Journal des débats 1989-juil-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the annual report of the executive director of the legislative library for the year ended 31 March 1989.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT

Mr Farnan: There was a time when workers enjoyed some sense of job security. My grandfather and father were bakers and were employed for the greater part of their working life with the one company. Workers could be almost guaranteed completing their working life with their company and enjoying their accumulated pension benefits.

Today, companies are less stable. They appear like mushrooms and as quickly disappear. Corporate rationalizations, mergers, takeovers and bankruptcies are the justification, and the free trade agreement has accelerated this trend.

Governments have a responsibility in this climate to protect workers’ benefits and to develop retraining and transition programs. Particularly vulnerable are older workers between the ages of 55 and 64 who have little prospect of re-employment following a major layoff.

The program for older worker adjustment is such a program. It is funded by federal and provincial governments. However, while eight provinces have agreed to participate, Ontario and British Columbia are still only at the negotiating stage. Thus, in Canada’s most industrialized province with the greatest number of dislocated workers, the program as unavailable.

While the right-wing governments -- Social Credit in British Columbia and Liberal in Ontario -- drag their heels, provinces like Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan have already negotiated entry into the program. Is it not time this Liberal government took seriously the plight of Ontario’s older workers? Ontario should be a leader in this field and not a follower.

LUMBER INDUSTRY

Mr Eves: I am rising today to present another batch of letters to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) with respect to the prospective closing of the G.W. Martin Lumber mills in the Mattawa and Rutherglen area of our riding.

“Dear Vince:

“I am writing on behalf of the employees of G. W. Martin Lumber Co. in regard to the proposed sale of the Mattawa processing mills to Tembec of Montreal.

“As you can see from the enclosed letters, the employees are deeply concerned as to the outcome of these negotiations. I agree with their concerns that the timber must remain in Mattawa to be processed. As such, this must be made a condition of the transfer of licences to the buyer of the G. W. Martin mills in Mattawa and Rutherglen.

“As this sale is scheduled to close on July 14, 1989”- which is this Friday -- “I would ask that you act immediately on this matter to ensure the future economy of Mattawa and the surrounding area.”

Later today I will be introducing three petitions signed by 1,021 people in the Mattawa area. I might point out to the Legislature the entire population of Mattawa is about 2,500 people.

This is indeed a very serious matter. The minister has referred me to his timber director who says he can only guarantee that the timber will be processed in Ontario, not the Mattawa area.

While this may not be of serious concern to the Minister of Natural Resources or to the director of timber management for the ministry, it is a very serious concern of mine that a municipality the size of Mattawa may in fact be losing its entire identity due to lack of action.

ROXANNE POIRIER

Mr Cleary: It is with great pleasure that I introduce a young constituent of mine from Cornwall, Roxanne Poirier. Roxanne and her parents are with us today in the east gallery.

As a result of a contest held in my Queen’s Park Report that was open to all elementary schoolchildren, Roxanne is the recipient of a day at Queen’s Park. I feel Roxanne must be commended on her initiative and ambition.

I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and all my colleagues share in the joy of seeing such an enthusiastic, bright young lady spending the day with us, learning from firsthand experience, so I am sure that I may extend my welcome and the welcome of all the other members to Roxanne and her parents, Rita and Claude Poirier.

MINE CLOSURES

Mr Pouliot: I would like to bring to the government’s attention the most unfortunate situation of gold miners in the township of Virginiatown, a community in northeastern Ontario. Maybe the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) can remember northern Ontario.

The problems in the north have not gone away just because the Liberals are under some stress having created their own problems in the greater Toronto area; 700 workers in Temagami and Kirkland Lake will be out in the street when the mines in those two towns shut down next year.

Now we have the Golden Shield mine in Virginiatown: 300 workers were brought from underground two weeks ago and were told that the mine was going bankrupt. There was no notice and no severance pay. Worse than that, the company was not going to pay back wages for outstanding wages. So on 5 July the workers blocked the front gate of the mine, keeping a Brink’s truck with some 47 pounds of gold hostage so that they could get their back pay.

When will this government stop paying lipservice to the north, start enforcing its own laws and start monitoring compliance so that this kind of tragedy, in the year of our Lord 1989, will never repeat itself?

STUDENT RESIDENCES

Mr Jackson: On 16 September 1988 the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs McLeod) announced that community colleges would be allowed to build student residences.

When the college system was created in 1965, only northern Ontario colleges were allowed to build residences because the colleges were supposed to cater to students in their local community. Times have changed. Today, one third of the 95,000 full-time students have a permanent address more than 40 kilometres away from the college they attend.

This was an important and welcome announcement that had the potential to go some way to help resolve the student accommodation crisis. Colleges, most of which have fully serviced and zoned land, were eager to pursue the idea of on-campus residences.

1340

However, like so many other Liberal announcements, this one was big on headlines and press conferences but short on delivery. To date, no college has touched the $100 million in Canada pension plan funds that have been made available to finance the construction of student residences. The reason? Interest rates at 10.5 per cent are too high and a 20-year payback period is too short.

This program has been yet another Liberal public relations put-on. Community college students still have difficulty finding decent and affordable housing near their campus. When is the minister going to stop grabbing headlines and take the necessary practical steps to solve this problem?

SENIOR CITIZENS MONTH

Ms Hart: As we all know, June was Senior Citizens Month in Ontario. This is the time we set aside each year to focus on and celebrate the achievements of older Ontarians.

In East York, one of the highlights of seniors’ month was the second annual Seniors’ Games. These games offer an opportunity for residents of East York aged 55 and better to get together for some fun and friendly competition. This year, 300 seniors took part in the games. That is twice as many as last year.

Throughout the month of June, participants demonstrated their physical and mental strengths in such activities as swimming, tennis, track and field, bowling, bridge, darts and euchre.

I would like to commend Foster Jevons, Jean Watson, Francis Tsai and Margaret Fairbanks for all of their hard work and dedication. These members of the executive of the Seniors’ Games committee had been meeting regularly since last November to plan and organize this very enjoyable and successful event.

Congratulations to all of the seniors who took part in the East York Seniors’ Games. Their energy and determination are an inspiration to us all.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Hampton: There is a lot of news about government scandal in the press these days in southern Ontario, but there is an even bigger scandal occurring in northern Ontario in the forest industries.

In the past two years, five to eight million tree seedlings have been destroyed at the Ministry of Natural Resources tree nursery in Thunder Bay. For what reason? A Ministry of Natural Resources spending freeze.

The government wants us to believe that it is doing more and better in reforestation, but independent professional foresters disagree fundamentally. As one private forester put it last Saturday in the Thunder Bay Times-News: “We are just creaming the forests up here. There are way more sites that require planting than are being planted.”

The same private sector expert notes that in the past two years the land treated effectively for reforestation has dropped while the area harvested by industry has grown steadily. “Already a future crisis in wood supply is looming and now is no time to cut back in reforestation,” he says.

But what do we get from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio)? More press releases of self-congratulation. The fact is the government capped its seedling replanting efforts at 160 million trees province-wide in 1987. Since then, the amount of cutover land has increased dramatically and a very high percentage of the seedlings that are planted do not grow.

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr Hampton: This government needs to cut the endless propaganda and get back to work in planting trees.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SKILLS TRAINING

Hon Mr Curling: This morning I unveiled details of three new ministry programs aimed at drawing more young people into skilled occupations. These Youth Skills programs are traineeships, high school apprenticeships and summer trades experience.

