’s view.

I would like to tell the minister what this party thinks about the dual award system in general. Basically, our position is contained in the suggestions we made in our dissenting report to the December 1983 report of the standing committee on resources development. This is a document which a great deal of effort went into by all sides of the House. We had a dissenting report and, as I recall, members of the Liberal caucus had a dissenting report as well. We may come back to that before I am through this afternoon.

The first part of our dual award system proposed that the worker receive a lifetime clinical-disability rating-related pension, fully indexed for inflation to compensate for nonoccupational losses. Our revised clinical rating system would assess functional impairment and place compensation for nonoccupational factors for the first time on a just and rational basis.

The second half of our proposal will be a lifetime pension to compensate for injured workers’ loss of earning capacity. This second lifetime indexed pension would deal with injured workers’ occupational losses. It would compensate not only for wage loss at the time of re-entry into the labour force, but also for the effect of the future earnings of permanently disabled workers.

1710

Leaving behind the question of payments to injured workers, let me deal with what I have long regarded as the poor cousin of the workers’ compensation system in Ontario, and that, of course, is the vocational rehabilitation department.

It has long been my contention that there would not be as great a need for vocational rehabilitation if the employers had a greater sense of responsibility towards those injured on the job. As a result, I would like to examine first the question of mandatory reinstatement. What I am really saying is that if the employers had a greater responsibility to injured workers, we would not need as much rehabilitation as we do now.

Perhaps nothing illustrates more clearly the government’s cynicism towards reform of the workers’ compensation system than what it proposes to add to section 54. It thinks it can placate injured workers and those who fight on their behalf by this, which is clearly a half-hearted attempt at giving injured workers the right of reinstatement. It really and truly is a half-hearted attempt.

Before I outline what section 54b does not do, let me provide the House with a glimpse of what the injured worker community would have liked to have seen as far as reinstatement rights are concerned.

An Injury to One is an Injury to All, the document that this government brought out, was done by Majesky and Minna, who did a superb job on problems of rehab services in the province. They heard from many injured workers who could not get back to their pre-injury jobs. According to the study:

“The research indicated that 35 per cent of the interviewed workers stated their former employers didn’t help at all; 18 per cent said they had been offered alternate jobs they couldn’t do. Only one in four of the injured workers were offered their old position back, a different one, or modified work.”

The recommendations of the task force should have been adopted by this government. Number 17 in here, if the minister wants some time to refer to it, states:

“That a worker who is injured at the workplace or contracts an occupational disease shall have the statutory right to return to the pre-injury job. Where the worker is no longer capable of performing that job, he or she shall have the right to another job in the same enterprise, respecting seniority rights.”

It is a very clear, very strong statement in defence of a worker’s statutory right for reinstatement, and without that statutory right, we are not going very far to improve the rehab system in the province.

The commitment of the minister to reinstatement is obviously only skin deep. Why else would he exclude approximately one quarter of Ontario’s workforce from the provisions of 54b?

We are told that workers engaged in the construction industry are not equal with other Ontario workers. We are told that workers in places with fewer than 20 employees are also not worthy of reinstatement rights and, of course, the minister can also exclude others if he so desires, and I can assure him that the lobbying will begin. If this bill passes in its present form, the lobbying will begin for other exclusions as well.

The omission of those two categories, construction workers and places of employment with fewer than 20 employees, is really flabbergasting when I think of the number of people that omits.

I would ask the Minister of Labour to have a chat with his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). He might ask him for a copy of his booklet, The State of Small Business; Annual Report on Small Business in Ontario, 1987.

According to that document, in 1984, the last year that apparently they could get statistics for, some 19 per cent of Ontario workers were employed by private sector firms with 20 or less employees. Add to that the fact that Statscan reported this past spring that 312,000 workers, six per cent of the labour force, worked in construction. That is where I get the 25 per cent: 19 and 6.

I submit that the minister had better sit down and ask himself how, in all good conscience, he could submit such a discriminatory bill for our consideration. He has left out one quarter of the Ontario workforce.

I understand there are problems associated with construction workers because of the nature of the industry. I am not saying there are not particular problems with them, but I think the minister has not done enough to work out those problems and get some form of reinstatement for them.

