Journal des débats 1989-juil-10 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Farnan: On 10 June, the doors at Savage Shoes Ltd in Cambridge were closed forever and the locks were changed. Without any notice or warning, the company went into receivership, leaving more than 60 people in the lurch.

They are the workers, people who are still owed their last week’s wages, vacation and severance pay, people who have worked there for more than a decade but do not know when or if they will receive their money. The receiver will not disclose any information about the financial picture or even discuss the security of the workers’ pensions. Once again, the working people of this province are left holding the bag while the government, through loose bankruptcy legislation, protects the interests of wealthy creditors.

The workers of Savage and Ontario deserve better than this. They deserve legislation that would make sure employees are paid everything they are owed when a company goes into receivership. This can be achieved only by passing legislation that would recognize workers as the first creditors to be compensated in the event of a bankruptcy. Workers deserve no less.

Many of the employees of Savage Shoes have given a lifetime of service. All they want is what is rightfully theirs and what indeed should be legally theirs.

LEARNING MATERIALS

Mr Jackson: Today Bill 5, an act to make heritage-language programs mandatory, will be given third reading, and royal assent by the end of the week.

I think it is worthy of note that the Ministry of Education has allocated $12.8 million for the development and strengthening of these third-language instructional programs. However, what we have not heard from the Minister of Education (Mr Ward) is that he sent to all school boards in Ontario, on 20 March of this year, memorandum 109, which indicates that the learning materials development branch and a program of his government will not operate in 1989 and in subsequent years.

This program provides for learning materials in the English language. It does so for funding new textbooks for evolving subjects such as environmental studies, technological studies and science, but clearly, these may not be developed with the same kind of commitment they have enjoyed from previous governments in the past.

They have allowed French-language support programs, however, to continue. It is with regret that we must note that the Liberal government and the Minister of Education are placing third-language instruction ahead of the needs of English-language core curriculum and support services for those students.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr Polsinelli: The rise in the use of illegal drugs is a very serious problem with many communities in our province. This is a crisis which touches all of our lives in some way or another.

I wish to inform members of the outstanding efforts of people in my community coming together to try to deal with this terrible tragedy affecting our young people. In my riding of Yorkview, a family drug forum was organized by the Neighbourhood Watch network. The forum invited parents and children to discuss with a broad cross-section of representatives from community service organizations, the Metropolitan Toronto Police force and the various levels of government, ways in which the community can establish a co-ordinated effort on this issue.

Over 100 families participated in the program, which included displays and a puppet show performed by the Kids on the Block, an organization which presents the issue simply to children, teaching them that drugs are really not the in thing to do. As well, the panellists helped all the adults become better versed in the roles and responsibilities we all have towards solving this problem.

Our recent throne speech and budget have shown the government is prepared to meet this issue head-on. As a result of the recommendations made by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr Black) in his excellent report on illegal drugs, an additional $37 million has been allocated over the next two years to this problem. The money will be used to provide for a wide range of activities including community-based drug treatment, a mandatory drug education program for grades 4 to 10 in Ontario schools and increased law enforcement capabilities.

I would like to commend the organizers of the Yorkview community forum, specifically Jim Brock, whose hard work and dedication have helped bring us one step closer towards the realization of the goal of a drug-free society.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Mackenzie: What is happening to workers in Ontario? Why has this Liberal government decided that it is open season on workers?

On 6 July an injunction was issued to restrict legal picketing by the 95 members of the Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild who are employed as inserters at the Hamilton Spectator. These women are making $7 an hour in part-time jobs with no benefits and have up to 20 years’ service.

They are in a legitimate strike for basic fairness around the issue of pay equity. Pay equity is not very high on the agenda of the Spectator and its editor, Gordon Bullock. Obviously, with the renewed freedom with which injunctions against workers are handed out, it is also not very high on the agenda of the Liberal government.

What is even more disturbing are the comments of Sergeant Bayne Henderson, the so-called labour liaison officer of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police, who, in an affidavit supporting the injunction, stated: “I decided it was impossible to control the picket line. The situation has escalated. There was a fear of injury and the rest of the city was in peril.”

By most labour standards, the efforts of the 95 women and any supporters on the line were a Sunday school picnic compared to many labour confrontations. I am surprised he did not call for tanks, machine-guns or the War Measures Act. Has this government retreated to yesterday in terms of labour relations? Are injunctions once again to be an automatic order of the day? Is it not just massive corruption but also simple deterioration of the brain from which this government seems to be suffering?

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

Mr Sterling: In my absence last Thursday, the member for Nepean (Mr Daigeler) took it upon himself to ask a question with regard to a pamphlet which I have put out in relation to amendments to the Trespass to Property Act.

I want to make it clear to every member of the Legislature that the amendments not only affect shopping malls, which has been the popular belief of most of the press, but also affect our public libraries, our recreation grounds, our retail stores, our hotel lobbies and any other area into which the public is normally invited. This bill takes away all the discretion in the hands of the people who are in control of those premises to exclude people whom they do not want in those particular areas.

What this means is that if a small retail store proprietor notices three or four young people gathering in the back corner, he has no right to ask them to leave, because they have done nothing to contravene a rule which he has posted or given them notice of. This is the problem with Bill 149 as it now stands. That is why business in general is rising up against this bad piece of legislation. The bill goes much too far. It takes in a wide range of different areas, including shopping malls, which it originally was intended to address.

1340

ESSAY CONTEST

Mr Owen: Following my election in 1987, I initiated an essay contest for grade 7 and grade 8 students in my riding of Simcoe Centre. The purpose of this contest is to heighten the awareness of these students to the long and colourful history of Simcoe county. The essays are to describe locations, persons or events of historical significance. A cash prize and a visit to the Legislature, accompanied by their parents, are awarded to the winners.

Last year’s winner was Julie Ford of Forest Hill School in Midhurst. Her essay was about the Midhurst pioneer cemetery. Julie is a great-granddaughter of Ernest Charles Drury, Ontario Premier from 1919 to 1923 and head of the United Farmers of Ontario. His father, of course, was the first Minister of Agriculture 101 years ago.

This year’s winner is Megan Gariepy, a grade 7 student at St Marys school in Barrie. Her essay, entitled The Place to Go, is a wonderful story that describes the historic Grand Trunk Railway station in Allandale at the south end of Barrie. We hope the station will be successfully and well restored in the near future.

I would like to extend my congratulations to Megan on a competition well done, and I would like to thank all of the students who made an effort to participate and the teachers who took the time to act as judges of the competition.

Megan Gariepy is here today in the members’ gallery with her parents, Steve and Lynn, and her brother, Michael, and I congratulate them.

HAROLD WILLIAM WALKER

Mr Kormos: I wish to pay tribute to Harold William Walker of Welland. Mr Walker passed away last week on Thursday at the Welland County General Hospital. Although born in England, Harold Walker came to Canada as a young child and lived all of his life in the city of Welland.

Mr Walker became active in public service when he was elected a Welland city councillor in 1942. He then served as mayor of the city of Welland from 1946 to 1947. In 1948, Harold Walker was elected to this Legislative Assembly, where he served as a member of the opposition during that Parliament.

Mr Walker’s reputation was that of a straight shooter, someone who did not mince words and who called it the way he saw it. When one reviews Hansards of that Parliament, one reads of Harold Walker’s arguments for improved benefits for injured workers and of his support for a nurses’ association -- an association, in his words, like that of any other labour or professional group.

Mr Walker, 40 years ago, recognized the great tourist potential of the Welland riding --

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired. I am sorry to have to cut the member off, but the standing orders do have an allotted time. That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

Mr Reycraft: On that point, Mr Speaker. I was advised earlier by the whip for the official opposition that there would be unanimous consent requested this morning so that all parties could comment on the passing of Mr Walker. Perhaps if we could get consent now, the member for Welland-Thorold could complete his statement and the other two parties would be allowed to make some comments as well.

The Speaker: Is the request for unanimous consent agreed to?

Agreed to.

The Speaker: Does the member have any further comments?

Mr Kormos: As I indicated, Mr Walker passed away last week on Thursday 6 July at the Welland County General Hospital. Although he was born in England, he came to Canada as a young child, living all of his life in the city of Welland.

He became active in public service when he was elected a Welland city councillor in 1942. He then served as mayor of the city of Welland from 1946 to 1947. In 1948, Harold Walker was elected to this Legislative Assembly, where he served as a member of the opposition during that Parliament.

His reputation was that of a straight shooter, someone who did not mince words and who called it the way he saw it. When one reviews Hansards of that Parliament, one reads of Mr Walker’s arguments for improved benefits for injured workers and of his support for a nurses’ association -- an association, in his words, like any other labour or professional group.

Mr Walker, 40 years ago, recognized the great tourist potential of the Welland riding and spoke of the large numbers of persons with millions of dollars who travelled through Welland riding, which Mr Walker called the gateway to tourists to this province.

From 1956 to 1970, Mr Walker continued his contribution to his community with his service on the local hydro commission. For several years, he served as its chairman. He served on the board of the Welland County General Hospital and he was active as a member and president of the Welland Optimist Club.

Throughout his impressive life of community activity, Mr Walker actively participated in the highly successful family business, Walker Brothers Roofers. His public contribution earned him the respect and trust and affection of his community.

I know that all of this House will join me in expressing our sincere condolences to Mr Walker’s wife, Margaret, and to his children, Dr W. J. Walker. Donald Walker, Mary Wilson and Muriel McGarry.

Mr Brandt: I want to join with the member for Welland-Thorold in offering my condolences as well to the Walker family on the passing of Harold Walker, a gentleman who served at two levels of government, as an alderman for many years, as my colleague pointed out in his remarks, and also as the distinguished mayor of Welland, and then in this House to serve for some three years, from 1948 to 1951.

His passing at the age of 82 will be felt by many who knew this particular gentleman as one who was a very honest, straightforward politician who I believe could be exemplified by the phrase “a servant of the people.” He served his people well for a number of years, not only in the world of politics but also as a member of a service club where he performed ably as a contributing member of the Optimist organization.

On behalf of my party, I want to express my condolences to all of the members of the Walker family and wish them well in this time of mourning.

Mr Dietsch: It is with mixed emotions that I rise on behalf of the government and join with my colleagues from the opposition and the third party in paying tribute to Harold William Walker.

I think it has been said that Joe, as he was affectionately known, served his community well, not only with his community service through a number of service organizations such as those that have been listed by my colleagues, the Optimist Club and others, but always paid particular tribute to his community in the service he gave to the municipal government, the service he gave to his mayor’s position and also as a member of this Legislature. All my colleagues join with me in recognizing that Joe gave unselfishly of himself so that the constituents in the Welland area would be better represented.

It is with those few words that I join with my colleagues in wishing his family -- his wife, Margaret, and their two daughters and two sons -- our best wishes at this very difficult time they are going through.

It is noteworthy to recognize that even in his passing, he continues to serve his community by wishing that memorial donations be made to the Welland hospital. I think that speaks well of the type of service that Harold William Walker put forward for the area that he represented so well.

I can say that he will be sadly missed by all those who knew him, and certainly I join with all those in this House in offering our condolences to his family at this time.

The Speaker: I am sorry; I was not informed that there was going to be unanimous consent and I apologize to the member for interrupting his remarks. As usual, on behalf of all members, when Hansard is printed, I will make certain that the Walker family receives a copy and your words of sympathy.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Hon Mr Wong: I am pleased to announce that the first regulations under the Energy Efficiency Act have been passed. These regulations establish minimum efficiency levels for six electrical appliance groups. They apply to ranges, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, ground-source heat pumps and water heaters.

As many members will recall, in the November 1987 speech from the throne this government made a commitment to encourage greater energy efficiency and conservation in Ontario. The Energy Efficiency Act, which passed unanimously in this House, represents one important way the government is fulfilling that commitment.

These regulations, and those that follow, will ensure that Ontario consumers have access to energy-efficient appliances which will, in the long term, reduce their energy bills.

This act and these regulations are an important component of this government’s energy demand management policy. It is a policy which will provide significant benefits to the people of Ontario. For example: it will help reduce the negative impact energy use can have on our environment; reduce our provincial energy bill and free up money for more important initiatives, like health care and education; help reduce individual energy bills and thus increase consumer spending power, and by using less energy to produce our goods and services, we increase our industrial competitiveness.

The performance standards for these regulations were developed with the help of many industry and consumer groups. As well, these standards comply with those already set by the Canadian Standards Association. For water heaters the regulations come into effect on 1 October of this year. The other five appliances must comply by 1 January 1990. The energy savings achieved once the regulations become mandatory will be considerable.

For example, water heaters built to comply with the new standards will use 20 per cent less electricity to keep water hot than water heaters sold today. This will result in savings of 35 million kilowatt-hours for the province next year. The annual saving in the year 2000 will be 180 million kilowatt-hours. That would be worth $9 million at today’s electricity prices.

Performance standards are now under development for refrigerators, freezers and gas boilers and should be ready by the fall. Standards for other appliances will follow in 1990.

As I have said many times before in this House, demand management through conservation and energy efficiency is one of my top priorities. It is the cornerstone of this government’s energy policy.

I am therefore very proud of this legislation. It is the first of its kind in Canada and establishes Ontario as a leader in the area of energy efficiency and conservation.

It will provide permanent structural improvements in the way we use energy in this province. As such, it is another significant step on the road to ensuring a secure energy future for Ontario.

RED MEAT INDUSTRY

Hon Mr Riddell: As members of the House may recall, I made a commitment earlier this year to this province’s beef industry that I would introduce a new initiative to assist red meat producers in Ontario

This commitment came in response to another recommendation put forward in the Beef Marketing Task Force Report. The task force was made up of members of the beef industry who last year released recommendations for improving their industry.

This commitment was confirmed in the recent budget of the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon), where $55 million was promised for a new red meat producer program. Today I am pleased to announce details of this program, called Red Meat II. Red Meat II will enhance and encourage the continued implementation of techniques initiated by the earlier red meat plan.

Key new components to Red Meat II are the inclusion of meat goats in the program, a product quality assurance program supported by laboratory analysis, additional inspections and a farm business management association and analysis program.

Other program components of Red Meat II include an increase in research funding to $6.5 million over five years, enhanced technological transfer in preventive herd and flock health programs, nutrition programs and genetic evaluation programs.

Red Meat II is designed to assist up to 25,000 Ontario red meat producers to meet the challenges of changing global market forces and to continue providing products that meet changing consumer tastes.

Red Meat II was developed in consultation with representatives of the beef, sheep and meat goat industries and their organizations. Producers will continue to be involved in developing program details through producer advisory committees. I will be announcing the members of the committees in the near future.

I am pleased that we could respond to the needs of this sector of the agriculture and food industry which contributed some $1.1 billion in farm cash receipts to our economy in 1987. Red Meat II represents my ministry’s and this government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring the continued competitiveness of our agriculture and food industry.

RESPONSES

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Mr Charlton: I would like to take a few moments to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mr Wong) this afternoon on the first regulations out of the Energy Efficiency Act.