We are supporting these programs with an initial budget of $6.6 million. They are designed to meet the needs of the young people in Ontario and the future needs of business and labour.

My ministry recently released a survey, called Pathways, which details what happens to young people when they go directly from high school to the workplace. Often the young people we asked were not aware of how they could get skills training. The two thirds of our young people who go directly from high school to the workforce will be helped by these new programs. We offer them new opportunities, new challenges and more choices in developing rewarding careers.

I am confident that our new Youth Skills programs are going to help change attitudes about skilled occupations.

I would like to give the members of the Legislature details on each of these programs.

The first is the Ontario traineeships program, which offers entry-level workers both on-the-job and formal classroom training in skills so they can meet the fast-changing needs of industry.

Government, educators, industry and labour will work together to identify skill requirements at the sectoral level and will develop training modules for use in traineeship programs. These programs are expected to last between one and two years.

Traineeship will be shorter, more customized and more flexible than formal apprenticeship and could include training in such wide-ranging areas as automotive, telecommunication equipment installers and hospitality.

The second Youth Skills programs is a high school apprenticeship program. This will be open to senior high school students who will be able to attend high school and train as apprentices at the same time. At the end of three years, these young men and women will have both their Ontario secondary school diploma and on-the-job credits toward becoming journeymen.

We have been working closely with the Ministry of Education on the development of these programs and interest among employers and school boards is already very high. For example, the Windsor, Timiskaming and Wellington school boards will be combining apprenticeship and school training programs starting this September.

This program will greatly increase attractiveness of apprenticeships and it will allow young people to graduate from high school with the skills necessary to embark on rewarding careers.

The third program is called summer trades experience. Today there are 30,000 employers training apprentices across the province. These employers will be eligible for a $1,000 wage subsidy for each student they hire as learners in the trade.

With these three new programs in place, more training opportunities will now be available in high school and at the job-entry level.

They are an important addition to the ministry’s already-established youth training strategy. This strategy includes an array of programs, including Futures, Start Up, the Environmental Youth Corps and the summer employment programs.

I am confident that the initiatives I have outlined today will ensure that our young people will have more options to be better prepared for the jobs of tomorrow.

RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr B. Rae: Before the member for Scarborough West (Mr R. F. Johnston) replies, I simply want to indicate to the minister how strange I find it that we would now have yet another set of programs introduced to what is already an incredibly confusing array of programs whose success and takeup rate have really not been established at all.

In our view the critical problem, and it is the problem which has been identified by Mr de Grandpré at the federal level as well as by provincial studies, is not the fact that young people are unwilling to take up skilled trades and to take up the opportunities that are there; the major difficulty is that we still do not have a province-wide scheme which would require employers and groups of employers to provide for apprenticeship and training.

Until this government wakes up to the fact that we need to have a comprehensive plan that clearly establishes training as an obligation on the part of companies and not something they can simply opt into and opt out of at will, we will continue to have the major problem in training that we have.

I would remind the minister that this problem has been identified as recently as two weeks ago in the Premier’s Council’s report, where the clear implication of that report is this: that until the private sector wakes up to its obligations and until the government wakes up to its obligations with respect to the private sector, we will continue to have an absence of programs and an absence of a comprehensive approach, which is exactly what we need when it comes to training.

1350

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would like to join the remarks of my leader on this matter. It is of concern to me that if you look at the end of the statement, you see the minister listing the Futures program, Start Up, the Environmental Youth Corps and summer employment programs, all programs which are in great difficulty, have been underfunded badly and have been badly administered in the past -- like the environmental program which was so badly undertaken last year, the Futures program which has been underspent now several years in a row, and the employment programs which the minister knows he has cut back savagely on this summer before us -- and then he introduces a hodgepodge of programs into the morass of programs around apprenticeship and training which have not been that successful in terms of this government.

I wonder why there is nothing about targets for women, the disabled and other groups with these particular programs. I see no wording in here about those matters that have been of some concern to the minister. I know his other programs were not meeting those targeted needs in the past and therefore have had targets placed on them, yet there is nothing placed on these matters brought before us.

To bring it into the context of what my leader has said, the thing I worry about in any training program, whether it is formal, quasi-apprenticeship or traineeships, is that unless we start to put it into the context of an overall strategy of what the role of unions, business and government is in terms of the training responsibilities all those sectors have, we will not meet the needs in a proper and organized fashion. We will have this sort of plethora of programs, often competing with each other and with no overall goal mind.

Mr Farnan: lf I could just add a comment to those of my colleagues, the minister has talked about different partners working together and it strikes me the minister would do well to apply this to the government cabinet. In a situation where we are looking for experiences for young people and the minister talks about a summer program of training for young people, we have one ministry saying it will introduce a program and at the same time we have another minister who has drastically reduced the junior ranger program, which would attract young people and give them experience in a field that could possibly be a career field for them.

It appears to me this government is at sea. It is at odds with itself. It does not know where it is going. One minister is just putting out some additions without any great substance and another minister is actually reducing programs. The reality of the matter is that what we have is a patchwork approach to training and it certainly is not satisfactory.

Mrs Cunningham: In responding as well to the announcement, which was made at a press conference this morning. I can only state that I would have been a whole lot happier if we had looked at a comprehensive plan for delivery of training programs for young people across Ontario.

Once again, we are looking at three small pieces that will cost the taxpayers of Ontario $6.6 million and to this point in time I can only see that 200 traineeships will be developed in the Ontario traineeships program. I am not certain, I have no idea how many students will be helped in the high school apprenticeship program for $500,000 -- programs, by the way, that basically have been put in place by the school boards -- and in the third summer trades experience that will not affect anybody this year. It does not start until next summer and we were looking to see what was going to happen with the money that was already cut out of this year’s budget for this particular summer experience.

Over the next two years, we are looking at basically maybe 3,000 or 4,000 young people at the very most who will be helped in some way, not completing programs but having access to them. That objective is not good enough. We are talking about two or three years, so maybe 4,000 or 5,000 students at the very most will be beginning programs, not completing them, and that is simply not good enough.

In looking at the dollars, $4.5 million is to be used in year one to create 200 traineeship positions in the Ontario traineeships program. That works out, and the minister is welcome to correct me if I am wrong, to $22,500 per ministry. That is a lot of money.

The minister expects to see some 5,000 positions created over the three years. If we look at 4,800 new positions -- I am sure we must be wrong here on the math; I would love to be corrected by somebody -- in years two and three that means $108 million committed to that program, given the mathematics we have seen presented to us this afternoon and earlier today.

In the high school apprenticeship program, I have said before that $500,000 between three school boards -- -these are pilots. I am just wondering where the long-term objective is. Whom did the minister talk to? Where is the commitment on behalf of unions, school boards, colleges, business and industry? Is this a comprehensive plan for training? I doubt it.

I think what we have here is exactly what the school boards were told earlier in June this year at a meeting called school-workplace apprenticeship program -- I try to stay up to date; it is called SWAP -- where the program was described, based on pilot programs that are already taking place.

On the summer trades experience, we are particularly disappointed. That is great; we are looking at something for the summer of 1990. This year, this same type of program was cut back. We have employers calling us all the time asking: “Where is the assistance to employers with young people?” We were able to do this in the last two or three years. There was a cutback. There is no money available this year.”

Basically, the bottom line is that the minister is trying. Unfortunately, he is trying in a way that is really just providing lip service to programs that deserve a real, comprehensive commitment on behalf of the many parts of our industry, colleges, universities, schools and families, and we just do not see it here today. I am particularly disappointed.