I worry that his people told him that it was just impossible because of all these reasons, and he went along with it, threw up his hands and excluded them, rather than --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Why don’t you explain what you understand to your leader, instead of making silly allegations?

Miss Martel: That does not mean we agree with you.

Mr. Laughren: I do not agree with the minister. I am saying that --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Your leader dominates question period with it.

Mr. Laughren: There would not even be a need for questions in question period if the minister would simply do something about including construction workers in this bill. I do not believe it is an insurmountable problem. All I said was that I think there are particular problems associated with construction workers. I concede that. But I do not think they are insurmountable and that the minister should just throw up his hands and say, “I guess we cannot do anything about that,” and exclude them, plus the employees where there are fewer than 20 at the workplace.

Not only are the exemptions not logical, but it seems to me they run counter to what is in the Human Rights Code. I do not know whether the minister was brought up to speed on the Human Rights Code vis-à-vis this part of the act, but section 4 of the code reads: “Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of... handicap.”

“Handicap” is defined in that legislation as “any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury.” More specifically, in the context of the debate we are having today -- this is from the code again -- “as an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

The Human Rights Code in section 16 goes so far as to require employers to reasonably accommodate a worker’s disability. Why is it that this government in the Human Rights Code does not exempt workers in the construction industry, yet finds it fit to do so in the Workers’ Compensation Act? The reason is obvious: You whisper the right words into the minister’s right ear and you get what you want.

I know the minister is shaking his head, but I do not understand how the Human Rights Code can say one thing -- it does not exclude construction workers, if I read it correctly. Yet this bill does. How does that make any sense at all? What is so special about the Workers’ Compensation Act, so precious about it that it cannot deal with workers in the construction industry? The Human Rights Code took a look at it and said they are not excluded.

I wonder if the minister was really truly properly briefed in that regard. I would ask the minister to reread the Majesky-Minna report, especially page 120, in which it is noted that: “The failure to return the injured worker to the pre-injury job must surely be expensive for the WCB and the employer. But the costs to the injured workers are far greater than only financial loss -- failure to return to pre-injury employment may result in years of frustrating job search, depression or even uprooting from the community. “

I can tell the minister that as someone who represents an area that is very sprawling with a lot of small communities and isolated communities, those are prophetic words. I have had cases where a unilingual francophone bush worker, at age 45, was told he was going to have to relocate because there was no suitable employment there. That is the kind of attitude that the board has had in the past.

The task force report, the Majesky-Minna report, in considering how best to protect the rights of injured workers, spent some time dwelling on the role that could be played by collective agreements, but concluded, and I quote once again: “A more appropriate vehicle would be a legislative and policy framework that clarifies worker rights and management responsibilities in this area.”

Surely this bill was the opportunity to do that. Yet Bill 162 has abdicated that responsibility to guarantee injured workers the rights of reinstatement. It was a wonderful opportunity for the worker, for the minister -- I almost called the minister a worker -- a wonderful opportunity for the minister to right some of those very fundamental wrongs in labour legislation in this province.

1720

We are calling upon the government to enshrine the right to a job in law. We made a presentation to this task force report, in which we said:

“Injured workers must be granted the statutory right to a place in the workforce. Accident employers must be legally required to rehire their injured employees. In those rare instances where this is impossible because of the severity of the disability, the onus must be on the employer to prove incompatibility. In such cases, the injured worker would be guaranteed an alternative suitable job, through the provision of vocational training, counselling and placement services by the Workers’ Compensation Board.”

That statement is very pro injured workers, very much so. It really says to an injured worker: “You will no longer be penalized in a job sense because you happen to have enough faith in the work ethic to go out there and work. You got hurt on the job doing what everybody agrees people should do in this world: work, contribute to the overall betterment of society.” They get work and then they are penalized financially, and in any other ways as well.

There was an opportunity here for this government to show that it is different from governments of the past and to bring in some really meaningful reform. In a case like this, they blew that opportunity. I really hope there is going to be room for an openness vis-à-vis amendments, but we will see as the bill goes out to committee and public hearings.

If the minister does not listen to me, he might try talking to members of his own party to see if they feel that the employer penalty provisions for refusing to comply with reinstatement are strong enough. According to subsection 54b(4), “The board may levy a penalty on the employer in the amount of 90 per cent of the worker’s net average earnings for the year preceding the injury.” That is from Bill 162.