On the one hand, I think we are happy to finally see some of the regulations in this act that we passed over a year ago. On the other hand, the indications in the minister’s statement this afternoon do not make us totally happy.

First of all, it is important to notice that the limited list of household appliances for which we are now seeing standards is the list that works from the bottom end of the potential towards the top instead of starting with those appliances where we can see the most energy savings fairly quickly.

Second, by the fact that although the minister has not provided us with all of the standards here in his statement but the fact that these standards are going into effect so quickly, the indication is very clear, especially with the example the minister provided us with on hot water heaters, that on the one hand we have opted for improved efficiency and, on the other hand, we have opted for far less than the technical potential that already exists out there in the real world and is well proven.

In effect, we are selling the people of Ontario short in terms of energy efficiency in the short run and as well we are ignoring what the select committee tried to say as clearly as it could to the minister. The major jurisdiction to the south of us, the United States, is implementing federal efficiency standards that will cover all of the United States and, therefore, cover as well most of the companies that have subsidiary plants here in Ontario and Canada that build the appliances here.

As the select committee tried to recommend to the minister, we should be ensuring that our standards are at least equal to those south of the border that we will be in competition with, or we will put our appliance industry in the future in serious jeopardy, even if it is now lobbying against moving too quickly. When the American standards come into effect in 1994, our industry will be left so far behind that many of our fears around free trade questions will be fears that become realities here in Ontario because we are opting for less of a standard than what we should be.

RED MEAT INDUSTRY

Mr Wildman: If I did not know better, I would think the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) has become too enamoured with Hollywood’s penchant for sequels. We have had Rocky II; perhaps this is Porky’s Revenge.

With Red Meat II the minister has not even come up with a new program. Essentially what he is announcing is the inclusion of meat goats and the additional funding, but in essence he is really announcing that he is going to appoint the advisory committees. I suppose with the concentration on scientific effort this might be Star Trek IV.

The campaign on red meat, when the red meat vote was going to take place, identified a number of major problems in beef marketing. There were significant differences of opinion among beef producers as to how those problems should be met and, of course, with the vote there was a significant majority deciding not to opt for anything that might lead to a supply management program in Ontario and across Canada.

That did not mean that the producers who voted that way said there were no problems. There are significant problems in beef marketing, particularly in Ontario, and I hope that the minister’s advisory committees will be able to come up with some proposals that the majority of producers can agree upon for improving the marketing of beef, to ensure that beef producers in this province, as well as other red meat producers, not only have their costs of production covered when they go to market but indeed get a fair return on their labour and investment.

1400

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Mr Cureatz: I would like to respond also to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mr Wong). Of course, now that I see that the Premier (Mr Peterson), the leader of the official opposition and my own leader are here, on behalf of all the backbenchers in all the parties, we are so pleased to be here on this lovely summer’s afternoon. I only wish the three of them could get together and discuss some aspects of how the assembly should be run.

I say to the Minister of Energy, it is an interesting statement. I do not know if it particularly warrants a statement to come and tell us and all the people of Ontario that he is bringing forward the regulations. Be as it may, he has brought it forward. Let’s take a look at what he has to say.

I think it is worthwhile. All of us here are in favour of conservation. Indeed, my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr Charlton) from the New Democratic Party, certainly in the number of years he has sat on the various select committees on energy, has led the forefront in terms of stressing, to our party when we were in power and now to this present administration, the concerns all of us have about energy conservation.

I want to tell the members that, as they have been following some of my questions through the last dying weeks of this Legislature -- we hope -- there is an overall concern about energy conservation. I think that the government’s targets for energy conservation are far too ambitious. This is at least a small show, an attempt to indicate that, “Yes, we are trying to conserve our electrical energy.”

But as the minister well knows and will be seeing shortly, I am sure, from the demand-supply options study that will be coming forward this fall from Ontario Hydro, as he has been telling us continually, we are going to be needing another major electrical supply plant of some sort somewhere in Ontario.

We all know the length of time that one of those takes to be built. I can think of Darlington in my own riding of Durham East. It started when I was first elected, late in 1977, and the first unit is only coming on stream in another two or three months. That is the kind of time length we have to talk about.

When the minister is going to be looking and projecting into the future, in terms of what we will be needing for electrical consumption in the province, he does not have it there. I have been telling him that this government is going to have to make a very major decision. I know that they are trying to postpone it until the next election, because if memory serves me correctly --

Mr Ballinger: Sam’s got a crystal ball.

Mr Cureatz: Well, I am glad we have got a few backbench Liberals waking up, finally. I know it is hot outside; well, it is going to get hotter in here, I think, before we finally finish.

I say to the Minister of Energy that he is trying to postpone this and he is not going to get away with it, because we are going to be having brownouts before the next election and he is going to be held responsible. These kinds of initiatives are only a small token of what is going to have to be taking place in his administration before the next election.

RED MEAT INDUSTRY

Mr Sterling: I want to respond briefly to the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) on the red meat plan. We have been waiting since 31 March of this year to find out what the replacement would be for the five-year red meat plan which was put in place by the former government.

Many of the producers in my area and in eastern Ontario were extremely concerned when this government particularly failed to continue the monetary mechanism in order to keep the quality of breeding up in the beef herds in eastern Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sterling: The announcement itself is very brief and scant in detail as to what in fact the research funding will be used for. In talking to members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in my riding not two weeks ago, they outlined their concern about a lack of a red meat program and a lack of funding by this government, not only in the red meat sector but in other areas; for instance, in the property tax rebate program.

The red meat industry in our province is in trouble. That was recognized last summer by the beef packers and was brought to this government’s attention. I think it is encouraging that they are now taking some action, albeit late, and we look forward to seeing the details of this program and hope that they will follow in some of the footsteps and successes that we had in the former five-year meat program put in by the former government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INVESTIGATION OF HOUSING MINISTRY OFFICIAL

Mr B. Rae: I would like to start today with some questions to the Minister of Housing. The public was informed on Friday by a newspaper, not by the minister or by the ministry, that Mr Goetz-Gadon, who had been the minister’s executive assistant as well as that of her predecessor, the member for Scarborough North (Mr Curling), had been suspended. But he was not suspended last Friday; he had been suspended for over a week.

I wonder if the minister can explain how it would be possible that a senior policy adviser to the Ministry of Housing would be suspended for a week without the public or the Legislature being informed.

Hon Ms Hošek: I am very glad to be able to answer the question for the member.

On 29 June, I was advised of some allegations about this individual and launched an internal investigation. On 30 June, this individual was suspended. My deputy then consulted with lawyers at the Ministry of the Attorney General and also with legal counsel and legal counsel with Mr Goetz-Gadon and his counsel.

The allegations were determined to be not frivolous, as Mr Brown from the Attorney General’s ministry has said. We were advised by the Attorney General (Mr Scott) that the matter should be turned over to the police and we felt it was appropriate at that time to issue a public statement.

Let me say to the member opposite, and I assume he knows this, that under normal circumstances when there is an investigation of this sort and a suspension of this sort, it is not made public. We decided it was important to make it public in these circumstances because of the rumours and allegations that fly about various matters, and I believe we did the right thing.

Mr B. Rae: If I may say so very directly to the minister, what she has said is nonsensical. If there is a police investigation of a senior employee of the government of this province, is the minister suggesting for a moment that the public is not entitled to be told that there is such an investigation and that an employee has been suspended?

A suspension of an employee is a public act by this government. It is not some private decision by the minister, some deal between the minister and the employee. It is something which is determined as a public act.

I want to ask the minister again, why did it take her eight days and the fact that the information became public and went to the Toronto Star before her ministry even issued any kind of a statement as to why Mr Goetz-Gadon had been suspended?

Hon Ms Hošek: Let me make it clearer. This is a very serious matter and I am interested in sharing this information as fully as I can. As I said, the allegations were investigated for a number of days. When we were advised by the Attorney General’s office that the matter should be turned over to the police, we also issued a public statement so that it would be apparent to everyone what we had done.

Let me also say to the member opposite, and I am sure he is concerned about this matter, it is important to respect the basic civil rights of any employee in this province. If we had not acted to protect the employment rights of the individual in question, I am absolutely certain that the Leader of the Opposition would be standing in this House right now denouncing me for not protecting the employment rights of the individual in question.

Allegations have been made. A full investigation is under way. When the results of that investigation are complete, appropriate action will be taken.

1410

Mr B. Rae: The minister decided on 30 June to suspend Mr Goetz-Gadon. That is a fact. One does not suspend an employee on frivolous grounds; one suspends an employee for reasons. One has to give the employee reasons for suspending him or her. This is well before the police investigation.

Is the minister now in a position to tell us the nature of the allegations that have been brought against Mr Goetz-Gadon?

Hon Ms Hošek: There are two things that we had to do here. One was to protect the public trust and the other was to protect the legal rights of the employee. All the allegations will be fully investigated.

Mr D. S. Cooke: You won’t even tell us what they are investigating. It looks like there are lots of barriers.

Hon Ms Hošek: He is asking questions from both sides of his mouth, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and I am trying to answer them.

The allegations are being investigated. When the results of those investigations are available, we will follow an appropriate course of action. I have been advised by the Attorney General’s office that it is not appropriate for me to comment any further until those investigations are completed.

Mr B. Rae: It is interesting that the Premier’s own conduct with regard to many of the minister’s colleagues is completely different from --

The Speaker: Thank you. You have a question to which minister?

ENVACC RESOURCES INC

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. The Premier has told us in the House that, when he met with Envacc Resources Inc, he did not realize that Mr Muzzo had appeared before the Waisberg inquiry back some 15 years before and had been quoted as saying that the only time bribery worried him was when it did not work -- the testimony before the commission. The Premier stated he had no idea that Mr Muzzo was involved in the purchase of his family’s company.

Since the Premier did not have any idea about either of those things, according to his statements in this House, I wonder if can he tell us whether he had any idea at that time as to how lucrative the contract would be between whoever was disposing of Metropolitan Toronto’s garbage, the garbage of the greater Toronto area, and the public of Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: Can I just be as fair as I possibly can be, because I understand the charges that are being made, many of them unfair, and my friend I think has made many that are factually incorrect. There is no contract between anybody on the disposition of garbage. Why does he not stand up and say it? He would try to give the impression that there is a contract. Surely, as a member of the bar and someone who has more integrity in this House, he would want to stand up and say that he understands that no contract has been given by the GTA, the regions or anybody else, to any waste disposal group. Why does he not exercise some responsibility for a change?

Mr B. Rae: If the Premier wants to pretend that a contract is not being planned and that there is not something in the works, then I would suggest that he is living in a different universe from the one occupied by most decision-makers in this province.

According to the minutes taken at the meeting of 23 June, it says: “The Premier at one point asked about funding, and you outlined some variety of methods. He wanted to think that one through. He asked, ‘Could it be privately funded to Marco?’ who said ‘Yes’ at this point. I outlined the rough cash flow to support Marco.”

We now have from the Metro works commissioner, Bob Ferguson, to Metro council a memo dated 5 July which talks about the cost to Metro council alone of an increase in tipping fees from the current $83 to $150, in terms of what that will mean for the so-called short-term landfill between 1992 and 1996.

The Speaker: To the question.

Mr B. Rae: I want to ask the Premier again, did he discuss the costs of this venture in the discussions he had with Mr Muzzo? Did he discuss the question as to whether it would be privately funded and run on a private-profit basis or whether it would be operated on some other basis?

Hon Mr Peterson: Let me tell my honourable friend things he already knows but chooses to overlook. First of all, there is and will be no contract with this government. If in fact there are any contracts in the future, then they will be with the regional municipalities, which have the responsibility for landfill and garbage disposal. Our role is only a facilitating, co-ordinating and helpful one.

Let me say to my honourable friend that no decision has been made on whether to let a contract or whether in fact it is public or private sector or some mix thereof; whether it is the picking up of the garbage, recycling, reuse, or transportation on rail if that develops. Obviously, whatever is done is going to be done in complete scrutiny with a 100 per cent analysis by everyone involved.

There are many -- I believe 12 -- private sector companies that have ideas on how to contribute to this. As my friend will know, there are people looking at every possibility that has been exercised around the world. I am told there are some exciting examples in Italy, Japan and a lot of other countries as countries have to deal with this particular problem. No decision has been made and I am sure the member has read on this matter the views of various regional chairmen, who, with their councils, will make the final disposition, and have a number of views on the private-public sector mix if there is any.

So no decision has been made and his attempt to give the impression that anybody has got a contract that is going to allow them to be privately funded at public expense, I can tell him, is absolutely false. In the interests of intellectual integrity, the member should stand up and admit what he knows.

Mr B. Rae: I will take lectures from the Premier of this province on many subjects. Integrity is not among them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: The memorandum for Mr Beatty dated 10 August 1988 says, “We now have in Marco and Laidlaw the two most powerful developers in Canada, who recognize that there is more money in burying garbage in land than building urban development on land.”

This is the basic policy question that I am asking the Premier of this province to answer. This government is involved up to its eyeballs in this issue. Mr Church and Mr Fleming are involved in this decision. The Premier knows it, and he knows it perfectly well. If we go to the tipping fees suggested by Envacc, up to $300 a tonne, does the Premier not recognize that this in fact is nothing more or less than a licence to print money if we give it over to the private sector? It could be as much as $1.5 billion for the contingency land site alone.

Why not make a clear and categorical statement that the disposal of garbage in southern Ontario will be handled on behalf of the public by the public and not by private developers on behalf of their investors?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend read that memo last week and it gets him very excited if he sees anything about the private sector one way or the other. He uses all these emotive words such as profit, making profit and things like that. He uses a bunch of figures that have no support whatsoever: that it might go to $150 a tonne or $300 a tonne. Why does he not say $500 or $1,000 a tonne? There is no substantiation for anything he has done. No specific proposal, to the best of my knowledge, has been put forward and no contract in any way has been concluded.

Now I just say this to my friend, because I think he understands us: Is it not impossible that there could be some sort of a mixture? For example, what are people going to do with the recycled materials at the end of the day? Are they going to use the private sector or the public sector to dispose of those? I do not think there has been any conclusion to those kinds of matters, but he would want to write that out completely as opposed to letting anybody look at, in an intellectually honest way, all of the alternatives available.

If and when a contract is going to be let or a tender applied for, he will get a copy of that and he can look at it and make his judgements about whether it is right or wrong. He can look at whether the financing is public or private sector, and he can suggest how to raise taxes to do this, how to do it in tipping fees or how to finance it in the long term. Obviously any contract of this size -- and frankly at this point nobody knows for sure if any of the regions are going to participate and if so how -- will be scrutinized by every politician including himself, by the public and private sectors, and everyone will have his view. He will have had an opportunity to canvass the world and bring his constructive wisdom to bear on this matter.

But I say to my friend he is continuing to be completely unfair in trying to give someone the impression that some contract has been awarded, some windfall to someone, when in fact that is not the case. I think my friend, who usually uses better judgement in these matters, should continue to remember his responsibilities.