Mr Harris: I really question the Treasurer (Mr R.F. Nixon) and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr Elston) allowing this hodgepodge, this myriad of programs. The minister himself calls it an “array of programs,” none of which has worked so far, wasting millions and millions and millions of dollars, as a number of my colleagues in both parties on this side of the House have pointed out. There is no game plan. There is no overall goal. There is no objective. There is nothing to measure any of these programs by.

I understand the minister. I do not think he knows what he is doing; neither does the ministry. It is apparent from talking to people in the field all over this province that it is a total and unmitigated disaster: this minister, the whole ministry and all of the programs. Why the government is now wasting another $6.6 million is beyond me.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr B. Rae: I have some questions for the Premier about garbage. The Premier has tried to pretend over the last number of days, indeed going back several months, that he knows very little about this, that it is a subject that is entirely the responsibility of the municipalities and that it has nothing to do with the province or with his responsibilities as Premier.

I wonder how the Premier squares that with the simple facts of the matter, the fact that in their statement in March the five regional chairmen, talking about the long-term plan for the management of solid waste, said there has to be an approach with the province, stressed there has to be a new authority on waste management that would be created by provincial legislation, and the simple fact that it is the government of Ontario that up until last Friday has been paying for all the work of the joint chairmen with regard to the question of garbage.

1400

Hon Mr Peterson: What is the big surprise? Has the member got some magic revelation there? I cannot understand why he is so surprised and excited.

Let me take the member back a little bit. As he knows, landfill sites and garbage are a regional responsibility. As he knows, there are a lot of pressures in a lot of areas -- I will not get into all the details but he knows them as well -- every time there is a landfill site. We are taking a new, coordinated approach to planning through transportation, landfill and various other programs of the government.

It was our view that we should try and assist, if possible. We got the regional chairmen together and said, “Would you like us to sit down with you and look at ways of coordinating programs and using our infrastructure to assist, recognizing ultimately the power is yours and that whatever we do, if we do anything, will have to be in a sense of delegated responsibility from you with mutual agreement?”

I remember sitting down with the regional chairmen. They said, “Isn’t this wonderful? This is the first time we’ve all sat down together and talked about this and isn’t it time for a coordinated approach?” Then we went, as the member knows, and had a joint meeting with many municipal councillors from across the greater Toronto area, many people who have been concerned about this problem, and we agreed to take a coordinated approach to this matter.

At this moment, it has not been formalized. There are still discussions going on. As I said, if in fact a public-sector/private-sector proposal is put together, if a regional authority is created --

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

Mr B. Rae: Just so the Premier will understand what the big deal is, the big deal is that a contract worth billions of dollars for the disposal of garbage is going to be bid on by a number of individuals. There is going to be a call for tenders and somebody has to decide who gets the job and how they get it.

What I am asking the Premier is this: What is the authority and what is the power of the group of individuals who are going to be asking for expressions of interest, and once they have done that, considering which is the best proposal? I might add, does the Premier realize how unaccountable and how completely undemocratic the process has been up until now?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think what the member is saying is nonsense, honestly. I know it is getting late in the year and he may have run out of questions, but let me tell him that what he is saying is nonsense. I say to the member that when he stands in here and gives the impression that some contract has been awarded, he is deliberately distorting the truth. There may or may not be --

The Speaker: Order. Please, will you withdraw?

Hon Mr Peterson: Yes.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Peterson: How can I say as clearly as possible that the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is saying things that do not conform with the facts, that he is developing his own analysis of truth which is so far of the mark as to detract from his own credibility. I am trying hard not to say anything that us unparliamentary, but l think it is important that we clear up his ideas on this matter.

Mr B. Rae: I am trying to get the Premier to answer some very basic questions. On one day in this House the Premier says: “It is not my decision. It has nothing to do with me” The next day he admits, as we can document -- when the budget of Gardner Church’s empire, which is responsible to the minister, goes from $7,000 in 1987-88 to $2.4 million over a two-year period, an increase of over 30,000, per cent in that two-year period, and the Premier then turns around and says it has nothing to do with him, it just will not wash.

It has everything to do with him. It has everything to do with his government. What we are saying is that the decision on who gets what contract should be accountable, should be publicly accountable and should not be the subject of a private government or of a private arrangement that has no legislative authority whatsoever.

Perhaps I can then ask the Premier this question.

The Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr B. Rae: What is the legislated authority of this group of chairmen who are now going to be asking for bids from the private sector and from anybody else on a contract that is going to be worth billions of dollars?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: Under what legislation are they operating?

Hon Mr Peterson: I was sitting here listening to my honourable friend’s allegation and the honourable Treasurer, whose advice I take on most occasions, said about my friend and I quote, “He’s out to lunch.” The member is so far out to lunch that honestly, I am surprised.

The member knows about the history of the GTA, about Mr Church’s responsibilities and how we are co-ordinating in ways we have not done in the past with transportation, landfill, garbage disposal, social services and a wide variety of other areas. He would say that we have no responsibility, that we should not do anything. What is his point, that we should take it over legislatively or that we should not?

What we respect is the regional chairmen’s responsibility and the role of their councils. Everything that has been done has been taken back to their councils. There has been wide consultation. There is no authority created at the moment, and I can tell the member that whatever is created, if anything is in the future, and/or any contracts are let -- no decision has been made on that because there are still differences of opinion from those people on the subject -- then we will share it all with him. Then he can stand up and criticize something that actually happened as opposed to some fantasy in his own mind.

The Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr B. Rae: It is a question of ensuring that what happens, happens in public, that what happens, happens in the public interest and that we do not have private deals made on behalf of private individuals --

The Speaker: The question.

Mr B. Rae: -- and private corporations for the private benefit of those people and not for the benefit of the people of Ontario. The Premier does not have the authority now to make those decisions. That is a fact.

The Speaker: Order. Is that your question, that he does not have the responsibility? Was that your question?

Mr B. Rae: No. I have another one.

The Speaker: Please place it.

Mr B. Rae: I am interested now in discussing a question of the activities of the member for Mississauga West (Mr Mahoney) with respect to Envacc Resources’s interests in this business. One of the people who was at the meeting on 23 June with the Premier and Mr Muzzo and a number of other principals of Envacc, together with the member for Mississauga West, take a special interest in the Envacc project, to keep an eye on the project and to keep abreast of it, after which, as the Premier will know, the member for Mississauga West went to Japan on a trip that was financed by the Ministry of Transportation.

The Speaker: The question.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can explain the role of the member for Mississauga West with regard to Envacc Resources.

Hon Mr Peterson: He had a keen interest in waste disposal matters, as the member knows, when he was a councillor, and he still does. He was at the meeting. There were 15 or so people there. There was my staff and other people’s staff. Most of the people in the room I did not know. There was a slide presentation looking at some of the most modern technologies around the world. We are looking at alternatives and all those will be shared with every other person who is interested in the whole question. The member for Mississauga West was at the meeting and he is looking at all the possibilities, as well as many others, and will advise the government on these matters if and when decisions are made some time in the future.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can explain why the member for Mississauga West was given a special role with regard to this when apparently he is not even a member of the waste management steering committee of the Liberal caucus, which I understand has eight members on it, why the member for Mississauga West’s trip was financed by the government and why he attended board meetings of Envacc Resources? Can the Premier explain any of those facts?