In their dissenting report, the Liberal members on the standing committee on resources development -- that is this white-covered report that the minister may have encountered in his job -- in 1983 stated that “any such employer refusing re-employment should face increased assessment costs amounting to 100 per cent of any wage loss suffered by the injured employee, plus the cost of any fringe benefit loss.” Members can check it out. It is on page 93, as a matter of fact.

That recommendation was signed by the member for Huron (Mr. Riddell), the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) and the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye). If the now Minister of Agriculture and Food could sign that statement, the Minister of Labour should at least be able to meet it, if not improve upon it. All three of those members are now in the cabinet. Perhaps there is a message there. If the minister wants to stay in the cabinet, he had better start bringing in some progressive legislation. I would like to think that is the message, but I am not sure it is true.

That was the Liberal members, who looked at the whole question of reinstatement very carefully back in 1983. I do not know what has changed since then; certainly not the need. There is no less a need now for rehabilitation than there was then, yet now the minister is not even prepared to go that far. I think that is fundamentally wrong.

I would like to spend a few moments on vocational rehabilitation services in general. I find it necessary once again to chide the government for ignoring the Majesky-Minna report. That report was quite passionate about the need to increase and improve the level of rehabilitation services offered to injured workers. The testimony heard throughout the province provided compelling and evocative evidence that the WCB is failing in its obligations to injured workers. On page 46 of the report we are told:

“A number of things can be perceived readily. The WCB still has a pre-WWI mentality about the nature and goals of rehabilitation and is generations away from the concept of rehabilitation espoused in the 1980s. At least part of the blame for this attitude must be laid at the feet of a succession of provincial governments.”

I am sure the minister is quite happy to see that the Majesky-Minna report was blaming previous governments for failure to address the problem of rehabilitation properly, but then why does he not do something about it? He has no room to gloat if he is not going to change the errors of the past.

I do not hesitate to tell the minister that if Bill 162 is not strengthened, the complaints that we will hear in the future will almost certainly be laid at his feet. The complaints will not go away; the injured workers will not go away; we will not go away until there are very serious and very major improvements in this act.

To be sure, the minister, in his June 20 statement, used all the right rhetoric. To quote him, he declared: “We want to make sure that an injury at work does not mean permanent exile from the workplace. Under the old system, the opportunity for the injured worker to return to his or her job was, in many cases, a matter of chance. The new system will make it a matter of priority.”

Very good rhetoric. Certainly we needed more than the nine lines found in section 54 of this bill, but we did not need more empty language that does not make a commitment to the idea of the right to rehabilitation for all injured workers. The minister would have done well to adopt recommendation 13 of this task force, “That any worker who sustains a serious injury or debilitating disease linked to the workplace shall have the statutory right to all rehabilitation required by that worker.” That is another example of a statement of principle which, if it were built into this bill, would send a very clear message to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

I know the minister believes that before there can be any massive reform of the compensation system, we have to make the existing system work better. I have heard him say that. I understand why he feels that way. Before we do any major shakeup of the board, such as bringing in a universal system, which I will talk about in a moment, we have to make the present system work, get it working properly so that there is not a sense of anger out there year after year.

But when there was an opportunity to do that by stating certain principles as statutory rights in this bill, he fell short of doing it. I do not think he is going to make that system work without some of those statements of principle that give a clear message to the board that: “Look, don’t give us your arbitrary decision-making any more. These are the statutory rights of injured workers,” whether they are to do with pensions, rehabilitation or reinstatement. Unless those statements of principles are made, the board will find ways of weaseling. We have no reason to believe it will not, given history.

We have already told the minister that it is appalling that under section 54a, workers generally will be entitled to assistance for up to only 18 months from the date of their injury. The reason that this is so -- and this should be made perfectly clear to the injured workers out there -- is that section 54a only “applies in respect of a worker who receives benefits under section 40.”

How this minister can expect injured workers to derive any benefit from such services as upgrading, training and job search assistance within the time constraints imposed by section 54a is completely beyond my comprehension. The minister is being totally silly in expecting all injured workers to have recovered from their injuries and to derive a meaningful benefit from a rehabilitation program in the space of a year and a half. I would like to know where that 18-month figure came from. Who in the world gave it to the minister? How did he pick that one out of the air? Eighteen months is a ridiculous figure. I sure hope the minister is going to be open for an amendment there.