1420

INVESTIGATION OF HOUSING MINISTRY OFFICIAL

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Premier as well. If I might, I want to revisit for a moment the Goetz-Gadon matter that was spoken of earlier in the House by the Minister of Housing (Hon Ms Hošek).

We are informed that the Minister of Housing became aware of certain allegations with respect to Mr Goetz-Gadon on 29 June and action was taken by the minister on 30 June. It was fully a week later before this matter was released publicly or before any information came out in connection with the reasons for the suspension of Mr Goetz-Gadon. Considering the substantial interest in Tridel Corp and the Ministry of Housing at the moment, and certain allegations that relate to those associations, could the Premier indicate whether a week’s delay is appropriate under the circumstances?

Hon Mr Peterson: The minister can help my honourable friend with all of the circumstances pertaining to that.

Hon Ms Hošek: Let me tell the member opposite that when I received these allegations, I took them very seriously. I immediately contacted the people on my staff who really had to take on the responsibility of checking into them. On 30 June they indeed began this investigation to find out what they could find out. The individual in question was suspended on that day and conversations continued between the deputy minister and his legal adviser, together with Mr Goetz-Gadon and his lawyers.

That discussion went on for a while. If the member will recall, 30 June was a Friday and the long weekend intervened. That discussion went on for a while.

It became clear that the Attorney General’s office was going to give us the advice that we really should take this to the police so that the police would investigate further. That is the point at which we decided it was appropriate to make it public. We did make it public. At the moment there is an investigation going on. When further information becomes available, we will act on that information.

Mr Brandt: I would like to advise the minister that on 6 July, about a week following the information that came to her attention, my House leader, the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris), did in fact receive information regarding the activities and the allegations surrounding Mr Goetz-Gadon and he took what I consider to be the appropriate action. At that time he did two things.

First, he referred the matter to the antirackets squad of the Ontario Provincial Police, and second, he went to the Deputy Premier (Mr R. F. Nixon), who was in the House at that time, shared the information with the Deputy Premier and advised him that these allegations had come to our attention.

Does the minister not think the same kind of courtesy could have been extended to the members of the opposition as we extended to her under the circumstances?

Hon Ms Hošek: We began this internal investigation almost instantaneously after we got the information, the allegations that were shared with me.

It is important to respect the basic civil rights of any employee in this province, and I think that is a very important position to take. The individual was suspended and further investigations went on. It was only at the point at which it became clear that we were going to have to go the next stage and have the police continue with this investigation that we thought it was appropriate to make it public, as we have. I believe we acted in accordance with our responsibility for the public trust; also our responsibility not to undermine in any way the employment rights of the individual in question.

The members of the public service in this province are people of integrity, as are the people in this House. We are talking about someone’s livelihood and someone’s life. I think it is appropriate to treat that carefully. This person was in fact suspended and the work to investigate the allegations was begun immediately. At the point at which we decided that the police had to be brought in, we made that public so that everyone would know about it.

Mr Brandt: Perhaps the minister could indicate to us whether it is the OPP or the Metro Toronto Police that she called in, and second, what are in fact the terms of the suspension. Does she feel the suspension was based on concrete circumstances that give her justification for the suspension, because obviously that is the action that she has now taken, and is she prepared to share any of that information with the House at this time?

Hon Ms Hošek: As Mr Brown of the Attorney General’s office has said, the allegations were determined not to be frivolous, but l really do not think it is appropriate for me to say any more about that at this point. The advice we have from the Attorney General’s office is that it would be inappropriate to give the member any more information than that pending the fuller investigation. I have to respect that advice, which is legal advice to me, and I intend to.

SALE OF PREMIER’S FAMILY BUSINESS

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier. Last week he told the House that those who negotiated the Peterson-Avinda deal were not aware when they signed the deal that Marco Muzzo had an interest in Avinda Video Inc. Such a version of events is not consistent with the known facts and is not credible.

Avinda was on the verge of financial failure six months before it approached the Petersons to complete the $9.7-million purchase. No knowledgeable vendor would ever talk to such a purchaser until it revealed a substantial backer, who in this case was Marco Muzzo and his company.

Is the Premier prepared to go back to those who negotiated the deal, confront them with the facts and find out when they first knew Marco Muzzo was involved in the deal?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am willing to take any kind of analysis the member thinks is appropriate. As I said to my friend, why does he not refer it to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, because he has some version of the situation?

I can tell my honourable friend that the facts he presents in this House are not facts that I am aware of. As a matter of fact, from what I have heard, my guess is that they would stand up again and say he is wrong. However, he continues to do that in this House and to make groundless allegations, but I say to my honourable friend I am told it was a letter of credit from the bank that supplied the financing for the situation.

Mr Runciman: This is a much broader issue than conflict and we have asked Justice Evans for a ruling on jurisdiction.

As part of the sale, Mr Muzzo’s company, Consolidated HCl Holdings Corp, agreed to lend $3 million to the Peterson family company. Now $3-million participants in a transaction do not come out of the blue, they are obviously connected to the deal. Is the Premier telling this House that his family company agreed to a $3-million loan from a company that was not the purchaser and never found out who controlled this lender before they signed the deal?

Hon Mr Peterson: I was not part of the deal, as I told my honourable friend, but again I say to him I have no problem with this at all and he should refer all his suggestions, his allegations, to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and I will instruct my trustees to give him all the information that they have available. Then the member can satisfy himself that, again, he is into waters that are not correct or he is making allegations that are foundless.

Mr Runciman: If the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has jurisdiction, we will certainly do that, but we do not intend to limit it to that; as I said, this is a much broader issue.

The real issue here is that the Premier’s company should never have been sold to someone like Marco Muzzo who has so much business he wants to do with the province and so little appreciation of the need for public officials to appear objective. The Premier’s answers raise more questions than they resolve.

Is the Premier prepared to make all the facts public about this deal and clear the air? Does he have any compelling reason not to disclose everything about this deal right now?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have no reason, and that is why I say to the member I am happy to turn it all over to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, a public official who is responsible to this House, to look at every single detail. I have no problem with that, but does the member have a problem?

What I would like him to do is to stand up and go with his allegations and stand up and make these charges public. Then they can prove that my friend makes foundless allegations constantly in this House and that he demeans being a member of Parliament in this province.

MARLENE DELZOTTO

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Premier. Don Smith, of the Ontario Liberal Party, sent out an invitation a couple of months ago inviting people to participate in the “second major event of 1989,” and that is a gala performance of the Phantom of the Opera. He did not know at the time that the second major event of 1989 for the Liberal Party was going to be the Houlden inquiry, but what he did indicate was that Marlene DelZotto was going to be the chairperson of that “mammoth fund-raising event.”

Could the Premier tell us whether Marlene DelZotto is indeed still the chairperson of this fund-raiser, at $200 a ticket, at which the Premier and his caucus are going to be present?

Hon Mr Peterson: She was at that point, but she has withdrawn, obviously.

Mr Kormos: I suspect it was not because Patti Starr was available.

I wonder if the Premier would tell us what he did or what other members of his government did to effect the withdrawal of Ms DelZotto and why.

Hon Mr Peterson: What does the member think? It is 20 questions. Why does the member not take a guess at it?

1430

NEONATAL CARE

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Last week I raised on several occasions the growing crisis of neonatal intensive care beds in this province.

I would like to raise with her the near-tragic case of John and Peter Sharp who were born seven weeks prematurely last Friday morning at St Joseph’s Hospital. Even though there was a perinatal bed available at Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals for the mother, they could not accept her because there were no neonatal beds for the new infant children when they were born. The doctors struggled for four hours to save the babies’ lives. One twin was manually ventilated while the only available ventilator was used to save the other child. The ambulance was dispatched and it was discovered that the heating and ventilating systems in the incubator were not working.

Mr and Mrs Sharp, in their anger and helplessness, watched for four hours as doctors tried desperately to ventilate their two children. They asked that the minister be asked one simple question: Do we have to lose one or two babies before the government realizes the crisis we are facing with neonatal intensive care beds in this province?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I do not think there is a service that is as important as far as acknowledging Ontario’s world leadership is concerned than both perinatal and neonatal services in Ontario.

We have developed a system within the province. You have to make a choice to either centralize all your services in one place or develop a network of services across the province so that people have those services even closer to home. At certain times any one of those centres can be stressed, but we know that services are available at another centre nearby. There are 12 hospitals providing perinatal services. We always prefer to have the mother and the baby as close to home as they can be, of course, but a very significant network of land and air ambulances ensure that the mother in a high-risk situation is delivered in a hospital that provides that very intensive, specialized service.

I would inform the member that St Joseph’s Hospital is not one of those hospitals. Centres are located not only in Hamilton, but in Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, London, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie and so forth. I would say to him that the network of those services attempts to ensure that women in high-risk situations -- and in premature birth, you never know when the delivery is going to occur -- have access to the service they need close to home.

Mr Jackson: It is clear to these women who have high-risk pregnancies that the choices the government is forcing them to make are putting their babies at risk.

I would cite a second example for the minister. Two days later, on Sunday morning at 7 am, twins were born 10 weeks prematurely in West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby and doctors began a frantic effort to save their lives. The doctors called for two ambulances to get them to Chedoke-McMaster. The dispatcher on the other line from the ministry said, “No, we will only send you one ambulance because if we send two, there will be no ambulances in the greater Hamilton area.” They suggested that an ambulance be called in from Niagara Falls and the doctor suggested that the Ontario Provincial Police be called to see if they could help. They dispatched a truck to the hospital with a neonatal nurse and an incubator. They dispatched an OPP truck down to the Grimsby hospital. The fact is, it took four hours to get those children at risk into Chedoke-McMaster.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Jackson: Those Band-Aid approaches are unacceptable for saving the lives of newborns. So my question is --

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr Jackson: -- why is the minister forcing doctors to make high-risk and desperate arrangements to save these newborns simply because she refuses to accept the growing number of high-risk births occurring in our province?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that we rely on expert advice as to what the total capacity within the system should be. At the present time, we are surpassing the capacity that was recommended.

Mr Jackson: No, that’s perinatal; we’re talking neonatal.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Caplan: That does not mean that at any one time we do not have a situation where one is stressed. I can tell him we are always reviewing. We are working closely with the hospitals to determine what the needs might be.

Mr Jackson: Not according to Hansard. You said they --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to assure him that as we work with the hospitals, we want to make sure we have --

Mr Jackson: Don’t assure me; assure them.

The Speaker: Order. I do not think the member really wants the response.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Do you remember standing order 24(b), that when a member is speaking, no other member shall participate, except on a point of order?

Mr Jackson: She is contradicting Hansard.

The Speaker: Order.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Recent studies on the effects of smog, particularly ozone, have shown that serious lung injury may be inflicted by this type of pollutant. We are all aware of how under certain weather conditions smog seems to accumulate in the more urban areas of our province. Could the minister share with the House what his plans are to reduce and, if possible, avoid these occurrences that seem to be happening more and more often in recent years in this province?

Hon Mr Bradley: It is an excellent question. I thank the member for indicating to me that he would be asking me this question today. I wish that were the case all the time.

I want to indicate first of all that we deal with a lot of smog in this area that in fact comes from areas other than Ontario, particularly from the Ohio Valley. But there are a number of initiatives the ministry has undertaken to combat the effects of the buildup of low-level ozone in Ontario. The member will recall the announcement on 21 June of the lowering of the levels of volatile organic compounds allowed in summer-grade gasoline. Of course, that reduces the evaporation from a car’s fuel tank. The things that are evaporating are the chemicals that form smog. We estimate that Ontario-generated smog from such formation will be reduced by about eight to 10 per cent.

On 31 May 1989, I announced a province-wide ban on apartment building incinerators, which also make a contribution. They have a number of pollutants that were coming into the atmosphere. In 1987, I adopted a policy of placing all private-sector, energy-from-waste facilities under environmental assessment to ensure (1) that the best available technology is applied, and (2) to ensure there is full scrutiny of it. The Countdown Acid Rain program is extremely important as it reduces by 60 per cent the emissions of sulphur dioxide --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Owen: People calling me are concerned about the health aspects of pollution, but they are also concerned about how they can determine on any given day how bad the situation is and how desperate the situation might be. They are asking how they can determine the quality at any given time and get accurate information, and what to do about it. I wonder if the minister could give us advice on that.

Hon Mr Bradley: In giving the advice, I would indicate first that the Minister of Energy (Mr Wong) made some comments today in the House regarding energy conservation that will contribute positively to the air quality in the province.

My ministry distributes an air quality index several times daily to the news media and that is often quoted on the electronic media and appears in the print media, as well as on those stations on cable television that indicate weather all day long. Concerned members of the public have access to that, as well as a direct call to the Ministry of the Environment at a local office.

Over the long term, my ministry publishes air quality reports for areas of the province that indicate whether or not there has been an improvement in a specific area, and what actions might be taken to improve upon not only the mobile sources I have made some reference to. but the stationary sources at the same time.

We expanded that air quality index reporting last year. We will continue to make it available to people this year so that they will be able to take all necessary action if they have specific problems. Of course, our ministry can initiate certain actions as well.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a question to the Minister of Labour concerning Bill 162. The minister will know that again today injured workers are here, outside, protesting Bill 162. At the press conference this morning, Don Comi, who is the president of the Welland and District Injured Workers Group, reiterated again that for the first time in the history of workers’ compensation reform in this province, this ministry is proceeding with changes that are bitterly opposed by the people it is supposed to protect.

That was no more clearly demonstrated than during the course of public hearings, when trade union groups, injured workers’ groups and labour groups said with one voice, “This bill should be scrapped.” Why is the Minister of Labour proceeding with this bill in the face of all this opposition from all these groups?

1440

Hon Mr Sorbara: A good deal of the so-called opposition that my friend the member for Sudbury East refers to seems often to vanish when, in so many cases that I have experienced, I have had an opportunity to sit down, one on one or with groups, and explain what is in the bill in terms of vocational rehabilitation.

Extremely important: what is in the bill in terms of the reinstatement rights, only the second province in Canada; what is in the bill in terms of the guarantee of benefits for one year after the accident; what is in the bill in terms of raising the ceiling on insurable earnings, and indeed, what the dual award system will do and the difference it will make in the lives of the injured workers of the future. Those are the reasons we are proceeding with the bill.

Miss Martel: The minister is trying to allege again that the people oppose this bill because they do not understand it, and that is absolutely incorrect. The people who are opposing this bill have worked with workers’ compensation and injured workers for years. They have been fighting this fight longer than the minister and I have even been in this place.

I want to ask the minister again, in view of all this opposition, which is legitimate and well founded, why will he not withdraw the bill and send the contents of that bill to the joint management and labour advisory group for it to deal with?

Hon Mr Sorbara: If one wanted to render down the real issue here under Bill 162, the real difference of opinion is between those in opposition, represented by the member’s party in this Legislature who believe that the current system for compensating individuals with permanent partial disabilities is a good one --

Mr B. Rae: Nonsense. That’s completely inaccurate. That’s rubbish. You just don’t understand anything. If that’s what you think you just don’t understand.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Well, the member should hold on a second. The Leader of the Opposition refuses to listen to this answer.