Hon Mr Peterson: He has a very strong interest in these matters and will be advising the government on this matter and others, if and when a decision is made with respect to the decisions of the regional chairmen.

Mr B. Rae: There is a contradiction between the degree of interest the Premier and members of his caucus have taken in this particular proposal and his earlier answers in which he stresses that he is not the one who is going to be making the decision anyway.

My final question to the Premier is this: I wonder how the Premier feels about the fact that it was only the day before the member for Mississauga West wrote a letter to Hershell Ezrin, dated 16 February 1988, that he discharged the second mortgage on his home, which in fact he owed to a company owned by Mr Muzzo. He discharges the mortgage on 15 February 1988 and he writes the Premier on 16 February 1988 asking for a meeting with regard to Envacc Resources.

Hon Mr Peterson: I am not aware of that, but my friend obviously has something in his mind. He is alleging that there is a conflict of interest, I think. I do not know what he is alleging, but I assume he is because he would not want to deliberately say something that would impugn a member’s reputation. Why would he not refer that to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner immediately for an immediate reference? Why would he not do that?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Please allow other members to ask questions.

1410

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Premier as well. I want to ask the Premier, when there are a number of proponents of a particular development who are interested in government undertakings, does he feel it is appropriate when ministry officials send a rather comprehensive memo to one of the proponents, forgetting about all others interested in that particular development? Does the Premier think that is appropriate government action on his part?

Hon Mr Peterson: As far as I know, there are no secrets in this matter. It is open for all. Everybody knows about the situation. There have been endless meetings with all sorts of groups that may or may not be interested or have something to contribute to this problem.

I remember sitting in this House and being castigated by members opposite because they said we were not taking leadership in the matters of landfill and waste disposal. I can tell the member we are. Now he wants to have it both ways.

Let me tell the member something. It is a huge problem that has been looked at around the world in various different countries and in various different ways. We are obviously looking at the leading technologies in a lot of different areas and, at some point in the future, may make a decision that will respect the rights of the regional governments, which have the ultimate responsibility.

If they come to us and ask us for our help, we will do so. At this moment, we are co-ordinating the entire matter, working closely with the regional councils. Surely any reasonable person looking at this would say we are fulfilling our responsibility and trying to solve a lot of problems that the member did not think of when he was the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Brandt: It is very interesting when one looks at and traces back some of the history of some of these things. Any reasonable person would think, with the greatest respect, that if the Premier were going to share information from a ministry, he would share that with all of those individuals who are interested in a particular proposal.

I want to bring to the Premier’s attention still another one. This is Ronto Development. We already know of their links to Patti Starr and the proposed landfill site in Peel region. The Premier may well be interested in knowing that Ronto’s lawyer was provided with an internal Ministry of the Environment memo outlining the government’s position on its landfill proposal.

When the region, which the Premier talks about so constantly that he is co-operating with, found out about the memo, it asked for a copy from the Ministry of the Environment. They were told that memo was no longer the position of the ministry and they were given an updated memo. I have both the original and the altered memo.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Brandt: It is interesting --

The Speaker: The question, please.

Mr Brandt: I appreciate your patience, Mr Speaker. I am getting to my question now.

The Speaker: I would appreciate it, because we are at about statement length in time.

Mr Brandt: I had to give some degree of background to this so that the Premier would know why I am asking the question.

The Speaker: And it has been put.

Mr Brandt: The paragraph that is changed in the memo says the ministry supports Ronto’s approach, but it may be “politically difficult.” I guess it is politically difficult.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Brandt: Does the Premier think that is proper conduct on the part of the ministry to change a memo and to provide that information to one proposal over others?

Hon Mr Petersen: My honourable friend has asked me a lot of questions about something I know nothing of. If he has some questions about the Ministry of the Environment, he should ask the very capable Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) who will tell him the answer to the question.

Mr Brandt: I want to say that what has happened in this particular case is very simple. There were two memos that were sent out by the Ministry of the Environment with respect to a major undertaking in Peel. It’s interesting that the only information that went out from the office of the Minister of the Environment -- from the deputy minister, I believe, at that particular time -- went to Ronto, the same firm that has generated such interest in this House over the past matter of weeks.

Hon Mr Conway: Is that a question?

Mr Brandt: I am quite prepared to ask a question of the Premier. Does he think it is appropriate, irrespective of who the developer is, to provide only one developer with information and not provide all with a fair opportunity to get all the information? Is that how his government operates?

Hon Mr Peterson: Let me tell my honourable friend: I remember Ronto. I remember that shortly after I was elected to this House in 1975, there was a major scandal involving Ronto and his government and a preferential tax position it gave to Ronto. That is what I remember about Ronto.

Let me tell my friend -- and he may remember some of those details and he may want to discuss it in this House -- I do not know about any special memo given to one special guy but l can tell him that, as far as I know, the minister treats everybody with an absolutely even hand and shares all the information with everybody. There are no secrets here.

Good Lord, there are a lot of tough decisions that have to be made about landfill. They are all out in public. Members of the public have a chance to make their point of view known, as do various other people. My friend’s attempt to create some kind of a conspiracy is, believe me, absolutely wrong in the circumstance, if I may say.

Mr Brandt: The Premier uses the words “It is all out here for the public to see. There are no secrets, there are no walls, no barriers, everything is open, no closed doors,” when in fact it is exactly the opposite. I have a memo in my hand which clearly deletes a paragraph of a letter. That paragraph of that particular letter points out very specifically that the Ministry of the Environment favoured the Ronto position but, back on 27 April 1987, it would be politically difficult.

Can the Premier tell me why it would be politically difficult for Ronto to be accepted as the developer of that particular landfill site if it was such an appropriate firm to undertake that particular matter at that time?

Hon Mr Peterson: Since the member is asking about it, why do I not refer it to the Minister of the Environment, who will give him the answer?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member will be aware that the people I have met with in this particular matter have in fact been the representatives of the regional municipality of Peel. They are the only people with whom I have discussed this matter at all.

The member would know I think, as a member who once held this portfolio and as a person who observes the municipal scene very carefully, that there is a considerable division within the regional municipality of Peel as to who wants a landfill site and who does not want a landfill site.

Various municipal councillors have a position; various municipalities have a position. It seems to me, if my recollection is correct, that there was a case where Brampton was going to court at one time on this matter. I have discussed this with the regional municipality on a number of occasions, with a number of people who came in with the chairman, with the mayors of the various municipalities and with some of the regional councillors. I think that while they find it a difficult situation to deal with, they understand that the ministry is attempting to deal with this on as fair a basis as possible

Mr Brandt: I say to the minister that they are not quite as pleased with the performance of the ministry as he might like to lead people to believe. They are extremely upset at the delay. It is interesting that this particular memo, which I am going to make available to the minister, carries with it the paragraph which is missing from the subsequent memo.

In that particular letter, which I am sending to the minister, he will note that it is a briefing document from the Ministry of the Environment. I and the members of this House want to know why one developer, Ronto, received that briefing note, and no one else, including the region.

Hon Mr Brandt : I think the region is aware of this particular situation and was same time ago. I think communication went from the then deputy minister, Rod McLeod, to the representatives of the region talking about this particular memo, that they are well aware of it and that certainly it has not been in any way significant to any decisions which have been made in this connection. In fact, decisions have not been finalized.

The member is correct in assuming that this municipality and many municipalities are constantly annoyed with the Ministry of the Environment because of the very careful scrutiny we give to all these matters. The member himself has complained in this House on a number of occasions about the length of time it takes to get any kind of approval for landfill sites. He used to say we had not approved any.