Let me read into the record an interesting quote, once again from the Majesky-Minna task force report, and let members judge for themselves whether the minister is being realistic. On page 53, we are told that, and I quote: “Statistics from VDR sources and task force interviews indicate that typical VDR clients do not, in fact, come into contact with VDR counsellors for some 18 months following the injury.”

Here we are restricting them to help within an 18-month period, but we are told in this government report that they do not even come into contact with the rehabilitation counsellor for 18 months. What kind of nonsense is that? What kind of rehabilitation assistance are they going to get from the board?

1730

They tell us that the first contact was made at 19 months, and the minister is saying that we want the whole process completed within 18 months. I smell a rat. The WCB’s record to date on retraining is a scandal. We quoted the statistics in the House before, but they bear repeating.

From 1980 to 1985 the number of referrals to the vocational rehabilitation department doubled from 5,700 to 11,000 -- round figures -- yet, amazingly, the number of training programs commenced during those years remained stable, from 2,246 to 2,654. So even though the referrals doubled, the number of programs stayed the same.

Is that a serious commitment to rehabilitation in a rapidly changing technological world out there? That tells me the board is making only a halfhearted effort at rehabilitation. Frankly, I have grown tired of all the number of times I have been told by injured workers that all the vocational rehabilitation department offered them was the yellow pages. They call it yellow pages rehab.

A worker says, “Well, what am I going to do now?” The counsellor says: “Here are the yellow pages. Go out and find something. “ What kind of rehabilitation is that? The difference, of course, is that now he has only 18 months to go through the yellow pages.

It really is not a serious commitment to rehabilitation when you tell a worker to look through the yellow pages. This government must insist that the compensation board get serious about the reintegration of injured workers back into the job market, and it is not doing it in Bill 162. As a result, taxpayers as a whole will continue to bear costs that should properly be borne by employers.

Perhaps I should explain that briefly. As long as the board does not carry out its obligations and a worker, instead of being rehabilitated, ends up on the welfare rolls, guess who picks up the tab? The taxpayers at large. If, on the other hand, that injured worker goes into a proper rehab program, the employers in the province collectively pick up the tab; and so they should, because it is a work-related problem. As long as you do not have proper rehabilitation and that worker ends up on the welfare rolls, the taxpayers are picking up something that should be paid for by the employers in the province.

We, on this side, have long advocated that there should be a comprehensive and holistic approach to rehabilitation. The board’s approach to rehabilitation should be one that addresses an injured worker’s physical, mental, social, vocational and economic needs.

Let me begin my closing remarks. They are rather extended closing remarks, but they are closing remarks.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to tease the bears in the rump.

Perhaps the most unwise comments that I have heard during this session were made by the Minister of Labour on Wednesday, October 19. Talking about the reforms contained in Bill 162, he stated:

“The government is moving them forward because today, 73 years after it came into existence, the worker compensation system is broken. There is no one among us, neither workers nor employers, who does not agree that this is true. There is a consensus in this province that the system needs repair. Bill 162 is a major step in getting that job done.”

That was the Minister of Labour speaking one week ago today, but surely the minister cannot be serious with that statement. It is broken all right, and he is fixing it with more broken parts. That is all he is doing. It is not working and the minister knows it. The minister took some pride in quoting supportive editorials from Ontario newspapers, but, with all due respect to members of the media, they are simply not aware of all the subtleties involved in workers’ compensation matters.

What matters is that the minister has injured workers trying to knock down his doors. What matters is that those of us already swamped with WCB cases in our constituency offices feel that this is a bad bill. The minister is going to have to go back to the drawing board on this one. A revenue-neutral bill will not come close to solving injured workers’ problems.

Bill 162 must not become law. The bill to reform the Workers’ Compensation Board Act does indeed reform it, but all the reform in the world will not transform a dinosaur into a deer. I can tell him that. The existing act and all that flows from it is a dinosaur and, like the dinosaur, it is going to collapse under its own weight.

Think about it. In order to compensate workers who get hurt on the job in Ontario, we have in this province the board office itself, of course, at 2 Bloor Street East. We have the regional and district offices throughout the province. We have the Downsview rehabilitation centre. We have the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. We have the Industrial Disease Standards Panel. We have the office of the employer adviser. We have the office of the worker adviser. We have all the community legal clinics out there. We have the members’ constituency offices. We have the trade union movement that is wrestling with it all the time.