The people who oppose this bill basically are saying that the system of permanent partial disability with lifetime pensions, the same compensation for everyone with the same injury, the basis that has been established, as a former colleague of the member, the former member for Bellwoods, said -- he suggested that as part of the original contract. They have a point of view. It is a valid point of view.

The policy of this government, based on the research that has been done and the experience in other jurisdictions, is that the dual award system as proposed in Bill 162 will be a better, fairer and more equitable system because it compensates not on the nature and extent of the injury, but on the loss in earning capacity that the individual worker experiences after the accident. Experience has proved that is a fairer and more just system for injured workers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I think it is time to pause and reflect on why we are here. We are all honourable members. New question.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Sterling: As I indicated, I have a question of the Premier. Last Thursday, the public trustee, Mr Paisley, indicated that the payment of $5,000 to the mother of one of the cabinet ministers was inappropriate. In light of this official indication that this payment was inappropriate and the fact of the matter that this cabinet minister recommended that this job be given to her mother, is the Premier going to take any action with respect to the conduct of this minister?

Hon Mr Peterson: We have discussed that matter many other times in this House and I think I have told the member how I intend to deal with it.

Mr Sterling: At some juncture there has to be a decision made. Now that the public trustee of our province has made a determination as to whether this payment was right or wrong, is the Premier satisfied that if he does not take action now he is setting a very low standard for his cabinet?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member has made a number of allegations and I understand that. There are a number of payments that have been made by that fund and the police are looking at those right now, both from the donor’s point of view and the donees’ point of view, and who was aware of this, that or the other thing at any given point in time. I understand my honourable friend’s point of view, but there are a number of other allegations that the police are looking into and that the judicial inquiry will be looking into. I think my honourable friend understands that.

SPEED LIMITS

Mr Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. On the afternoon of Sunday 9 July, driving on Highway 401 between Woodstock and Guelph, I drove my vehicle between 100 and 103 kilometres per hour. Our car passed seven vehicles; 89 vehicles passed us.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will you allow the member to ask his question? Thank you.

Mr Tatham: Is the minister committed to maintaining safety standards on Highway 401 by keeping the speed limit to 100 kilometres per hour?

Hon Mr Fulton: I was having some difficulty hearing the question because of the interjections of, in this instance, members from all sides of the House. I think that because of his admittance of 103 kilometres per hour to this House, perhaps the member for Oxford and myself should get together later and have a private discussion about continuing to hold his licence.

I can assure the member, and I do appreciate his ongoing interest in safety on the highways --

Mr Brandt: Why don’t you have your driver call him?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Fulton: This is ‘guilty with an explanation’.

The member would be aware that we work very closely with the Ontario Provincial Police and other agencies to maintain safety on our highways. I can assure him there is no intention on our part to increase the speed limit on Highway 401.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member for Oxford has another confession.

Mr Tatham: Are there any areas in this province where there could be an increase in the speed limit?

Hon Mr Fulton: The member may be aware that we are indeed looking at a couple of selected locations in northern Ontario, but I should point out that the highway speed limits there are 80 kilometres and we are investigating the possibility of raising it to 90 kilometres in a couple of areas.

1450

PATRICIA STARR

Mr B. Rae: A question to the Minister of Culture and Communications: She will no doubt have read the report of the public trustee that came out on Thursday with regard to the repayment of $5,000 for the Housing survey. My question to the minister is this. The annotation in Mr Paisley’s list -- and I have been unable to talk to him because he is on vacation, and no one else in that body is answering questions -- refers to a “Housing survey (leadership training).” I wonder if the minister can tell us: Has she yet found this survey and can she tell us what the “Housing survey (leadership training)” really had to do with?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: I have indicated on previous occasions that I have no knowledge of the contract, as far as the details of a survey or report are concerned. Those are allegations in the media and also questions by him. That is all I can say on the matter.

Mr B. Rae: I am not referring to allegations. I am referring to a report in the public trustee’s office. This is not an allegation; this is a statement in print by the public trustee saying that $5,000 has to be repaid for a Housing survey on leadership training. This is as a result of a conversation the minister had with Mrs Starr. Her “What? Me worry?” attitude just cannot prevail any longer.

I would like to ask the minister: Where is this survey? She now has had several weeks in which to find and produce it and tell us what it was for. Why has she not taken the interest to inform the House as to the exact details of what was done, since someone now has to repay the $5,000?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: I believe the details of the work which was done by my mother rests between Mrs Starr and my mother. I believe -- the Leader of the Opposition may feel otherwise -- that it would put me in a compromising position to conduct an inquiry. We have several well-intentioned, informed boards of inquiry that are doing just that.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr Cureatz: My question is to the Minister of Energy. I notice that there was a session taking place on 20 June in Sudbury, Ontario’s Energy Choices Conference: The Northern Perspective. He, along with one of his cabinet colleagues, was one of the guest speakers at that conference.

I am wondering: Is the minister planning on having any further conferences -- one took place in the city of Toronto; he has now had his conference in northern Ontario -- concerning energy availability in Ontario, and does he not think he now has sufficient information through this consultation process for his ministry and his government to decide the next major step they are going to be taking in terms of a new electrical energy source?

Hon Mr Wong: The energy choices conference the honourable member is referring to was the second such conference in Ontario. The first one was held in the city of Toronto; the one he referred to was held in northern Ontario, specifically in the city of Sudbury; and the third one will be held in eastern Ontario, specifically in Ottawa, in the fall of this year.

Its purpose is to help stimulate discussion among Ontarians at all levels in order to determine the benefits and disadvantages of the different components that fit into our supply and demand of energy system within this province.

When it comes to the northern perspective, I can honestly say to the member that the people who attended the last conference in Sudbury said, “We don’t want to be part of the energy problem; we want to be part of the energy solution.” I think Ontarians in those areas where we have held these conferences are beginning to speak out now about what they prefer in terms of our energy choices.

Mr Cureatz: As the minister is probably well aware, my understanding is that those groups which made representations at that conference in northern Ontario were strongly suggesting that there should be the building of a further nuclear plant in that part of Ontario to supply electricity for the major Sudbury basin and, more particularly, the large industries there.

With that in mind, I would like to ask him again: When is he going to decide where the next major electrical plant is going to be built? Is he willing to proceed with environmental studies now so that when the decision has to be made, at least we have clearance for that? And finally, will he determine whether it is going to be through hydro, coal or gas or nuclear energy?

Hon Mr Wong: As I have indicated before when asked this question by the honourable member and would like to repeat, it is important that when we are planning the energy policy and the electricity policy in particular, for this province between now and the year 2000 and beyond, we have something concrete and definite to work on. The government is awaiting Ontario Hydro’s preferred plan which is expected to be presented to the government in the fall of this year.

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

Mr Velshi: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Clarkewood Residence for seniors with visual impairments, located in the riding of Don Mills and operated by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, will be closing its doors in the fall of 1990.

I understand that the CNIB fully intends to locate and place residents in alternative accommodation. However, in light of the fact that the Clarkewood Residence received $116,818 from his ministry on 28 June, could the minister tell me how these funds are to be utilized by the CNIB?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The Canadian National Institute for the Blind made a decision some while back that it was inappropriate for it to continue to be operating charitable homes for the aged. They felt it was more their mandate to be providing these services in the community.

When they brought this to our attention, we agreed we would help to fund the reestablishment of the people in Clarkewood. Of the $116,000, approximately $73,000 went for that redevelopment plan and approximately $36,000 went to buy and equip a van to better implement that plan.

Mr Velshi: Can the minister tell me how the CNIB intends to provide services to visually impaired seniors in the community after Clarke-wood closes its doors and to what extent will the Ministry of Community and Social Services be involved?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The area office of my ministry has indicated very clearly to the CNIB that it will support the CNIB’s decision. The money I mentioned just a few minutes ago, roughly $73,000, is being used to help CNIB establish its residents back into a smaller community setting in a number of cases, and into other charitable homes in other cases, where they will receive appropriate service.

That will be an ongoing process over the next year or so. That is why we indicated to them several weeks ago that we would assist them to do this. It is a joint venture between my ministry, CNIB and a number of community agencies which will help these elderly people who are also blind to re-establish themselves back into the community or in a more appropriate setting.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will no doubt be aware of the strike at the Hamilton Spectator by 95 mailroom inserters, 90 per cent of whom are women who are earning substantially less than a category they have chosen to compare themselves to: the delivery children who deliver newspapers around the city in bundles for stores.

The issue of this strike is one of pay equity. It is clear that the management of the Hamilton Spectator does not understand either the pay equity issue or the legislation which we passed here in this House. They are still talking about equal pay for the same work, as opposed to pay equity. Perhaps the minister could help us out, first, by telling us what kind of material he is putting out there to the major employers in this province. And could he perhaps help in this case by ensuring that management at the Hamilton Spectator gets some detailed information on pay equity?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I would be absolutely delighted to send onward to the people at the Hamilton Spectator, including the parties who are in the midst of this dispute and work stoppage, material that has been prepared by the Pay Equity Commission on the implementation of pay equity.

Perhaps I could do a little commercial here: The material is of absolutely top quality and has been noted as such by virtually every jurisdiction that has examined the material, so there is no dispute as to whether or not the material which the Pay Equity Commission is producing has muddied the waters or has interfered in any material way with the implementation of pay equity.

1500

I want to tell my friend the member for Hamilton Mountain that at the Hamilton Spectator, as of 27 June, it appeared that both sides were holding firm in their positions with respect to this work stoppage, but that there was some indication that this week they were going to be meeting again with mediators from the Ministry of Labour. Obviously, it is inappropriate for you or me or this House to interpose ourselves in the middle of the work stoppage, but it would be important to point out that, given that this is a private sector employer with under 500 employees, pay equity will not become a statutory requirement for a number of years.

The Speaker: Thank you. That is a fairly full answer.

Mr Charlton: I think the minister’s comments precisely reflect the problem. First, the brochures may be wonderful but if they are not specifically brought to the attention of management in the major employers of this province, what do they really accomplish?

More important, in this specific case, as we said to the minister’s predecessor and to the Attorney General (Mr Scott) during the hearings on the pay equity legislation, once people get involved in the pay equity process and start making their comparisons, those pay equity issues are going to become an issue in collective bargaining.

The minister now has a pay equity commissioner coming into the city of Hamilton and saying that pay equity should not be an issue in bargaining. But these people are underpaid and they do not want to wait for the whole of the pay equity process. Now that they have identified their problem, there is nothing, as I understand it, in the legislation which prohibits a full negotiation around the question of pay equity in these negotiations now, and those kinds of comments on the minister’s part might help the employer in this case to understand his responsibilities.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I regret that my friend the member for Hamilton Mountain appears, at least, to be somewhat ill-informed about how the very act he helped to shape and form in this House actually operates. The fact is that where a trade union is present and pay equity is to be implemented in a workplace, it is part of the requirement of the act that a pay equity plan be the subject of negotiations. So there is a context for it.

If there were a representative from the Pay Equity Commission saying that pay equity was never the subject of negotiation, that individual would be wrong, but I am sure that is not what was being said. Probably -- and we can only speculate here -- what was being said is that pay equity need not be the subject of contract negotiations prior to that set of contract negotiations which immediately precedes when pay equity has to be implemented.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Before my friend from Hamilton Mountain interjects too loudly, I just want to tell him that it is the job of the Pay Equity Commission to assist the parties in their deliberations. I am absolutely certain that if management or the union at the Hamilton Spectator wants assistance in working out pay equity problems, the commission will be there, ready, willing and able to assist.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Sterling: I want to ask a question of the Minister of Labour regarding Bill 194, which is a bill ostensibly to control smoking in the workplace. I have in front of me legislation which was passed by the state of New York in the latter part of June of this year. I want to read to him two sections of that act:

“‘Smoke-free work area’ means an enclosed indoor area in a place of employment where no smoking occurs. Such area shall be clearly designated, and separate from any smoking area.”

In another part of the act, it says, “That employers shall provide nonsmoking employees with a smoke-free work area.”

This act -- this better bill, as I would describe it -- not only covers all workplaces in the state of New York, which outnumber ours considerably, but has two significant designations therein. Will the minister not consider including the same kind of definitions in Bill 194, to make it really, truly, meaningful legislation?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I have a suggestion that I would throw back to my friend the member for Carleton. Why does he not simply give up his one-person crusade on this piece of legislation, allow this House to pass Bill 194 and get a good way down the road to turning our workplaces into smoke-free workplaces?

It may well be that next year or the year after we will want to consider enhancements to the legislation, but for goodness’ sake, having talked and talked about the deficiencies in the bill -- as I said, a one-person stand -- why not now agree to pass Bill 194 and make sure we have good, effective legislation in Ontario to give the nonsmokers of this province the right to work without having smoke interfere with their workplace environment?

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to direct to your attention standing order 19(d)9 which suggests that all members should be called to order if a member “imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.” I would respectfully request that, even though there may have been an exchange outside of the question during question period today, it would be inappropriate for all members, including the Speaker, to impute a motive for whether a member is interested in the substance of any question, whether he or she is a member of the governing party or in opposition. I would ask if you would reflect upon that and if in fact it applies to all members of the House.

The Speaker: Thank you for the advice, as usual. I appreciate it, I suppose.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to note my dissatisfaction with the answer by the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) to my question regarding Bill 194.

The Speaker: I am sure the member will follow the instructions of the standing order with written notice.

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Wildman: I have a petition signed by eight residents of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

“We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act;

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet, as was confirmed through the public hearings on the bill, was developed without an adequate process of public consultation with the stakeholders; and

“Because Bill 162 represents an attack on injured workers and their families and all those people who have fought over the years to achieve fairness and justice for injured workers and their families; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage-loss award benefits, that has been rejected by injured workers, (their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf) and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 virtually ignores the devastating critique and recommendations of the Majesky-Minna task force report on vocational rehabilitation, that was submitted to the Minister of Labour and suppressed by the Liberal government until April 1988; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because throughout Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board, and made subject to ever more intrusive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

I have affixed my name to this petition and I am in support of it.

The Speaker: I would just remind the member-- I believe it is standing order 31 -- of the way to present petitions. You certainly may present the material allegations and advise the House of the number of people who have signed and that you have signed. However, it is not necessary to give all the reasons.

1510

NATUROPATHY

Mr Lipsett: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 132 area residents, supporting the continued regulation of naturopathy in Ontario. I have affixed my signature thereto.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Miller: I too have a petition, from district 47 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation.

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

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has refused to allow an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, equitable treatment of future surpluses and a satisfactory dispute resolution process,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.”