I do not know whether he wants it approved or he does not want it approved, but this is an old matter which the municipality is certainly aware of. I think the deputy minister communicated with the municipality about this very matter, and that is public to the particular municipality.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Bradley: I think Mr McLeod some time ago communicated with the municipality on this very matter.

1420

Mr Brandt: I want to assure the minister that I am not trying to dredge up some ancient piece of history here. What I am trying to point out to the minister is that we have a long-standing project which has yet to be approved and we find, as we look back into the files with respect to this matter, that we have an altered memo that went to only one developer.

What we are interested in seeing is -- and I think the Premier would agree that this House has a responsibility to make sure that there is -- a level playing field out there and that everyone has an equal chance at a project that will be of this size, that will probably end up being the second-largest landfill site in all of Ontario in terms of the population it will be serving.

If the minister is assured in his mind that this is in fact a level playing field with respect to the Peel situation, I want him to stand up and say that. Otherwise I want his assurance, through the Premier, that this matter will be referred to the public inquiry, to be reviewed with all of the other matters pertaining to Mr Ashworth and Mrs Starr as well as Tridel.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr Bradley: Certainly, in terms of my involvement in this particular matter as the Minister of the Environment, I would say there is a very level playing field.

It has been a difficult circumstance for those municipalities. When you have the various municipal representatives sitting around the table, you have one telling you one thing, you have others telling you other things, depending, I think, on -- I am not certain if it is a ward system; the member may be familiar with whether it is represented by wards or not -- whether the person wants things in his particular ward. That is a matter of great concern to him.

This matter is still before the Ministry of the Environment to make a final determination. There have been ongoing meetings with the region. I have met with the regional chairman, as I have indicated. I have met with the mayors of the municipalities that have been involved. As far as I recall, Mr McLeod wrote a letter to them about this particular memo, and I thought the matter had been straightened out a couple of years ago between the municipality and Mr McLeod.

NEONATAL CARE

Mr Reville: My question is for the Minister of Health. In the last few days we have heard of five infants being born in circumstances that were less than desirable. In fact, the Hamilton newspapers talk about the Chedoke McMaster Hospitals’ neonatal unit scrambling to make room for sick twins.

This situation has been responded to by the minister in her customary way, in which she responds to real life situations with bureaucratic and theoretical claptrap. Can the minister tell us if she has had an opportunity to read the report of the doctors at the regional perinatal program, which is entitled The Impact of the State of the Neonatal Unit on the Regional Perinatal Program at Chedoke McMaster Hospitals?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I can say to the member that the ministry always seeks the best possible advice as it looks at the perinatal network across the province. In fact we seek that advice; we meet with the hospitals on an ongoing basis to see how we can always look to improve what is a very good system.

Mr Reville: I am very pleased that the minister seeks good advice. How does she respond to the advice of Dr Whyte that the regional program is in a state of collapse? How does she respond to the fact that, for 15 hours this week, that unit had a “no care” status? In other words, any mother about to deliver high-risk children could not be served at all in that region for a period of 15 hours. Is that the kind of quality care as close to home as possible the minister is talking about?

Hon Mrs Caplan: We have discussed this on a number of occasions in this House, and as the member knows very well, there are some 13 hospitals that deliver this very highly specialized care around the province. These hospitals are connected by both land and air ambulances to make sure that a mother who is high-risk can be helped to the nearest available services. That is how the system works.

I can say to the member that occasionally the system is stressed because of the multiple births that we have been seeing in this province and that we work closely with the hospitals as well as with experts in the whole field of both perinatal and neonatal care. We have received a report from the Advisory Committee on Reproductive Care and we are always looking to see how we can improve the care which is available in particularly specialized areas across the province.

SALE OF PREMIER’S FAMILY BUSINESS

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier about the sale of his family company to Avinda Video.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: Touchy subject, obviously.

From the start, we have had from the Premier a consistent series of evasive answers, nonanswers and refusals to face documented facts in response to questions in this House, not to mention unfair aspersions from the Premier on members who have had the temerity to ask questions.

On 28 July 1987, the Peterson family company entered into a $3-million loan agreement with Marco Muzzo’s company, Consolidated HCI Holdings Ltd. Does the Premier think that his family company ought to be entering into a $3-million loan agreement with a large Ontario land developer? The Premier does not have to give us his usual evasion about the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, but just a single yes or no.

Hon Mr Peterson: Mr Speaker, give me a break. I mean, really, the member’s questions are just repetitive. I say to him that I have nothing to hide. If he wants to refer it to the conflict commissioner, he can do so. I told the member that my shares were in a blind trust at the time. I had nothing to do with the financing or anything else.

My honourable friend may have a different view on the matter. Let me say to him that he should refer it; he should stand up and refer it. He can take his allegations. I would be delighted to see it stand up to any scrutiny my friend opposite would like to put to it. No problem.

Mr Runciman: The Premier seems to have a blind spot when it comes to the appearance of his own objectivity. He cannot appear objective in relation to Marco Muzzo when his family company agrees to borrow $3 million from Mr Muzzo’s company and the fact of that agreement is registered in the London land registry. That is a fact.

Once again, does the Premier think it was appropriate for this family company to enter into a $3-million loan agreement with a large development firm headed by Mr Muzzo?

Hon Mr Peterson: It is obvious that I do not think that there is anything improper, but it is obvious that the member does. So why does he not have the guts to stand up and send it to the conflict commissioner.

I have watched the member for years, as have his colleagues and mine. His colleagues use him because he is the only one over there who would stoop to ask a question like that. They know that he does not know the difference. We have watched him make these allegations for years around this House. They have never been substantiated and that is why what he says will never be backed up with facts.

But I can say that it is all there and I am comfortable to see it done. Why does the member not take it there, bring his allegations? I will be delighted to have a thorough scrutiny of that and everything else that goes on.

TELEPHONE SOLICITATION

Mr South: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. There is a growing problem with the owners of fax machines, in that there is a great amount of unsolicited advertising that is dumped upon the owners of these machines and it is a real problem with the legitimate use. Does her ministry have any plans, any action in mind in regard to this?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: Fax machines at present operate over telephone lines and the control over their usage is usually governed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. In the case of Ontario, we also have the Ontario Telephone Service Commission for independent telephone lines.

We as a ministry which has a communications branch are part of working committees across the provinces which do feed back to the federal Minister of Communications. They are also trying to deal with the issue.

I agree with the member that it does cause a great deal of concern. I also understand that the provincial Minister of Corporate and Consumer Relations is also taking a look into regulations governing solicitation by telephone lines.

1430

Mr South: There was recently a very good article in the Globe and Mail in regard to this very matter. It indicates that two states in the United States, Connecticut and Maryland, have already passed legislation in this regard. I am wondering if we could not form some kind of a committee or get the federal government to take some early action on what is becoming an increasing problem.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: I think that is a very good suggestion and I am sure that all of the provinces will continue to work with the federal government, and also independently with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

I think it is also fair to say that some of the more significant telephone companies also have a role and responsibility in this issue, including Bell Canada. I assure the member, however, that I will take his suggestion to heart and let my officials know and, through them, the federal officials.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Wildman: I have a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the decision of his ministry staff on the ruling on whether or not an unsafe situation exists for three-man fire crews, employees of the Ministry of Natural Resources in the northwest. The minister must be aware that his inspector has ruled that he cannot make a decision on whether or not an unsafe situation exists until the firefighters are actually at a fire at which they refuse to work.