We have all of these things and a $6-billion unfunded liability on top of that. Is it any wonder the employers are unhappy? They do not like the system. Injured workers are unhappy; they do not like the system. All in all, we have a system that has become unworkable.

What is the answer by succeeding governments? Change the chairman of the compensation board. We have had a succession of chairmen. They cannot fix it, because it is not fixable. No commissions or studies have been able to change it, because all previous studies that were done were based on the assumption that it could be fixed, that it was a model that needed fine-tuning.

That was fundamentally wrong, that assumption. I do not think we should be surprised. I do not think the minister should feel guilty or surprised that the system is not working. It is a 1915 model. I am not surprised it is no longer appropriate in the 1980s. It is obsolete. The present system is a model that cannot work efficiently, because it has become obsolete.

It is slow, it is adversarial, it is arbitrary, it is confusing and it is cruel. On top of all that, it is expensive. We need a universal plan, not the mind-numbing reform that is represented in Bill 162. This bill is garbage.

Mr. Black: Harsh words.

Mr. Laughren: I will repeat it for the member.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: I am not talking about the minister. The minister has brought forth his bill, as he is supposed to do. I did not say a bad thing about the minister. All I said was that this bill is garbage, and that is what it is.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: It is not. It is not an improvement on the present system. So why are we going through all this agony? I think members of the Liberal Party must know by now that I would not criticize without offering an alternative, a positive alternative, an exciting alternative. I would not just stand here in my place and criticize something the government was doing. I feel I have an obligation to say what should be done in order to make the system workable.

There is a plan that is workable and it is working right now in New Zealand. It is a universal accident compensation system. It covers everyone, regardless of where he is injured -- at work, at home, at play, in an automobile. It covers everyone.

It is not expensive. The total cost of administration of the New Zealand plan is about nine per cent. I will bet it is a lot less than the administration costs of the compensation board, which deals only with injured workers. The New Zealand plan covers everyone.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: it doesn’t cover industrial disease.

Mr. Laughren: No, it does not. It is not perfect. I am not suggesting that. The diseases are not built into that. I think they should be, and they are now wrestling with that problem. But this is the way the system works. The employers pay all the costs. If a worker gets hurt on the job, for the first week the employer pays the cost. I think it is 80 per cent. For the second week, the compensation system drops into place and that person gets compensated by the accident compensation corporation.

1740

No matter where an earner gets hurt, the employer pays for it. If an employee gets hurt at home, the employer pays that. If the employee gets hurt on the job, the employer pays the cost of the compensation. It is billed to the employer. The employers have a bigger responsibility in terms of cost because they pay the cost of compensating the injured worker regardless of where that injured worker is hurt, unless it is in a car. Then they pay through their licence. For people who are hurt in cars, that comes out of the auto drivers’ fund. They pay for that, just as we do, only they do it in a universal scheme. People who get hurt at home and are not earners, for example, a housewife or perhaps a student, are paid for out of general revenues of the country. The cost of the universal plan in New Zealand --

Mr. Miller: Is there a premium?

Mr. Laughren: No. No premium. General tax revenues.

Mr. Miller: Is it free?

Mr. Laughren: There is no free lunch, but the employers --

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: This party has never believed there is a free lunch. It is this government, that hands out $2.81 million to Inco in a year when it is making $500 million, that thinks there is a free lunch, not us. We are not the party that believes in the free lunch. It is the Liberals.

Mr. Miller: Have you ever been an employer?

Mr. Laughren: Certainly. I am now.

Mr. Miller: An employer?

Mr. Laughren: Yes. I am. I am, right now, an employer. The cost of the universal plan in New Zealand for employers -- keep in mind that in Ontario, the employers pay only for work-related injuries. That is the reason it is such an adversarial system. In New Zealand, the employers pay for the injured workers whether they get hurt on the job, at home or at play. The cost in New Zealand in 1987, the average assessment on employers was $2.33 per $100 of payroll. In Ontario, the assessment against the employers -- these are average figures now -- is $2.88 per $100 of employee payroll.