This is signed by a total of 103 constituents.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr D. S. Cooke: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act;

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes in the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet, as was confirmed through public hearings, the bill was developed without adequate process of public consultation with the stakeholders, and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits that has been rejected by injured workers, (their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf) and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario in the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 virtually ignores the devastating critique and recommendations of the Majesky-Minna task force report on vocational rehabilitation that was submitted to the Minister of Labour and suppressed by the Liberal government until April 1988; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because through Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary powers at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board and made subject to ever more intrusive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

This is signed by seven people, and I will sign it as well.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr D. W. Smith: I have six petitions here signed by approximately seven people. They all say the same:

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

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.”

My name is affixed to that as well.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario,

“Whereas Bill 162 (a) does nothing to improve lifetime pensions (especially for disease and soft-tissue injuries); (b) denies injured workers the right to rehabilitation; (c) offers reemployment rights that are less than afforded by the human rights act; (d) gives too much discretionary power to the WCB to deny injured workers benefits; (e) restricts injured workers the right to appeal;

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, to withdraw said Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

This petition is signed by Nadine Weinham of Port Colborne and nine others and, of course, by myself.

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

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

There are a number of petitions here, signed by a total of 76 people, and I have affixed my name to them.

The Speaker: I believe the member for Lambton missed one.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr D. W. Smith: Yes. I have another petition here. It has 10 names on it and it is the same as the other six, so I will present it.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Pouliot: I have two petitions, but with respect for the House and in order to save some time, I will only read one of the petitions. Both of them are signed by more than 20 people and they are addressed, of course, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

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

“We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act;

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits that has been rejected by injured workers, (their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf) and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because throughout Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board and made subject to ever more intrusive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

That is signed by eight persons, all except for one -- who is from Hull, Quebec -- from Ottawa, Ontario, and of course I have affixed my signature as well.

1520

Mr Wildman: I have a petition, which reads as follows:

“We care about injured workers. We protest the Minister of Labour’s proposal to change the law that would take away injured workers’ rights to permanent disability pensions when they are permanently disabled. That would do almost nothing about the miserable compensation of existing injured workers and their widows, and that would leave the injured workers of the future worse off. Workers who are killed or injured in their work deserve better treatment than this.”

This petition is signed by 23 people from the province of Ontario, and I have signed my name to it as well.

The Speaker: To whom was that addressed?

Mr Wildman: It was addressed to all of us.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This petition, two sheets, is signed by 15 people, and I have affixed my signature thereto.

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, to withdraw said Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

That is signed by Margie Bowen, Lee and Sheila Cunningham and seven others from the Welland-Port Colborne area. It is also signed by myself and has my support.

Mr Wildman: I have a petition. This one is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

It is signed by 11 residents of eastern Ontario, except for two who appear to be residents of the province of Quebec but may work in Ontario. I have signed my name to it as well.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This is signed by 15 residents of the various towns in the peninsula here in Ontario and I have affixed my signature to it.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, to withdraw said Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

It is signed by Gabor Molnar from Main Street, Tom Penwarden from First Avenue in Welland, nine others and, of course, by myself and it has my support.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This is signed by 15 residents, almost all in the east end of Hamilton, my own riding, with two or three from the Fruitland-Hannon area.

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

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

‘We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act;

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes in the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet, as was confirmed through the public hearings on the bill, was developed without adequate process of public consultation with the stakeholders; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits that has been rejected by injured workers ... and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement benefits announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because through Bill 162, the injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board and made subject to ever more intrusive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy, and their right to fair and just treatment.”

This petition is signed by seven residents, mostly of eastern Ontario. One, I note, is from Carp. One is from the province of Quebec, but again, may work in Ontario. I have signed it, as well.

Mr Mackenzie: I have a petition here.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This is signed by 15 residents, mostly of Hamilton, the east end and out to Grimsby, and also some in the Burlington area. I have affixed my signature to it.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition. It is addressed:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

“Whereas Bill 162 (a) does nothing to improve lifetime pensions (especially for disease and soft-tissue injuries); (b) denies injured workers the right to rehabilitation; (c) offers reemployment rights that are less than afforded by the human rights act; (d) gives too much discretionary power to the WCB to deny injured workers benefits, (e) restricts injured workers the right to appeal:

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, to withdraw said Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

This petition is signed by Dave Reeves, Kay Clark and Richard Kovacs from the Welland, Wainfleet, Port Colborne area; eight others, and of course by myself, and the petition has my full endorsement and support.

Mrs Grier: I have a petition addressed:

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

It is signed by a number of residents of the province, mostly from the Hamilton and Stoney Creek area, and I endorse their views.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This petition is three sheets, signed by a total of 38 residents, almost entirely of the Grimsby, Smithville, St Catharines and Beamsville area in Ontario.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act;

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet, as was confirmed through public hearings on the bill, was developed without an adequate process of public consultation with the stake-holders; and

“Because Bill 162 represents an attack on injured workers and their families and all of those people who have fought over the years to achieve fairness and justice for injured workers and their families; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits, that has been rejected by injured workers, (their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf) and by the trade union movement, since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because through Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to an increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board, are made subject to ever more intrusive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

1540

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

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens, of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This is signed by a total of seven residents of Thorold, Grimsby, Stoney Creek, St Catharines and Winona and I have affixed my signature thereto.

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

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

“We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

“Because Bill 162 represents an attack on injured workers and their families arid all those people who have fought over the years to achieve fairness and justice for injured workers and their families; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits, it has been rejected by injured workers, (their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf) and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because through Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board and made subject to ever more intrusive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

This petition is signed by five residents of the Ottawa area.

Mr Pouliot: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, sponsored by the Toronto Case Workers Working Group under the auspices of the Union of Injured Workers. The petition reads as follows:

“We care about injured workers. We protest the Minister of Labour’s proposal to change the law that would take away injured workers’ rights to permanent disability pensions when they are permanently disabled; that would do almost nothing about the miserable compensation of existing injured workers and their widows; and that would leave the injured workers of the future worse off than they are at the present time. Workers who are killed or injured in their work deserve much better treatment than this.”

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

Mrs Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

It is signed by many citizens of Ontario, and I affixed my own signature.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This is signed by 16 residents, I note, all from the east end of Hamilton in my own riding. It is nice once in a while to recognize some of them -- the Aquinos, the Pellegrinos, the Gigliones and the Seiullos.

I have signed my name to that petition.

Mr Hampton: I have a petition. It is addressed to the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly. It states:

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on their jobs and almost half a million workers are injured. The present workers’ compensation law denies these workers the right to sue in court for these deaths or injuries. It is the Workers’ Compensation Board that determines what injuries and disabilities are to be compensated and what these injuries and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario. The Workers’ Compensation Board operates in an inhumane and arbitrary way. There is little or no understanding of injured workers pain and little or no help in returning to meaningful employment. Presently, over 80 per cent of injured workers with permanent disabilities get less than 20 per cent of their pre-accident earnings. The law is not clear or easy to understand. This situation must end.

“We, the injured workers of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice.

“We urge you to immediately pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. ARE easily understood by workers and decision-makers and that guarantee workers their rights and remove arbitrary decision making;

“2. Provide effective and humane rehabilitation programs to compensate workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful employment;

“3. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work; and

“4. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker.”

This is signed by 20 individuals. I have affixed my signature as well, as an indication of support.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition of the type distributed by Art Coté from the Niagara District Injured Workers Group, who is sitting here watching this today. It reads:

“To the honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

1550

“Whereas Bill 162 (a) does nothing to improve lifetime pensions, (especially for disease and soft-tissue injuries); (b) denies injured workers the right to rehabilitation; (c) offers reemployment rights that are less than afforded by the human rights act; (d) gives too much discretionary power to the Workers’ Compensation Board to deny injured workers benefits; (e) restricts injured workers the right to appeal;

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, to withdraw said Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

It is signed by Cam Bedard and Stan Johnson of Welland, by Anthony Fabiano of Niagara Falls, along with seven others, and of course I have affixed my signature as well, not only because it is necessary but to indicate my complete endorsement in support of the petition.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker,

“6. Provide existing workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This petition, distributed by injured workers in the east end of Hamilton, is signed by 24 names on two sheets, largely from the east end of Hamilton and the Stoney Creek and Beamsville area, and I have attached my name to it.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about a half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs, to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work:

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

I have signed the petition as well.

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

“We care about injured workers. We protest the Minister of Labour’s proposal to change the law that would take away injured workers’ rights to permanent disability pensions when they are permanently disabled; that would do almost nothing about the miserable compensation of existing injured workers and their widows, and that would leave the injured workers of the future worse off. Workers who are killed or injured in their work deserve much better treatment than this.”

This is signed by 19 individuals, most of them living in Port Hope, Ontario. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with them entirely.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

“Whereas, Bill 162 (a) does nothing to improve lifetime pensions, (especially for disease and soft-tissue injuries); (b) denies injured workers the right to rehabilitation; (c) offers re-employment rights that are less than afforded by the human rights act; (d) gives too much discretionary power to the Workers’ Compensation Board to deny injured workers benefits; (e) restricts injured workers the right to appeal;

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, to withdraw said Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

It is signed by Randy Schaubel of Welland, Susan Mills of Welland, Christine Broughton of Welland, others from Port Colborne and Welland, totalling 10, and of course by myself indicating my complete support for the petition.

Mrs Grier: This petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario reads as follows:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

It is signed by residents of the Port Colborne area.

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This is signed by residents of Metropolitan Toronto. I have put my signature to it and I agree with them entirely.

1600

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

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

“We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years and yet, as was confirmed through the public hearings on the bill, was developed without an adequate process of public consultation with the stakeholders; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits that has been rejected by injured workers, (their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf) and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because through Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board amid made subject to ever more intrusive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

I have affixed my name to the petition. It is signed by half a dozen residents of Russell, Ontario, in the Orleans area,

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

I have affixed my signature and support the petition.

Mr Farnan: I have here a petition directed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

I have affixed my name to this petition and wholeheartedly endorse the contents and direction of the petition.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

It is signed by 16 members in the east end of the city of Hamilton and in St Catharines. I was interested to note that one of the signatures was from Mr Crevar, who has worked on this. He is one of the people in the gallery. I would hope that it will be recognized --

The Speaker: It is not necessary for the editorial comment.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, to withdraw said Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

It is signed by Penny Corriveau from Welland and nine others, all from Port Colborne, totalling 10. Of course, I have put my signature on it to indicate my complete, wholehearted, unqualified support for what it says.

1610

Mrs Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

It is signed by residents of the Hamilton area, and I support their petition.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This petition has been signed by 14 signatories. I have added my name, and it is an indication of my total and complete support for this petition.

Mr Kormos: l have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

“Whereas Bill 162 (a) does nothing to improve lifetime pensions (especially for disease and soft-tissue injuries); (b) denies injured workers the right to rehabilitation; (c) offers reemployment rights that are less than afforded by the human rights act; (d) gives too much discretionary power to the Workers’ Compensation Board to deny injured workers benefits; (e) restricts injured workers the right to appeal;

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, so withdraw said Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

It is signed by 10 people, every single one of them from Port Colborne, Shirley House, Irene Mandura and Donna Forster, among others. Of course I have added my signature, not only because it is necessary but because the petition has my complete, unqualified support.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

I am pleased to sign this; it is on two petition sheets with 20 names from Hamilton and the surrounding area.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This petition is signed by some 15 residents of Hamilton. I have affixed my signature and support their petition.

1620

Mr Farnan: I have a petition directed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This petition is signed by 10 signatories. I have affixed my signature in total and complete support of the content of this petition.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

“Whereas Bill 162 (a) does nothing to improve lifetime pensions (especially for disease and soft-tissue injuries); (b) denies injured workers the right to rehabilitation; (c) offers reemployment rights that are less than afforded by the human rights act; (d) gives too much discretionary power to the Workers’ Compensation Board to deny injured workers benefits (e) restricts injured workers the right to appeal;

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, to withdraw said Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

It is signed by Larry Fisher of Wainfleet, Louise Letourneau of Welland and a woman from Port Colborne. In addition, it is signed by myself, indicating my complete and unqualified support for the contents of the petition.

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

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist than in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

‘‘5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This petition is signed by 10 residents of the downtown area, the core of the city of Hamilton. I have affixed my signature to it and support it.

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed in their jobs and almost half a million workers are injured. The present workers’ compensation law denies these workers the right to sue in court for these deaths or injuries. It is the Workers’ Compensation Board that determines what injuries and disabilities are to be compensated and what these injuries and disabilities are worth.

“Presently, over 80 per cent of injured workers with permanent disabilities get less than 20 per cent of their pre-accident earnings. The law is not clear or easy to understand. This situation must end.

“We, the injured workers of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We urge you to immediately pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Are easily understood by workers and decision-makers and that guarantee workers their rights and remove arbitrary decision-making;

“2. Provide effective and humane rehabilitation programs to compensate workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful employment;

“3. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“4. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker.”

This petition is signed by a number of individuals, most of whom live in Hamilton. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with them entirely.

Mr Hampton: I have 52 individual petitions from the community of Atikokan in my constituency. The petitions read as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario;

“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to reform the workers’ compensation system in Ontario so that people injured at work get decent pensions, rehabilitation and jobs when they are able.”

I have signed these petitions and I fully support them in their endeavour.

The Speaker: You have signed the 52 of them?

Mr Hampton: Yes.

The Speaker: Very good.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario:

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, to withdraw said Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

It is signed by Eric Stoner, Diane Pearce, Darlene Wagner, Carol Young, all from the Welland-Port Colborne area. There are 11 signatures in total and, of course, I have affixed my signature as an expression, among other things, of my complete, unqualified, total support for this petition.

The Speaker: I might just remind the members of standing order 31(b). It is certainly within order to advise the House of the number of petitioners, but not to name them all.

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows;

“We request that the Ministry of the Attorney General withdraw Bill 149, An Act to amend the Trespass to Property Act, which we believe is unnecessary and without mandate.

“While we respect the rights of minorities and youth, whom Bill 149 alleges to protect, we oppose the way in which the proposed legislation will erode the ability of owners and occupiers to provide a safe and hospitable environment for their patrons or customers.

“We are further concerned about the legislation’s potential for increasing confrontation in the already difficult process of removing individuals who create disturbances on publicly used premises.”

I have signed that, along with 291 other people from Ontario. The total number of people is over 2,000 who have signed petitions of the like.

1630

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Hampton: I have 50 petitions from individuals who live in the community of Ignace in my constituency. They have each petitioned individually. The petition states in part:

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

These petitions have all been signed and I have affixed my signature to them as well.

I have 35 petitions from individuals who live and work in the community of Atikokan in my constituency. They have petitioned as follows:

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

These petitions have all been signed by individuals and I am affixing my signature as well in support of that.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 DE L’IMPÔT SUR LES CONCENTRATIONS COMMERCIALES

Mr Grandmaitre moved first reading of Bill 46, An Act to establish a Commercial Concentration Tax.