Why is the ministry misinterpreting the Occupational Health and Safety Act? Is it to support the untenable policy of his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) in cutting the crews from five men to three men?

Mr Pouliot: Your colleague --

Hon Mr Sorbara: The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot) does not want to hear the answer; he just wants to do a little shouting.

My friend the member for Algoma goes rather far out on a limb when he suggests that a Ministry of Labour health and safety inspector would decline to make a decision in order to support the policy of the Ministry of Natural Resources in changing from five-man fire crews to three-man fire crews. Surely my friend the member for Algoma would realize that an inspector’s job is to make a determination as to whether a particular working situation does or does not put a worker at risk and is, therefore, a violation of the Occupation Health and Safety Act.

The theoretical question as to whether or not it is or is not safe to work with three-man crews simply cannot be answered. For my friend the member for Algoma to make that suggestion in this House is, I think, rather to be regretted.

Mr Hampton: I wonder if the Minister of Labour could answer us this: These are initial-attack firefighters. Quite often what happens is a helicopter flies them in, drops them at the site of the fire and they are left there. If the fire is larger than anticipated or if weather conditions change, they are indeed in a very difficult situation.

What his ministry is saying, by his ruling is: “That is the fact; that is what has to happen. They have to be dropped at the fire.” Does somebody have to be in imminent danger? Does the situation have to be where they have to turn around and flee before his ministry will make the ruling? If so, how does this stand in terms of other industries; the mining industry, for example? Does the danger have to be imminent before his ministry will make --

The Speaker: Thank you. I think two questions would be enough.

Hon Mr Kerrio: You drop two crews in there.

Mr Wildman: You’re such a jerk. Why aren’t you dropping two crews in there?

Hon Mr Kerrio: There are two crews in there. What is the matter with you people? You’re all wacko. Two crews are six people, not three or four. You’re all wacko over there.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I think probably a call to order --

Interjections.

The Speaker: This might be the appropriate time to remind all members of 24(b). That is a good standing order. When the Speaker recognizes a member to speak, then that member only should speak.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I simply want to tell my friend this: Obviously, we have to ensure in every possible way that when men and women are fighting fires in this province, they are doing it in a way that does not put them at undue risk.

I want to tell him that there may well be circumstances where a 7- or 10-man crew is confronting dangerous situations that those men ought not to be put in; but to ask me or an inspector a theoretical question as to whether de facto, a priori, because there is a three-man crew that is unsafe is simply an unreasonable determination to ask an inspector to make.

We are monitoring that situation, we are working together with the Ministry of Natural Resources and it is our responsibility, and we will discharge that responsibility, to make sure that the firefighters are not fighting fires in a way that risks their own health and safety.

NEONATAL CARE

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Health and again it has to do with the matter of the neonatal intensive care bed crisis facing the southwestern region and the greater Hamilton area.

To date, the minister’s defence of her government’s declining financial commitment to this program is, first, that there are sufficient perinatal beds in the region, and in fact that is true, but my question has always been the need for neonatal beds. For all of the six children whose cases I have raised in the House in the last week there was a bed for the mother at Chedoke McMaster Hospitals, but they could not accept the mother because there was not a bed down the hall called a neonatal intensive care bed.

Her second defence was that there is an effective air ambulance system in this province, when in fact her own ministry is under review by the transport commission because of loss of life and injury due to that system.

The third argument is that she has a perinatal bed registry --

The Speaker: And the question might be?

Mr Jackson: My question to the minister is simply this: In the three years that the bed registry has been operational, and in the past year, has she or any member of her staff attended any meeting in this province to discuss the effectiveness or the utility of this bed registry system?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I know the member opposite would not want to deliberately distort the facts, so I will give them to him.

One, there as no declining financial commitment; two, we are working with the hospitals and always reviewing the needs; and I would ask him next time he rises in this House to make sure that in the text of his question at least he responds appropriately to what the facts are. The data in his question are wrong.

Mr Jackson: One of the classic distortions is the minister’s consistent reference to 13 facilities offering level 3 neonatal care. Many of the hospitals she refers to in her commentary about the 13 hospitals are not funded by her ministry at level 3. In fact, funding for emergency life-support programs is in decline in the neonatal units in this province. That will sustain any degree of scrutiny the minister would like to subject it to.

But my question has to do with the ministry’s bed registry. Within the last six months there was an emergency meeting called for by the neonatologists in this province and the 13 special hospitals she has referenced because the bed registry program is not working. Doctors have been subjected to receptionists saying --

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Jackson: -- when they call in with a life-or-death situation, “The person has gone to lunch; can you leave a message?”

Will the minister confirm to this House that in fact her own ministry has advised her the program is not working and that her own ministry is recommending to Management Board that it needs additional monies to overhaul that system so it will finally work?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that the only difference between the 13 hospitals providing perinatal care is the fact that some of them are considered modified units and that is because they are not affiliated with health science centres and do not have the research and educational components, but they all offer the same level of care. He is factually incorrect.

Mr Jackson: They’re not getting funding. You’re flying those people all over the province. You’re distorting.

The Speaker: Order.

1440

Hon Mrs Caplan.: Second, we are moving to computerize the registry system so that it can be even more effective. Right now, it is operating on a manual basis. The resources are available to make sure it is computerized so that all the physicians in this province will be able to have access to a system which works as effectively as possible to make sure that women in high-risk situations have access to the care they need as close to home as possible.

But the member is wrong. Let him stand up and say it.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: l would like to inform the member for Burlington South and the Minister of Health that other members would like to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order,

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr Neumann:: My question is also for the Minister of Health. Earlier this year, she tabled the report of the health professions legislation review. This report made a number of recommendations which could affect certain health care providers in this province.

At that time the minister indicated that she would be meeting with groups most affected by the proposals before introducing government legislation. How far along is she in this process and are the meetings with professionals still continuing?

An hon member: The minister refuses to answer.

The Speaker: Order. Do you think you could briefly summarize the question?

Mr Neumann: My question to the minister related to the health professions legislation review. I wanted to know, how far along is she in the process of consultation and are the meetings with the professionals still continuing?

Hon Mrs Caplan: First of all, I would like to acknowledge the member’s interest in the health professions legislation review. As members know, this began some six years ago. The review was tabled in this House several months ago, and I made a commitment at that time that I would meet with all of the groups that wished to meet with me so that I could listen to them as they responded.

Some 40 groups have requested meetings. At this point in time, I have met with 20. I hope to complete the meetings by the fall.

Mr Neumann: The professionals had their opportunity for input to the review team, and now the same health care professionals have further input through their meetings with the minister. These delays, however, as worthy as they are, may have led to some concern and confusion among health care consumers, who wonder how the changes in the regulation of health care professions will affect them.

When will the minister be introducing government legislation regarding the health professions legislation review?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member knows, the package of legislation is probably one of the most significant and challenging packages of legislation, including, as recommended, some 22 individual pieces of legislation governing some 24 individual health professions.

I expect that there will be ongoing discussion and debate. I have been discussing this with the groups. What I have told them is that the legislation could be tabled as early as the end of this year but, more realistically, it would be next year.

HANDLING OF CONTAMINANTS

Mr Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Can the Minister of the Environment confirm that some 32 transformers, 3,000 to 4,000 litres of liquids that are potentially contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls, as well as large quantities of asbestos are involved in the demolition of number 3 open hearth at Stelco? Can he produce any documentation or order approving the moving, handling or bagging of the asbestos and these various contaminants by Stelco or Triple M Construction?