In New Zealand, because it is a universal plan -- it is not adversarial. They do not need all that weight that is in our present plan that I read through a few minutes ago -- a universal plan that covers earners no matter where they are injured and the cost to employers is $2.33 a $100 payroll. In Ontario, it is $2.88 for $100 of payroll with much less coverage for the injured workers.

I think it is time in this province that we had a serious look at a universal accident scheme. I must tell the members that it would require major reform. That would be the kind of reform that a reform-minded government could take some pride in. I would feel much better if I were standing here today debating the principles of a universal accident compensation system than I do debating amendments to a system that really cannot be fixed. I think that would be an exciting time in the history of Ontario, exciting as a package of social reform and of reform for the compensation system which the employers are not happy with.

Talk to any employers’ group in the province. They hate the compensation system. Talk to employees, the injured workers. They hate the system. Nobody likes the compensation system in this province. I am not suggesting for a moment that because I am standing in my place that we should automatically have a universal system in the province, but I do think it would be appropriate for this government to take, for the first time ever, a very serious look at a universal accident compensation system for the province of Ontario.

In New Zealand, they are even having a debate now along these lines. They are saying, “How is it possible that a person who is born with a disability and spends his life in a wheelchair, at the age of 20 that person is getting X dollars of support from the state,” and that person would not be covered under this system in New Zealand, “while at the same time someone who gets hurt on the job at the age of 20 and sits in a wheelchair for the rest of his life gets a totally different income?”

What the policy makers in New Zealand are arguing or discussing now is, where is the justice in that? Put aside for the moment the question of the compensation board and employers and all that. Just in terms of people who sit in a wheelchair, how does it make any sense to compensate one differently from the other? I think most members, if they would put aside the partisanship of the debate here for the moment and just think about that, would agree that it does not make sense to set up two classes of injured people.

The minister interjected quite appropriately a few minutes ago that the New Zealand plan does not include diseases. He is quite right, and they are right now having a major debate down there on the whole question of diseases under the plan. They know that whatever you do is going to cost money, but at least they are sensitive enough to be having the debate and saying there is something wrong with the system.

As a matter of fact, I was in New Zealand a couple of years ago and met with employer groups; I met with trade unions; I met with government people. I was surprised, quite frankly, when I met with the employers and asked them directly, “What do you think of the system?” They said, “Oh, we’ve got some problems with it, but we sure wouldn’t want to go back to the old system. “ They said that; and I was not down there selling it, I was there trying to learn information about it.

They of course say, “Oh, we don’t like the way the costs are going up” and so forth. That is perfectly understandable, but they would not go back to the old system and the old system is our system we have now. We are out of date.

It would be very nice if the Minister of Labour could at some point in his career be able to look back --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Give me a year or two.

Mr. Laughren: Yes. I do not expect it this year.

The Minister of Labour, when the shouting of this place has subsided and he has his grandchildren on his knee, could say to them, “You know that system of accident compensation; I was in place when we introduced that,” or “I was in place when we had a major royal commission on the possibility of that system.” That would be a feather in anyone’s cap to have been a part of that.

One cannot prejudge what would be in any such royal commission report, but at least it would be good to have it. I was absolutely amazed a couple of years ago when the Ontario Mining Association said, “We like that idea of a royal commission into our universal system.” They may have different reasons for wanting that than I do, but at least they recognize that the present system is not working.

What I propose is not complicated, it is not expensive and it is humane and logical. Thank you, I have enjoyed the debate this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will begin by saying that I enjoyed listening to the member for Nickel Belt. I particularly enjoyed his comments on a universal disability system.

I just do want to take a moment or two, though, to address some of the questions he has raised in his analysis of the bill. Obviously, I disagree with much of that analysis.

He talked about the re-employment provisions within the bill. I want to tell him that I think one of the major progressive measures in Bill 162 is that we have started, in a statutory way, to address the issue of re-employment. In a sense, I concede to him that over the next few years this is going to be one of the developing areas of the law as we start down that road, but the thing that is exciting in Bill 162 is the concept is finally ceded within the statute and reorients that system in that way.

I want also to address his comments on vocational rehabilitation, because it did come up in question period as well. There was a suggestion in question period and in the remarks of the member for Nickel Belt that somehow vocational rehabilitation is going to be limited to 18 months. If there is that impression in the current wording of the statute, then we have some wordsmithing to do.