M. Grandmaître propose la première lecture du projet de loi 46, Loi portant création d’un impôt sur les concentrations commerciales.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Grandmaître: I am sure that this House will have plenty of time to discuss the commercial concentration tax or levy. This was proposed by the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) when he introduced his budget on 17 May, so I am sure I would not want to waste the House’s time and we will have plenty of time to discuss the concentration levy.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR L’IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 47, An Act to impose a Tax on Employers for the purpose of providing for Health Care and revise the requirements respecting the payment of Premiums under the Health Insurance Act.

M. Grandmaître propose la première lecture du projet de loi 47, Loi prévoyant le prélèvement d’un impôt sur les employeurs en vue de fournir les services de santé, et prévoyant la révision des exigences à l’égard du paiement des primes en vertu de la Loi sur l’assurance-maladie.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Grandmaître: The bill implements the proposal in the Treasurer’s budget of 17 May of this year to establish an employer health tax and to eliminate Ontario health insurance premiums. It contains the necessary provisions for introducing the new tax, as well as amendments to the Health Insurance Act to phase out premium payments. The tax will be payable by employers with permanent establishments in Ontario in respect of remuneration paid to the Ontario employees.

Le projet de loi donne suite à la proposition formulée par le Trésorier (M. R. F. Nixon) dans son budget du 17 mai 1989, visant à instituer un impôt-santé des employeurs et à éliminer les primes d’assurance-maladie de l’Ontario. Il renferme les dispositions nécessaires à la déposition de ce nouvel impôt, de même que des modifications à la Loi sur l’assurance-maladie, destinée à éliminer progressivement les paiements des primes.

Large employers will pay a tax of 1.95 per cent and make monthly tax instalments commencing in January 1990. Small employers will pay a tax of 0.98 per cent or graduated rates between 0.98 per cent and 1.95 per cent and make quarterly instalments commencing in April 1990. Health insurance premiums will cease as of January 1990, and premium remittance will be required up to and including December 1989.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comité plénier.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR LES JUGES DE PAIX

Consideration of Bill 93, An Act to revise the Justices of the Peace Act.

Étude du projet de loi 93, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur les juges de paix.

The Deputy Chairman: First, could I ask the committee if there are any sections which members seek to amend, and if so, which sections for amendment, comments or questions?

Mr Sterling: I have given you two amendments, Mr Chairman, one to section 17 and one to section 18 of the bill. I have distributed those to the table and to the critics for both of the other parties.

Mr Hampton: I have five amendments to section 10 of the bill. I have distributed copies of the amendments to the table, to the third-party critic and to the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, the member for Mississauga North (Mr Offer).

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any government amendments?

Mr Offer: We are going to be proposing amendments to subsection 2(4), subsection 4(2), section 13, clauses 14(1)(c), (d) and (e), section 15d, and we will be proposing an addition to section 20. We have distributed those amendments to the critics for the opposition and the third party. We have also provided copies of those amendments to the table.

If it is proper at this time, I would like to indicate with reference to subsection 16(4), which is currently part of the bill, that we will not be moving that particular subsection, if that is the way in which we indicate that to the chair at this time.

Section 1 agreed to.

L’article 1 est adopté.

1640

Section/article 2:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr Offer moves that subsection 2(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(4) A justice of the peace shall not engage in any other remunerative work without the approval of the review council.”

Mr Offer: Currently, subsection 2(4) prohibits a full-time justice of the peace from engaging in any other remunerative work The amendment suggested would extend this prohibition to part-time justices of the peace, but would also allow the Justices of the Peace Review Council to authorize other work.

We believe there are some jobs which the review council would like to take into consideration in determining whether there ought to be approval for either a part-time or full-time justice of the peace, be they part-time or full-time, getting into a situation where their other jobs are incompatible with their judicial duties.

Mr Sterling: We think this is an improvement to the bill. Many of the part-time justices of the peace in this province earn very, very small amounts of money for the considerable services they give to the public, particularly in the outlying areas.

I think it is unreasonable to ask a part-time justice of the peace. who might earn in total anywhere from $500, $5,000 to $15,000, to not be engaged in any other remunerative work. Therefore we support a change to subsection 2(4). I am glad that the Attorney General has listened to the justices of the peace who have made this representation to him.

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to add my compliments to the government for taking a look at some of the input it must have received around the problem with that particular section. I only want to add that even full-time justices of the peace right now, those who will not receive the support they need in order to do more work, will have time at least to dispose themselves of some of the extra income or their own businesses. So it allows them time to make other changes in their lives if in fact it is not acceptable to the co-ordinator.

We also would like to add that particular point and agree with this particular amendment.

Mr Hampton: I would assume this is one of the amendments on which justices of the peace lobbied the Attorney General (Mr Scott), because they certainly spoke to the opposition critics and indicated that it had the potential to create a fair amount of hardship for justices of the peace.

The fact of the matter is that as it now stands, justices of the peace do not in every case receive a great deal of remuneration. So on behalf of my caucus, we will be supporting this amendment and are appreciative of the fact that the government saw fit to bring it in.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 2, modifié, est adopté.

Section 3 agreed to.

L’article 3 est adopté.

Section/article 4:

Mr Offer: I have an amendment to subsection 4(2) and it is mainly of a grammatical nature.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr Offer moves that subsection 4(2) of the bill be amended by inserting after the word “peace” in the first line the words “who is.”

Mr Offer: As such, the bill would read “Every justice of the peace who is authorized to preside at the trial of an offence,” and it goes on to its conclusion. It is merely an amendment of a grammatical nature.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 4, modifié, est adopté.

Section 5 agreed to.

L’article 5 est adopté.

Section/article 6:

Mr Sterling: I would like to deal with section 6 separately. It is more in the form of a question for the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General. This section says, “Every justice of the peace shall retire upon attaining the age of 70 years.” I assume that includes both full-time and part-time justices of the peace.

While we may consider the age of 70 an adequate retirement age or a retirement age which is later in life than many other occupations, the nature of this particular function in our society is such that probably in Ontario we have 500 to 600 justices of the peace. I am not absolutely sure of these figures, but somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 full-time justices of the peace and 300 to 400 part-time justices of the peace. I am told that more than 100 of these justices of the peace are over the age of 70 years.

I have two questions. One is, with a blanket statement such as that put forward in section 6, we may have difficulty in some outlying areas of the province having warrants being sworn in front a justice of the peace, I guess mostly with part-time justices of the peace. Also, as a matter of interest, in some counties -- and the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts) would be interested, because in the county of Elgin we have all three full-time justices of the peace who are older than 70 years of age.

I believe the parliamentary assistant has put forward an amendment to a later section, section 20, which in some ways addresses this, but I would ask him whether he considered an amendment which would have allowed the extension of service beyond the age of 70 by the review council on a piecemeal basis as we go across the province.

The second question deals with remuneration of these people who have put in such a long service to the province. Many of these people would have served, I imagine, over 50 years. When this bill becomes law, of course, there is no pension associated with it. In some cases, some of these older people have been relying on this as a source of income to supplement their pensions. I am thinking, again, particularly in the outlying areas, but I suppose it occurs also in the larger metropolitan areas. I want to ask the parliamentary assistant what he is doing for those people who will be cut off by section 6 of the bill.

1650

Mr Offer: With respect to section 6, it is important to realize that section 7a of the current Justices of the Peace Act states that the age for retirement of full-time justices of the peace is 65 years of age. Upon recommendation by the Chief Judge, there can be an extra five years. So in terms of the salary of full-time justices of the peace, the current retirement age is 65 plus five, or 70 years of age. However, the current scheme does not apply to part-time justices of the peace. There is no provision with respect to their retirement under the current legislation, so they could be part-time justices of the peace for life.

Section 6 is designed to bring a level of consistency to full-time, part-time, presiding or nonpresiding justices of the peace. We feel this is an important addition to the legislation, so that whoever is acting in the capacity as a justice of the peace, be it full-time or part-time, be it presiding or nonpresiding, the age for retirement will be the same. That would be 70 years of age. We believe this will add a sense of consistency throughout the justice of the peace system in the province which does not exist at the present time.

Mr Sterling: The second part of my question is: What are we doing to compensate some of these people who have served our province well over a long period of time? Second, what is the Attorney General going to do in areas where we do not have any justices of the peace to fill the gap when this occurs?

Mr Offer: In response to the question, that is an important issue which has been raised by the member for Carleton. In large measure, that is information which is addressed by the upcoming addition to section 20 of the bill, section 20a. With your permission, Mr Chairman, I will discuss a little our proposed addition to section 20.

In this section, we have added a transitional type of implementation of this legislation region by region. This is one of the things that will be done in terms of its implementation on a regional basis. We believe that by doing it on that type of basis, the new co-ordinator of justices of the peace will be able to see what areas are required in terms of justices of the peace, where the justices of the peace are required, whether they ought to be presiding or nonpresiding and whether they should be full-time or part-time. These are some of the very essential considerations which are contemplated by this regional implementation through section 20.

In response to the question about those justices of the peace over 70, they would not be able to perform any functions of a justice of the peace nature if they have exceeded the age of 70.

Mr Hampton: I wanted to get in on this, because it seems to me that a part of what my colleague from Carleton asked about has really not been adequately answered or considered by the government.

The fact of the matter is that hundreds of justices of the peace across the province have worked diligently and faithfully for years, and for reasons which have never really been stated by the government, these same justices of the peace have not been made salaried JPs. Many of them have worked almost full-time on a per diem basis. Working almost full-time on a per diem basis has severely limited their capacity to earn an income otherwise or to earn a pension.

It is a concern my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) and I heard several times, not just from JPs here but specifically from justices of the peace in some of the further reaches of the province.

So we have people who have worked, and I repeat this again, many of them 30 or 40 years as justices of the peace but never on a permanent salary basis, always on a per diem basis, and many of them have no pension plan.

They are reaching the mandatory retirement age or have reached the mandatory retirement age under this bill, and the net effect is that those justices of the peace, as I said, some of them having served faithfully for decades, will be sent out to pasture, literally, without a cent, not one cent, of pension benefits.

I think that is a real deficiency in the bill. It is a very shabby way to treat someone who has contributed a great deal to the administration of justice in this province for a good many years. I think it is an injustice that will have a cruel impact on a lot of dedicated, hard-working people. Surely, the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General will want to stop and consider if something cannot be done to provide a decent pension for those people.

That is a big part of the issue my colleague the member for Carleton was raising, and I think that is an issue which the parliamentary assistant should turn his mind to. Certainly the government should not only turn its mind to it but turn its pocketbook to it.

Mr Offer: I would like to comment, because there is no question that there has been a very high duty which has been given to this province by the existing justices of the peace, be they part-time or full-time, be they salaried or fee-based.

This bill is designed to take a look at the whole justice of the peace system, where we now have five categories of justices of the peace which are designated by initials -- A expanded, A, B, C and D -- each particular letter giving a certain jurisdiction to each justice of the peace.

We are now saying that type of system is not in the best interests of the province. In fact, I think the justices of the peace would very much favour the system we are implementing by this legislation, whereby, instead of those particular alphabetic designations, we now have two designations: presiding or nonpresiding.

I think we are going to be able to employ the use of justices of the peace, which has been exemplary across this province, in a more efficient and effective manner. I think these are changes to the justices of the peace, many of which are not new but have been based in large measure on the Mewett report which talked about the justice of the peace system in the province. This legislation is in many ways implementing many of those recommendations.

We feel this legislation goes very far in building upon the great service done by justices of the peace across the province and we want to put it in legislative fashion.

Mr Hampton: I appreciate the general comments the parliamentary assistant has made, but I do not think he has turned his mind to the issue yet.

The fact of the matter is that this bill will put out of work a number of justices of the peace who have worked many years for the province, not on a full salary basis but on a per diem basis, who, because of this bill, will no longer be in a position where they can work as a part-time JP and, in lieu of a pension, earn some kind of income from the job, which might at least keep them out of poverty. That is the issue.

This bill says that once you hit 70, you are done; you cannot work as a justice of the peace any more. As I point out, many of those individuals who will be put out of work as justices of the peace under this bill would have relied upon part-time work as JPs to provide them with some kind of income, however meagre it might be, in lieu of a pension, because the job at no time provided a pension.

If the bill is going to do that, take away what otherwise would be similar to pension income earned as a part-time JP, at the very least the government should replace that with something for those 200 or 300 justices of the peace who find themselves in that category.

1700

That is my question to the parliamentary assistant. We are not talking about a lot of money here. We are maybe talking about 300 people. If the government is going to take their income away from them by forcing them into retirement when they otherwise would not have to, will it not at least give them some form of pension income so they do not fall into poverty?

Mr Offer: I think it is important, first, to make the point that to this time, part-time justices of the peace who have engaged in that work have done so without any type of benefit protection of any nature or kind.

We would like to indicate, second, in terms of a response that this legislation, in particular clause 20(1)(d), does permit regulations providing benefits to full-time and part-time justices of the peace. It is under this very legislation that the benefits the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton) so wants in terms of part-time justices of the peace are now going to be able to be provided to those who provide that service in the future.

Mr Sterling: The parliamentary assistant continues to try to bob and weave, and we are reluctant to leave this section and allow him to continue to do that.

Our problem is this. We have approximately 100 individuals out there, part-time justices of the peace, who by the stroke of this legislation will no longer be part-time justices of the peace. Many of those individuals, because they have served as justices of the peace for the province for the last 30 years, made their plans in retirement life on the basis that as justices of the peace they would get some income, albeit perhaps a little income, from year to year as long as they could function. Obviously, there are about 100 individuals who can still function as justices of the peace and do their job; but this legislation is going to say, “It’s over.”

Because of the way it was structured before, these people never had the opportunity to enter into a pension plan. Second, they were under the false assumption that the government would allow, as it has over the past 160 years, for the justice of the peace to retain that designation until he or she died. Therefore, I think it was a reasonable assumption on their part that they would have an opportunity, even after they were 70 years of age, to earn a little income, be it $2,000 or $3,000 or whatever; that helps out if you do not have much else going for you in terms of a pension.

That is where our argument stands. What we say is that maybe the government should look back over the number of years and say that if the person earned an average of $10,000 over the last 10 years, let’s give him some amount of money in recognition of his long-term service, because these are not the rules they understood they were working under when they accepted the appointment; these are not the rules they have understood to be the case as they were going toward the age of 65 or 70 and looking towards retirement; and they were led, innocently, by previous politicians and governments to believe it would continue that way. We are just asking that the government in some way compensate these people or provide for these people in some small fashion.

Mr Offer: In response, again I am going to be mainly reiterating much of what has already been said. In terms of section 6, one has to realize that currently in this province full-time justices of the peace must retire at 65, with some form of possible extension of that for another five years, which would increase that to 70 years of age. Part-time justices of the peace have always had the designation of justice of the peace for life. There was not that 70-year bar.

However, under this legislation, what we want to do is to provide a consistency across the province. In this legislation we are not just stating that a justice of the peace must retire at 70 years of age. We are also moving in terms of the classification of work a justice of the peace would do, in terms of presiding or not presiding.