Hon Mr Bradley: I will take the question as notice. I will be pleased to look into that and provide the member with all the necessary details. In his supplementary, he may have some further details for me.

Mr Mackenzie: I would be very interested to see the order. Can the minister tell us why the union and a Ministry of Labour inspector were ordered off the site if, as Stelco claims, both the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of the Environment inspectors had visited the demolition area and approved the handling of the contaminants?

Hon Mr Bradley: I will include in my investigation for the member, and the information I will gather for him, both the information which he has provided in his initial question and the information in the supplementary. The facts that he has brought forward, I think, are worthy of further consideration, and I will report to him at the earliest opportunity.

USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

Mr Harris: To the Minister of Housing: A three-day conference was held last week at one of Canada’s most luxurious resorts for 27 Ministry of Housing employees. Rates were $302 per night. They spent 11 hours out of the three days on ministry business. The acting assistant deputy minister says. “Sure, there could be cheaper places,” but he thinks it was a good use of taxpayers’ money. Does the minister agree?

Hon Ms Hošek: That cost of $20,000 for that meeting in the Globe and Mail is incorrect. The cost of accommodation, meals and meeting rooms for the 28 people involved in this meeting was actually $9,000, and I understand this is quite competitive with other appropriate facilities. I have also asked senior staff to review the procedures that were taken in making this decision, and if there is any problem with that there will be appropriate action taken.

Mr Harris: The question was: Does the minister think whatever the amount of money spent on this type of conference for these employees was appropriate?

Hon Mr Elston: That wasn’t the question. Come on.

Mr Harris: That was the question. It is not my fault the minister never answers the questions.

The Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order, so please do not respond to interjections.

Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know those rascals are tough to control.

The most recent accounts filed by the Housing ministry include a $57,470 tab at the five-star Briar’s resort and conference centre and one at the Horseshoe Valley resort for $93,808. Spending on hotels and restaurants alone, over and above and not counting individual staff travel, comes to $668,432. That does not include the $20,000 on jaunts, or whatever amount, to Arowhon Pines this year and last, because only items over $30,000 are included in the Public Accounts. Why is the Ministry of Housing spending $750,000 a year on luxury hotels and resorts?

Hon Ms Hošek: The references that the member has made to the various conferences that have been held by the Ministry of Housing, I will of course look into. He asked a question about a specific one and I answered it.

Mr Harris: I’m asking you now about The Briars. I’m asking you now about the Horseshoe Valley expenses.

Hon Ms Hošek: Excuse me. I would like to answer the member’s question. You said it was $20,000; I told you it was $9,000. I would appreciate it if the member would repeat the truth when I tell it to him, instead of repeating an allegation.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Hošek: I will clearly and happily look at any of the other allegations the member has concern over. If he believes they are a problem, we will look into them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is very difficult for another member to ask questions and be heard.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Housing. I compliment her an her last answer.

Last evening I met with the tenants’ association of 2700 and 2702 Lawrence Avenue East in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere. One of their concerns is that their landlord is attempting to charge tenants in this building who have window air conditioners an extra fee above their rent. Such a charge seems to be quite unfair. I am even more concerned that seniors who reside in this building may be unable to afford the extra charge and their health may be jeopardized in these times of hot weather.

Can the minister advise the House if such extra charges are legal under the province’s rent review legislation?

Hon Ms Hošek: I thank the member for notice on the question. It is illegal for a landlord to charge above the legal maximum unit rent and the rent does include all additional charges, including air conditioning. If the member would like to pass that on to his constituents when he meets them later, he can tell them that they are not meant to spend any more money than the rent they are currently paying, which should include the air conditioning that is already there.

1450

Mr Faubert: I will certainly pass along the minister’s comments to my constituents at the next meeting. However, if the landlord pursues the matter further through such actions as issuing a notice of eviction to tenants for refusing to pay the extra charge, tenants want to know what their rights are in these circumstances. Can the minister advise what tenants should do if they are served with a notice of eviction for not paying this illegal charge?

Hon Ms Hošek: Of course tenants cannot be evicted for not paying a rent which is illegal. What the member can tell the people in his constituency about this is that they are not obliged to pay this rent increase, they cannot be evicted for it and they should get in touch with either a lawyer or a legal aid clinic but also with the Ministry of Housing which is available to provide information on the rent review legislation for them.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mrs Grier: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and it concerns the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee. This committee was established to assist the minister when requests for designation of projects were made, in determining whether the project should be designated on environmental grounds as opposed to making those decisions on political grounds.

Can the minister explain why in the last report of the committee the committee points out tha t of 61 requests received by the minister for either exemptions from the Environmental Assessment Act, bumps-up under the act, only two of those 61 requests were referred to the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee?

Hon Mr Bradley: There are a number of matters I must deal with in my capacity as the Minister of the Environment where I receive considerable input from Ministry of the Environment staff, specifically the environmental assessment branch, for instance. I receive input from individual citizens who write to me, from members of the opposition, from environment groups and so on, and I take all of those matters into consideration before making a decision as to which matters shall be referred to the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee.

When they provide information. I always utilize the information for the purpose of attempting to make a decision on the matter and I take all things into consideration, but I find it to be a very useful committee in the kind of advice it provides. I cannot as minister always accept the advice but I find it useful in rendering a final decision on any particular matter.

Mrs Grier: Not only does the minister not accept the advice when he does refer matters to the committee, but he seems to be systematically avoiding using the committee for the purpose that it was set up.

We have an Environmental Assessment Act in this province where the environmental assessment branch of the ministry is underfunded; we have an environmental assessment program improvement project that is out there producing discussion papers and holding meetings but not coming up with any recommendations; we have people all across the province who are frustrated at the workings of the act, and we have a committee that was set up to simplify the workings of the act that is being ignored by the minister.

Can the minister tell us: Does he support the Environmental Assessment Act, and if so, what evidence can he produce to prove that support?

Hon Mr Bradley: First of all, I would like to address the member’s suggestions about the funding of the Ministry of the Environment. The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has provided in the last provincial budget some 19.4 per cent of the increase for the Ministry of the Environment budget, and I am very delighted that with his strong environmental support we were able to derive those kinds of funds.

We have attempted to provide bolstering information and people and facilities for members of the various staffs. I know the member would want to know in this House that I have in fact looked at a number of areas of the ministry and have ensured the Treasurer and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr Elston) have provided the necessary funding for those various areas in the ministry, and I think that is exceedingly important for us to do. I will continue to do that.

I find the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee very useful. I think the member will see, more and more, that it will be utilized for the advice it can provide to me. As the member knows, a lot of matters go through various stages of die Environmental Assessment Act. Some of them ultimately come to a hearing. Some of them have the issues resolved before the hearing.

In terms of the project we have out there to --

The Speaker: I would like to thank the minister for the extensive answer. It has been very good.

HOME CARE

Mrs Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of the Community and Social Services. The Red Cross is facing a projected deficit of $3.8 million and, even after the minister’s offer of 22 June, it is still a deficit of $2.1 million. The minister and his colleague the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) have not addressed the funding mechanism for the integrated homemaker program, which we believe is the cornerstone of his community-based care initiatives.