The clear intention of the bill is that vocational rehabilitation be available on an ongoing basis. I want to take up and re-examine, by reading Hansard, the comments of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) because a misimpression has been created. There is no intention to restrict vocational rehabilitation for an injured worker to a period of 18 months.

1750

Miss Martel: In terms of the last comments made by the minister on vocational rehabilitation, while he is taking that up and looking at the question of 18 months, which I also raised with him, perhaps he should also look at the time limits in section 4. Now, for the first time ever, we see time limits on assistance offered to workers who are looking for employment. He should make some changes there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the members for their assistance. I was listening carefully and I know the member will contain her remarks to make comments on what the member for Nickel Belt said.

Miss Martel: In view of what the member for Nickel Belt said on vocational rehabilitation, let me continue and say that while there is a process of review going on, and the minister has admitted to that, I think what the member said today is that there is a real problem with vocational rehabilitation that we all see on this side of the House.

Nothing in the bill guarantees a statutory right to have vocational rehabilitation to injured workers who are suffering from a serious injury. We go back to the Majesky-Minna report, which stated that every worker who was off after 30 days of the date of accident had a right to total rehabilitation. That appears nowhere in this bill. Rehabilitation is offered at the discretion of the board. I state to the minister again, when things are left to the discretion of the board, he can be assured they will not happen.

The second problem we see with this is a question of early intervention, which we are worried about because even though the board is supposed to look at injured workers 45 days after the date of accident, there is no guarantee that vocational rehabilitation assistance will be offered. Even after the six months’ vocational assessment, again there is no guarantee on the part of the board to provide vocational rehabilitation.

The minister has got to admit that in comparison with the Majesky-Minna task force, rehabilitation as it appears in this bill is a farce. He has to look at it again. That is one of the major points my colleague mentioned. I hope that when there is a reassessment of this bill, that is taken into consideration.

Mr. Pouliot: While the distinguished member for Sudbury East was speaking from the heart, we were able to notice at first hand what a shameful and disturbing performance, and I am appalled and shocked --

Interjections.

Mr. Pouliot: We are talking about a very serious matter that was raised by our good friend the member for Nickel Belt, sounding indeed like an injured worker himself.

He took us step by step, presenting the House with a very vivid approach, indicating in a period of time lasting more than an hour that the bill was flawed in his opinion; a bill that proposes, when all is said and done, what the minister calls revenue-neutral. In other words, the bottom line does not change. With great fanfare, he talks about the re-employment provision, which is only a half measure. The minister should realize that unless the fundamentals are addressed when we are talking about workers’ compensation, his very colleagues will be the first to ask him to carry the guilt very shortly.

This bill does not even begin to address what is wrong in terms of fair, consistent, continuous compensation for people who have suffered injury. The vision of my friend the member for Nickel Belt proposed a workable measure, saying to the minister, “You have the opportunity to go one step further and introduce a sort of guarantee” --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Are there any other members with any comments or questions regarding the comments made by the member for Nickel Belt? If not the member for Nickel Belt may wish to respond for up to two minutes.

Mr. Laughren: It is always good to be reminded by your colleagues of what you were just talking about. I appreciate their comments.

I would say to the minister that in my remarks I referred to the rehabilitation system as the poor cousin in the workers’ compensation system. I have always felt that was the case. It would be very nice if we had a Minister of Labour who would regard the rehab process as his pet project and try to do something about rehab.

There is no model out there in the private sector that deals with rehabilitation. The insurance companies are nowhere to be seen when it comes to rehab, so we have to build our own model, what we regard as an excellent model, through the compensation system. We can have any kind of insurance policy we like and we will not have a good rehab system built into that insurance policy; they simply do not exist. That is why I think the workers’ compensation rehab system has staggered along year after year and just simply has not done the job.

I can remember, years ago, meeting with workers up in far northwestern Ontario where they did not know there was rehabilitation; they did not know it was available to them. We have come some way since then, of course, but we have a long way to go yet. I hope that when the minister is thinking about amendments, and I am sure a bill this complex is going to require some government amendments as well, he will think seriously about and build into this bill some of the suggestions that have been made vis-à-vis rehabilitation and reinstatement in particular, because I think they would go a long way to making this a better system for injured workers in the province.

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

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

26 octobre 1988