We are also getting away from the fee structure for full-time and part-time justices of the peace. We believe this legislation, and this section in particular, coupled with all of the other sections, provides, first, a consistency across the province. It provides a different and new system much recommended by Professor Mewett in his acclaimed report on pensions.

I see members of the opposition and members of the third party are saying, “Well, what about pensions?” Indeed, it is this legislation which is going to be able to provide the pension benefits for all justices of the peace which they think should be in place. Without this legislation that benefit would not be possible. It is through this legislation that the benefit they think the justices of the peace ought to receive will be able to be received.

I hope that when we come to that particular subsection in section 20, we can expect the unanimous consent of my critics so that the types of benefits which they think are so necessary, which have not been able to be provided in the past to part-time justices of the peace, will be able to be provided under this amendment. I hope we will be able to get their support for such a subsection.

Mr Sterling: I do not know if the parliamentary assistant can answer a question yes or no, but I would really like to ask him this specific question. There are about 100 part-time justices of the peace over 70 years of age. When this bill comes in, is it not true that they will be cut off without a dime?

Mr Offer: As I indicated in my explanation of the addition to section 20, the implementation of section 6 of this bill, as well as others, will be done through a transitional phase. The question becomes: When somebody has been brought into the system, what is the retirement age? The retirement age is 70. That is the retirement age that currently full-time justices of the peace operate under. It will be the retirement age for all justices of the peace in the province and it will be effective as soon as, through the transitional phase, that particular region is implemented.

Mr Sterling: A part-time justice of the peace who is over the age of 70 years, who will be cut out by this act, will not be included in section 20. Some of them will be cut out because they will not be in regions where section 20 will be implemented, because it is done on a regional basis. The parliamentary assistant can check with his staff. He is nodding yes. Will they be cut off without a dime?

Mr Offer: I think I have to reiterate and recite one of the statements I made in response to the member’s initial question. The question is: Will any justice of the peace be able to provide a function of a justice of the peace nature after 70 years of age and after the particular region has been included in the implementation? The answer is, of course, under section 6, no, they will not be able to do that. That is what section 6 is designed to do.

1710

It is designed to provide a consistency. I indicated that in my response to the member’s initial question. I want to make it quite plain that the implementation of this legislation, because of its complexity, because of the necessity for the justices of the peace co-ordinator to take a look at the different regions, to take a look at what is being provided in certain areas and whether that particular provision of service is by a part-time or a full-time justice of the peace, has to be implemented on a regional basis, a piecemeal type of basis. We believe that is the best way, the most effective way and the most expeditious way to implement this piece of legislation, which is, I state, one that is much supported by the justices of the peace across the province.

Mr Sterling: Will a part-time justice of the peace who is cut off by this act from acting as a part-time justice of the peace or a justice of the peace in the future be left without any pension?

Mr Offer: Justices of the peace currently do not have any pension under the existing legislation. If the member is asking, “Under the existing legislation, are they going to have any pension?” the answer is no. But I hasten to add that it is through these amendments that they will be able to have pensions. It is through these amendments that that particular pension will be available, but under the old legislation, the one we are hoping to amend with the support of all members of the House, that concern will be able to be addressed.

Mr Sterling: He is getting close to an answer. Through these amendments, for consistency, what the parliamentary assistant has told us now is that 100 people who have served this province are not going to be compensated for their service. Am I correct? They are not going to be --

Mr J. B. Nixon: Who is going to compensate them? Do you want the taxpayers to compensate them?

Mr Sterling: Yes, I do.

Mr J. B. Nixon: Do you want to raise taxes for that?

Mr Sterling: Yes, I will raise taxes for that. I will raise taxes to pay these people. It will probably cost all of about $100,000 to $200,000 a year.

Mr J. B. Nixon: If you think it will only cost $100,000 or $200,000 a year, then you demonstrate an ignorance of the true cost of pensions. It’s much, much more than that.

Mr Sterling: I have some compassion for people who have served in this province before, unlike the member for York Mills.

Interjection.

Mr Sterling: They will not get any compensation at all?

Mr Offer: I think I heard the question whether there is any compensation package of any nature or kind in terms of part-time justices of the peace who are over the age of 70 and their region has been brought into the new legislation, and the answer to that is no, there is not. I hope that clarifies the first time the member asked that particular question.

Mrs Cunningham: On the same point to the parliamentary assistant, is he saying then that some of the part-time justices of the peace may in fact be allowed to continue on past the age of 70 in some regions of the province?

Mr Offer: What we are doing through this legislation is really creating a new justices of the peace system in the province.

Mr J. B. Nixon: These are Tory fund-raisers who are now justices of the peace.

Interjections.

Mr Offer: Because of the scope and complexity of the system, we are going to be implementing the system on a region by region basis. That is discussed in an upcoming amendment to the legislation, an addition to section 20. So in terms of whether there will be any discretionary power, if I can possibly read into the member’s question as to whether there is discretion under the legislation, to allow someone over the age of 70 to continue on as a justice of the peace, the answer is no, there is not a discretionary provision.

I do want to indicate that there is the possibility, of course, that people will be carrying on the function over 70, only because their particular region has not been brought into the new legislation, but once their region is brought in to the new legislation, there is no discretion whatsoever.

Mrs Cunningham: I have just a supplementary question and I hope we can end the discussion on this section, but we are trying to answer the questions as our constituents phone in.

The question I had is, does this really mean that during the implementation of this legislation, all we are going to get is the old handshake? From what I could read in section 6, the truth of the matter is, yes, that is what you get, a handshake. Let’s be honest, people do not want to be fooled. There may be other things they can do. They are not going to be happy with that. In fact, I do not think it is fair.

I have two questions. Did the government ever think -- obviously, it did not consider pensions -- of grandfathering people? That is the first question. The second one is, is it the intent of the government then to implement this particular section of the bill in a very short period of time?

The parliamentary assistant talks about areas or regions coming in under the legislation, but surely his intent, if he wants to make things fair across the province, is that there is a time frame. So for those who are carrying on, it may be a matter of months, but let’s not fool them. If it is going to be a matter of months before they have implemented it, fine, but is it years they are talking about? So I have two questions I hope the parliamentary assistant will address.

Mr Offer: I would like to address those questions. First, this is a new system, which though in legislative form now, is one that has been much talked about through a report by Professor Mewett and carried on with much discussion with justices of the peace. I think the member’s concern, as I am reading it -- and she should correct me, please -- is whether this is almost foisted upon the justices of the peace, almost as a surprise.

As the member will know by shaking her head, that is not the case. There has been a lot of discussion, a lot of consultation and major recommendations by Professor Mewett, many of which are found in this legislative form, designed to provide a justices of the peace system that is efficient and effective throughout the province. There have to be changes involved in that.

In terms of the question as to the consideration of over 70 and what will happen, I believe I have already addressed that. Although there have been many considerations and options taken into account, we believe that it is time -- I believe Professor Mewett also recognized it--and that it is necessary, in terms of retirement age, that there be a uniformity across the province. One who is a full-time justice of the peace ought not to have to retire at 70 while one who is part-time can be a justice of the peace for life. There is a consistency that is necessary and we believe that consistency is met by stating the retirement age to be 70 years of age, which is currently the basic retirement age for full-time justices of the peace right now

Mrs Cunningham: Given the response to my question, I will be answering in my letter, saying: “Yes, you will get a handshake. Secondly, in some regions, it may be a little later than sooner.” It is as simple as that.

Mr Offer: I would like to respond to that. I apologize because I did not come to grips with the question as to the implementation of the legislation region by region.

The reason for section 20 -- it is interesting that we are talking in the main about section 20; I do not know what we will be saying when we get there -- the addition to that particular section was made because the considerations in terms of resources and whatnot across the province, we feel are best addressed by the new justices of the peace co-ordinator on a region by region basis. There will be less difficulty. There will be a more in-depth type of consideration as to what is needed. We believe it can be done most effectively region by region as opposed to a province-wide implementation.

Having said that, I want to make it very clear -- I know justices of the peace across the province want to be assured -- that the implementation of this legislation is to be done as quickly as possible, not that it be held up, but that it be done as quickly as possible. I, as well as the Attorney General and all ministry staff, am committed to this regional type of implementation for the purpose that it will be implemented in a quicker fashion than it might otherwise have been if it were done in one fell swoop.

The answer to the member’s question is, yes, we want to implement the legislation and we want to implement it as quickly as possible. We believe the way that can be done is through a region by region implementation.

Section 6 agreed to.

L’article 6 est adopté.

Section 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 7 à 9, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

1720

Section/article 10:

The Deputy Chairman: There is an opposition motion.

Mr Hampton: The parliamentary assistant has spoken on a couple of occasions today about the Mewett report and the fact that the Mewett report was a rather comprehensive examination of the situation in the province with respect to justices of the peace. It made several recommendations in terms of professional training, continuing education, work conditions, pay, benefits, and so on.

It is true that many of the recommendations that were made by Mr Mewett have found their way into Bill 93. However, several important matters were for some reason left out. What I have tried to do in my amendments to subsection 10(1) is to impress upon the government that it would not be very difficult to incorporate into subsection 10(1) some of the matters Professor Mewett spent a great deal of time and several pages of his report arguing on.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Excuse me. Are you going to make the motion?

Mr Hampton: Yes, I am. That is the reason.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr Hampton moves that subsection 10(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) The functions of the review council are,

“(a) to recommend to the Attorney General minimum qualifications for all justices of the peace, including minimum education requirements and minimum experience requirements;

“(b) to recommend to the Attorney General appropriate recruiting procedures, including advertising of openings, to identify candidates for appointments as justices of the peace;

“(c) to consider all proposed appointments and designations of justices of the peace and make reports concerning them to the Attorney General;

“(d) to review the salaries, benefits and working conditions of full-time and part-time justices of the peace at least once every two years and make reports, with recommendations, with regard to that review to the Attorney General;

“(e) to receive and investigate complaints against justices of the peace.”

Mr Hampton: As I indicated earlier, all these details are brought up and dealt with by Mr Mewett in his report. The government has chosen in the existing subsection 10(1) to deal with two of them; that is, it indicates in the existing subsection 10(1), “The functions of the review council are...to consider all proposed appointments and designations of justices of the peace and to make reports” on them, and “to receive and investigate complaints against justices of the peace.”

The legislation, as it is, deals through the review council with some of those important issues. Just earlier, the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General noted in his comments -- I believe it was on subsection 2(4) of the bill -- and referred that the review council could take some role in deciding what kind of other remunerative work JPs could involve themselves in. So it is pretty clear that what the government has in mind in terms of the review council is a council that would deal, not just with complaints but would also consider economic issues and working conditions and so on.

In the three amendments I have introduced, I have tried merely to make that very plain. The first one is to recommend to the Attorney General minimum qualifications for all justices of the peace, including minimum educational requirements.

Mr Mewett points out at some length in his report that there is a need for this. Given the fact that decisions JPs deal with are becoming more and more complex all the time, there is a greater level of education or a greater level of experience with the justice system needed, and also a greater level of continuing education. That should indeed be something the review council deals with.

The second point is that since the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General feels the review council should have some say, and I agree with him, in deciding what other remunerative work JPs can take part in, maybe the review council should also then be dealing with salaries, benefits and working conditions of full- and part-time justices of the peace.

One of the glaring failures of the existing legislation, and it is equally a glaring failure of this legislation, is that no mechanism is provided whereby justices of the peace can approach the government to say, “Look, we have a problem with our working conditions,” or, “We have problems with the way the job is working right now.”

Justices approached me and my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold on a number of occasions to say, “This bill at least ought to provide a mechanism so that we can talk about those things. It makes little sense, and it is quite inappropriate, that we have to go directly to the Ministry of the Attorney General to talk about these things. There ought to be an intermediary body that can deal with issues such as our pensions, pay, working conditions, something that is separate from the Ministry of the Attorney General, someone whom we can talk to and someone who through the legislation will have a regular role in determining all of this.”

Finally, one of the other things Professor Mewett pointed to was that there needs to be some mechanism for the appropriate recruitment and the appropriate appointment of justices of the peace. I heard a while ago some of the government backbenchers saying that we really should not worry about the pensions of some of the existing part-time JPs because, after all, they are old Tory hacks.

Mr J. B. Nixon: That’s not what we were saying.

Mr Faubert: The member opposite said it.

Mr Hampton: I heard it very clearly and a few other members on this side heard it as well.

Interjections.

The Acting Chairman (Mr Morin): Order, please.

Mr Hampton: If that is the members’ concern, then I think they will be equally concerned that some of the justices of the peace do not become old Liberal hacks. although the way the government is going right now, there is not much chance of that.

Why not have the review council set up to actually deal with the advertising of positions and the recruitment for positions, in doing reports on and recommendations of who should fill positions? Why not put it all in the hands of the review council? Why give them only half the job? The government should give them all of the job. I think this is the appropriate place to do it and they are things Professor Mewett indicated needed to be done. They are things that even the parliamentary assistant earlier today indicated in his comments on remunerative work for part-time JPs needed to be done. This is the appropriate place, so why will the government not do it?

The Acting Chairman: The parliamentary assistant.

Mr Sterling: Maybe I should speak first so that he can respond to me as well.

I speak in support of the amendment. In talking to justices of the peace, they are as concerned as we are and Professor Mewett was about qualifications for justices of the peace and having some parameters to work within. I think they would have to be pretty general because of the diverse nature of our province, but I do think it is important that some qualifications be put down or even that the government put its mind to formulating that.

1730

I do not know whether it is appropriate for legislation, but the updating and the education of justices of the peace is sadly lacking in that I believe they have one three-day conference a year, whereby there is approximately $160,000 to $180,000 a year in total to educate 600 JPs about what the present state of the law is. In my view, this is not adequate.

The other part of this amendment tries to deal with striking the salaries for the JPs. That, of course, is dealt with in a later section of the bill, section 17, and I have proposed an amendment to it, but I would be quite willing to yield on section 17, my amendment, if the government accepted this amendment. That would be to put outside the hands of the provincial government, the Attorney General or the bureaucracy as such, the salary-making mechanism. There is a principle of independence of the judiciary, and the justices of the peace are part of that judiciary, which it is necessary to maintain in our present system.

Right now, in my view, the Attorney General, through his staff, has far too much power in determining that and therefore, whether it is intentional or not intentional, can have influence over a JP’s decision, which is not the way our justice system should run.

I want to add that the justices of the peace I have been talking to have not alleged that about the present government in terms of unfairness, other than that they draw attention to the Sibson report, which has recommended that the justices of the peace be paid $47,500 per year, whereas they are being paid less than $40,00 a year at this time.

Quite frankly, they have significant duties; at least, some of them have significant duties. Some of them are deciding cases where fines to a maximum of $50,000 can be levied. They are now undertaking bail hearings in the city of Toronto after the hour of 4:30 in the afternoon, when you have people who are convicted of very serious crimes, when you really need people who can exercise judgment wisely, evenly and following the existing laws. Therefore, to pay somebody less than $40,000 a year to take on those responsibilities I would suggest is not fair and adequate.

While the Sibson report has recommended that the justices of the peace should be paid $47,500, and that was recommended in 1988, then there has to be some mechanism, as suggested by my colleague, to strike a method to find out what a reasonable salary is, because the government seems to be lagging behind in responding to the Sibson report.

Mr Offer: First, to respond to the amendment put forward by the member for Rainy River, I will be speaking against the proposed amendment.

I do note for the record that I believe clauses 10(1)(c) and (e) are basically word for word with the current proposed legislation. However, in terms of the minimum qualifications for all justices of the peace, I think it is important to note that even Professor Mewett, who did address the issue, did indicate some concern with a rigidity or an inflexibility that statutory qualifications may impose, especially in terms of an effective justice of the peace for the native peoples. I think we have to maintain that flexibility as much as we can.

In terms of the appointment process, I note that the review council, in the amendments by the government, the bill itself, talks about considering all proposed appointments and designations. This is very much the first time that such a provision is founded in this legislation, and it is very necessary.

Members will note that we will do a lot of learning from the current pilot project going on under the chairmanship of Peter Russell in terms of judicial appointments. That is a pilot project which I believe still has probably a couple of years to run and may serve in time as such a framework for future appointment, but that particular project is just under way. I noted in just last weekend’s newspaper that there have been four appointments through that particular process and it is looked upon in quite a favourable light.

I think we might be a bit premature to rush towards such an implementation of a system which is still in a pilot project phase in another related type of area, and that is why we would be against this amendment.

I would like to indicate, in terms of the salary and what not, that it is a process which members of the standing committee on administration of justice have just gone through, dealing with provincial court judges. It is important to realize that even before that came about, there was much done on an informal basis.

I think there is work that can be accomplished in terms of how best to address the issue of salary of justices of the peace, be they part-time or full-time. I am not convinced at this time that this is the best method to approach such an issue.

The amendments in terms of this bill before this Legislature deal in such a fundamental way with an overhaul of the justice of the peace system-- Maybe the word “overhaul” is not right; in a re-creation of the justice of the peace system, I would think we have to give some time to being able to assess the service, evaluate the need, which we will be doing under this legislation; implement it, yes, on a regional basis, but after that has been accomplished, then to once more take a look and see whether the existing system can even then be improved.

There may be the possibility of taking a look at how salaries may be addressed. There may be room for that type of discussion. However, at this point in time, dealing with this particular amendment, I think it is premature. As such, I would be voting against the amendment.

Mr Hampton: I am disappointed to hear that the parliamentary assistant cannot support even part of the amendment, because it is certainly not rash.

I want to point out to the parliamentary assistant that nowhere in the amendments does it talk about the review council setting minimum qualifications or setting minimum education requirements or setting minimum experience requirements. It merely says they will have a role in recommending what they are. They will set up the guidelines, if you will.

Nor does it talk about the review council putting out in statutory terms what the recruiting procedures will be and what the identification procedures will be for the recruitment of new justices of the peace. It really says they will recommend what they shall be, that this will not change year to year by whims coming out of the Ministry of the Attorney General; that there will be a body there which the justices of the peace have some confidence in and that the public sees as separate from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

1740

Finally, once again, in terms of dealing with benefits and working conditions, all the amendment does is put in statutory form who shall conduct the review; it provides the mechanism for getting at the issue. One of the complaints that has been brought up time and time again by the justices of the peace is that there is no existing mechanism whereby they can even talk about this; it always seems to be on an ad hoc basis.

I want to ask the parliamentary assistant: Do members of the Legislature not have a mechanism whereby their wages, salaries and working conditions can be addressed? Do the teachers of Ontario not have a mechanism whereby those things can be addressed? Do public servants in the province not have a mechanism whereby their wages, salaries and working conditions can be addressed?

He has just stated that provincial court judges now have a mechanism whereby their wages, salaries and working conditions can be addressed. At this point in time, when it is most appropriate, why is the government opposed to providing a mechanism for the justices of the peace? It is merely a mechanism for rational communication and rational discussion of some very difficult and cumbersome financial and other information. All of the other groups have it; why not the justices of the peace as well?

Mr Sterling: If this were a minority Parliament, the government would give this amendment because --

Hon Mr Grandmaître: Which side?

Mr Sterling: It would not matter which party was putting it forward. It is a justice piece of legislation, relatively unpolitical; there is very little politics really associated with it.

Hon Mr Grandmaître: It depends.

Mr Sterling: I do not think the amendment put forward by the member for Rainy River is politically motivated; it is trying to take the Mewett report and put it forward. I say to the parliamentary assistant, he could show a lot less arrogance in the government’s attitude by accepting amendments like this.

Mr Offer: I think it is important that we recognize that through this legislation we are moving on many of the recommendations by Mewett and that there has been a great of consultation. But I think it is also important to recognize, as I was discussing, that yes, I was speaking in opposition to the amendment, but I wanted to indicate that what this particular bill before the Legislature is designed to do is really to rework the whole justice of the peace system. There are many different items and matters that are going to have to be considered.

The matter raised by the member through this amendment, I believe, is one which I do not reject, but rather state that I believe it may be premature when one is dealing with such a reworking of the justice of the peace system, the likes of which we have not seen in many years. It may very well be a matter and an issue that is properly brought up and properly addressed some time in the future, but I say to the members, let us get this system up and running. Let us allow the justice of the peace co-ordinator, the person in that new role, to travel and to deal with what is necessary, what is available, how the services are best provided and how they can be provided, keeping in mind the particular needs not only of the justices of the peace but also of the people of the province.

I think that is something which has to be done. That is what this legislation is designed to accomplish. I note in fairness that in second reading by the House there was agreement in principle on this legislation by all members. I think the amendment proposed by the member for Rainy River in terms of the salary discussions is one which may be best addressed in the future. Let us get this system up and running and implemented and then direct our minds to that particular issue.

Mr Hampton: I still did not hear an answer to my question. A lot of the other important organizations and bodies in this province have salary determination mechanisms. The public servant who is assisting the parliamentary assistant right now has a mechanism whereby his salary, wages, working conditions and pension may be addressed. Members of this Legislature have a mechanism where those issues may be addressed. Provincial court judges have a mechanism whereby those issues may be addressed. Why do justices of the peace not have now nor in this bill the same mechanism whereby at least those discussions can be carried on?

Mr Offer: In response, I believe I responded to the concern of the member for Rainy River earlier. I am taking it as a given that he is not going to be satisfied with my response.

Notwithstanding that that was my response, we believe there is room for addressing that particular issue, but first, let’s put this new system in place, up and running. Let’s do it effectively, expeditiously and as inexpensively in terms of its operation as possible, and let’s see how this will work. Professor Mewett believes it will.

Mr Sterling: This government has some very overpowering changes to the standing orders. Why not just do away with all debate in the Legislature? Why not do away with amending or putting forward amendments during the Legislature? If, in fact, as the parliamentary assistant has said, he cannot really find any objections to this particular amendment, why not just alter the whole thing so that we will not be here all summer?

Why should the opposition take its job seriously when the government does not take its job seriously in listening to debate and considering amendments which are soft? I call this particular amendment a soft amendment, because it is not hard in saying the government has to do a number of things that are going to cost a lot of money. This amendment picks up on the Mewett report.

Mr Hampton has said we can make this particular act better by putting this section in, and I think he is right. I just think it is too bad that the arrogance of this government is such that it will not accept reasonable amendments such as the member for Rainy River has put forward.

The Deputy Chairman: May I now put the question? Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 10 agreed to.

L’article 10 est adopté.

Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.

Les articles 11 et 12 sont adoptés.

Section/article 13:

The Deputy Chairman: We have a government amendment.

Mr Offer moves that section 13 of the bill be amended by renumbering sections (2) to (7) as subsections 13a(1) to (6) and by adding to section 13 the following subsections:

“(2) The co-ordinator shall hold office for five years.

“(3) If a successor is not appointed within five years, the co-ordinator shall continue in office until the successor is appointed, but in no case shall the co-ordinator hold office for more than seven years.

“(4) A co-ordinator whose term of office expires under subsection (2) or (3) shall continue to hold the office of provincial judge and is entitled to an annual salary equal to the greater of,

“(a) the current annual salary of a provincial judge; or

“(b) the annual salary he or she received immediately before ceasing to be co-ordinator.

“(5) A co-ordinator whose term of office expires under subsection (2) or (3) shall not be reappointed as co-ordinator.”

Discussion?

1750

Mr Offer: I think it is somewhat self-explanatory, but the amendment establishes a five-year term for the office of the co-ordinator subject to an automatic extension of up to seven years until a successor is appointed. After the expiry of the co-ordinator’s term, he or she will be returned to an ordinary provincial judge. The amendment also guarantees that the co-ordinator will not suffer a loss of salary at the end of his or her term.

Basically, I know that my colleagues, especially opposition critics, in dealing currently with Bill 2 and Bill 3 in the Legislature, will know that this particular section is almost identical to that proposed under the amendments to the Courts of Justice Act.

Mr Sterling: I just want to indicate our reasonableness in dealing with this amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Cunningham: Could I ask a question in response to the parliamentary assistant when he talked about the reference to Bill 2 and Bill 3? Could I ask a question in reference to the section 13 amendment in relation to section 9?

In clauses 9(1)(d) and (e) of the bill, there are no provisions for rotation as there are for subsections (a), (b) and (c) of that bill as it relates back to Bill 2. The parliamentary assistant is talking about consistency. I am just wondering if the government gave that any thought or if it is something he should also be amending at this time to be consistent with Bill 2.

Mr Offer: I think the member is comparing the judicial council with the courts management committee under Bill 2. The composition, the structure and the function are much different in those particular committees. Under the courts management committee in Bill 2, which is one that is currently before the standing committee on administration of justice, there is a rotation, whereas under this committee there is not.

I think the question was whether we have directed our minds to that. I think the response is clear in that the functions of the committees are very much different and a rotation would not be as workable in this particular review council as it is in the courts management committee under Bill 2.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 13, modifié, est adopté.

Section/article 14:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr Offer moves that clauses 14(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(c) holding a preliminary inquiry under part XVIII of the Criminal Code (Canada):

“(d) exercising jurisdiction under section 67 (reading proclamation at riot), paragraph 537(1)(b) or subsection 537(2) or (3) (where accused may be mentally ill) or section 543 (remand where offence committed in another jurisdiction) of the Criminal Code (Canada).”

Mr Offer: Just to be clear, there is no change in the substance of this amendment in terms of what is now in the bill, save as to reflect the new Revised Statutes of Canada which have resulted in changes to section numbers of federal statutes.

Motion agreed to

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 14, modifié, est adopté.

Section/article 15:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr Offer moves that clause 15(d) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(d) exercising jurisdiction under section 7 (plea of guilty with representations) or 9 or 19 (default conviction) of the Provincial Offences Act.”

Mr Offer: What this amendment does is add section 7 of the Provincial Offences Act to the list of functions that shall not be assigned to nonpresiding justices of the peace.

Mr Sterling: Could I ask what section 7 of the Provincial Offences Act says?

Mr Offer: Yes. Section 7 is basically a walk-in guilty plea; basically what one is doing involves a determination of guilt and the imposition of a penalty. In those respects, it is similar to a default conviction, which is already referred to in the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 15, modifié, est adopté.

Section/article 16:

The Deputy Chairman: Earlier, it was stated by the parliamentary assistant that he wished to delete subsection 16(4). Is that correct?

Mr Offer: That is correct. I am not certain about the best procedural way to do that, except to vote against it.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr Offer moves that subsection 16(4) be deleted from the bill.

Mr Sterling: I have some comments with regard to subsection 16(3). I would hope the parliamentary assistant would consider deleting subsection 16(3) as well. I do not understand the reason for putting this in. I think it leaves the justices of the peace in a bit of a conundrum in terms of their duties.

Subsection 16(3) reads: “Justices of the peace shall assist members of the public, at their request, in formulating informations in respect of offences.”

What happens at present is that someone comes into the office of a justice of the peace; I will use the example of a domestic assault situation, because that is a common occurrence for justices of the peace here in the province every day. The justice of the peace takes down the information given by the complainant, and after the justice of the peace has written down in correct form what the complaint is, the complainant swears that in front of the justice of the peace.

The complainant then goes to the crown attorney and says, “I have sworn out an information against such and such party for assaulting me.” Then the crown attorney picks up that document, has it served, I guess by the police, and the trial ensues at a later date.

When the accused is brought into the court, if that information is not correct, then the case can fall apart on the basis of the information. The problem with putting subsection 16(3) in is that you are asking someone who is supposed to be nonpartisan in the judicial process to be partisan in the judicial process. You are asking the JP to formulate an information on which the complainant or the crown’s case is going to either live or die.

It is not too bad a situation where there is an occurrence which happens on a repeated basis; the domestic assault, unfortunately, does repeat itself. But the problem the justices of the peace have is when an informant comes forward and wants to swear an information where there is a difficult point of law, where the information cannot be found in terms of precedents in the back of the Criminal Code.

Therefore there is a problem of a JP writing down an information and there is a very real chance at a later stage in a small number of cases of its being thrown out because it is out of the ordinary. I think in those cases, the JP should refer the informant to the crown attorney to have the information drawn there and taken forward by the crown attorney.

I would just like the parliamentary assistant to respond to my concerns as to why he sees subsection 16(3) as being necessary in the act.

The Deputy Chairman: In view of the hour --

Hon Mr Conway: I know this has been a very productive discussion and it would be my hope that we could possibly finish the committee stage of Bill 93. I do not know how much is left; I gather not a great deal. I do not want to stretch patience, but if it were possible, I would like very much to get permission to finish this up this afternoon.

Mr Sterling: Unfortunately, I have another function later. I would not mind finishing this particular section so that we can deal with the discussion herein.

The Deputy Chairman: The motion has been made by Mr Offer that subsection 16(4) of the bill be deleted. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 16, as amended, stand as part of the bill?

Mr Sterling: I have asked for a response from the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Offer: Just briefly, and I recognize the point which has been brought forward, the corollary, of course, of not allowing people access to the justice of the peace for some information is to ask, “If they have questions, where in the world will they be able to go?” What this particular subsection does is give the justice of the peace an obligation to assist members.

But we also have to realize that within that, and contained within that, there is always a discretion to justices of the peace that if they find they are in a particularly complex matter or they feel there is a matter which might come back in terms of future proceedings, they can always ask the particular member of the public to go to a crown attorney to get some advice. There is always that discretion, always that type of movement that justices of the peace have.

In terms of this particular subsection, what we are really doing is saying that yes, if somebody from the public has some questions about how to fill out an information, please, the justices of the peace have an obligation to assist. Always keep in mind that the justice of the peace does have the final say in saying, “Listen, I think that maybe you should discuss this matter with the crown attorney.”

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 16, as amended, stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 16, modifié, est adopté.

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

À la suite d’une motion présentée par M. Conway, l’étude du projet de loi en comité plénier de la Chambre est ajournée.

The House adjourned at 1804.

10 juillet 1989