My question is, when is the minister going to introduce a new funding mechanism so that the Red Cross is not left hanging by a thread each year hoping that its deficit will be funded?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will recall that last year we provided about $1 million or $1.1 million to the Red Cross as it identified its deficit at that time, and we provided another $600,000 or $700,000, I believe it was, to about seven or eight other homemaker agencies. We indicated to both those groups that we would also provide money for their deficits this fiscal year, but that would be based on a review and analysis by officials in my ministry and staff in their various agencies as to what the appropriate deficit was and what should be included in that.

The last figure I heard from my staff was that we have agreed that there is a deficit this year within the Red Cross of approximately $1.6 or $1.7 million, which is about $600,000 or $700,000 more than we recognized last year, and about $900,000 for the other eight or nine agencies, for a total of about $2.6 million, compared to about $1.8 million for last year. That is an ongoing process and that is where we are at the present time.

The member will be aware of the fact that a few short weeks ago I did announce a joint project between the Minister of Health and myself in terms of long-term care, which we expect to be completed by September this year. All the issues she has raised would be included in that particular review.

Mrs Cunningham: The fact is that we do not have good planning and we do not have a budget that is reasonable and responsible to support the integrated homemaker program, which for all of us, we know, is a cornerstone of delivery services for people so that they can remain in their homes.

My second question has to do with the 38 communities that were expecting the integrated homemaker program. We know we have only 18 to day, and this of course was an election promise and a commitment by the government. I ask the minister at this point in time when he has talked to the Minister of Health. When has he consulted, so that we know that these programs can be further expanded because they are needed and the minister promised them? When will the new funding mechanism be part of that consultation and when will the programs be in place?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will be advised that it was my decision to freeze the current 18 sites, despite the fact that there was an indication that they would be expanded. That decision was made because joint negotiations are going on between the Minister of Health and myself.

The member may be aware of the fact that for the first time in the history of this government there is now a single assistant deputy minister responsible for our two ministries, reporting to deputies in both ministries. That is the physical evidence of the desire and intention of these two ministries to work together at the community level.

I indicated already that I expect that that particular assistant deputy minister, with support staff from the two ministries, will be reporting to the two ministers by the end of September of this year. We in turn will carry that message to the policy and priorities board of cabinet, and I expect that well before the end of this current calendar year we will have some message to bring to this Legislature as to how we are going to expand, enhance and deliver services at the community level jointly between these two ministries of government. I am sure the member herself has heard from --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Sweeney: -- many communities. It is the desire --

The Speaker: Thank you. That seems a fairly lengthy answer.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to rise and correct the record. During the course of my question today, I indicated to the minister that she had in fact reduced the funding to the neonatal clinic, and I wish to correct the record. What has happened is that services have been cut back in accordance with the funding level she has provided.

1500

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker: Just before I recognize the next order of business, I would like to inform the members of the late show tonight.

Pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Carleton ((Mr Sterling) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) concerning Bill 194.

I am sure you will all attend. We will be discussing this matter at 6 pm.

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“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” --

This is extremely bad printing, Mr Speaker, but more important, it is signed by more than 12 injured workers who, as a lost resort, are asking me to convey the following recommendations to the government:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers” -- they are talking about the act here, of course -- “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.”

Not only do I agree with the contents of the petition, but I take a great deal of pride in endorsing the petition.

The Speaker: I have listened to the honourable member’s petition. I might suggest to him that he might look at the standing orders, and other members may wish to do the same. It states in there that a member may present a petition, advise the House of the number of petitioners and the material allegations made by the petitioners. It is not necessary to read all the reasons for that petition. I am sure the member will take note of that.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Jackson: I am pleased to present a petition 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 continually refused to permit 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 binding arbitration process,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario enter into negotiations with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation which will lead to a settlement equitable to teachers.”

That is signed by 500 members of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and it has my signature and support.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs Stoner: 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:

“To request that the Premier and government of Ontario withdraw immediately the P1 site located on provincially owned land in the town of Pickering as a proposed new mega dump site for Metropolitan Toronto; and

“To urge that Metro Toronto never again be permitted to locate garbage dumps anywhere in Durham region; and further

“To urge that whenever a site or sites chosen either as contingency or long-term dump sites anywhere in the region of Durham or in the province of Ontario, the people always be granted their full and complete environmental rights and safeguards according to the Environmental Assessment Act processes.”

That is signed by 192 residents, and I have affixed my name as well.

NATUROPATHY

Mr R. F. Johnson: I have petitions on varying matters. I will deal with this one first. It is from the Lieutenant Governor’s office, I pleased to say -- redirected to me, so I can redirect it to him. It reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

“And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

I have two of these which have been forwarded to me through the Lieutenant Governor’s office. I have affixed my signature thereto.

The Speaker: Do you have another petition?

Mr R. F. Johnson: I would be glad to go in rotation.

The Speaker: Give us another one.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnson: I will give you another one also passed on to me by the Lieutenant Governor’s office, which reads as follows:

“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 continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

I have affixed my signature.

LUMBER INDUSTRY

Mr Eves: I have three petitions concerning the layoffs and the closures of the Mattawa and Rutherglen mills.

“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 strongly request that the government of Ontario support and insure the future of the town of Mattawa; the municipalities of Calvin, Cameron, Mattawan and Papineau and the local forest industry by directing to our Mattawa yard I all pine and spruce timber volumes on all crown land within,

“1. The Ottawa River crown management unit of North Bay district;

“2. The block north of Nipissing River and west of the North River in Algonquin Park. and

“3. All of Clara township in Bonnechere CMU of Pembroke district.

“The exporting of pine and spruce logs past our front doors must stop.”

To this petition are affixed 864 signatures, and I have affixed my signature thereto as well.

The second petition I have with respect to a similar matter says:

“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, the employees of G. W. Martin Veneer Ltd, are deeply concerned about the future of our veneer plant in Rutherglen, Ontario.

“Until now the mill operated as a subsidiary of G. W. Martin Lumber Ltd, in which veneer-quality logs were received from four divisions of G. W. Martin Lumber Ltd. Veneer logs were secured from both Martin crown land licences and volume agreements, and from private land sources.

“With the impending sale of the various Martin locations independently to a variety of new owners, we need your government support and the support of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Support is required in the direction of sufficient veneer-quality logs throughout the province to ensure a continued supply to make the Rutherglen facility viable.

“A potential purchaser is committed to modernization and to maintaining employment levels but must have an assured log supply at a reasonable cost. The purchaser has outlined its requirements to the Ministry of Natural Resources has received a response. The ministry response is insufficient to convince the potential purchaser to follow through with the purchase. It appears that if the plant is not sold it will be permanently closed.

“We would ask that you seriously consider our request to reconsider the ministry’s decision, keeping in mind the potential loss of employment and spinoff effects of time local economy from North Bay to Mattawa.”

It is signed by 126 employees of the G. W. Martin Veneer plant in Rutherglen, Ontario.

The last petition with respect to this matter, and the shortest, I might add, says:

“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, the employees of G. W. Martin Veneer Ltd, North Bay, are seriously concerned about the future of our division and our continued employment. North Bay division is dependent upon G. W. Martin Veneer Ltd, Rutherglen division, for its supply of random veneer used in the manufacturing process. We have learned that the sale of Rutherglen to a potential purchaser is being impeded by a lack of agreement by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the interested purchaser with regard to veneer log supply.

“The potential purchaser is committed to plant modernization, maintaining employment levels and even increased employment if sufficient raw materials can be obtained. If the plants are not sold, it appears almost certain that they will be permanently closed and our employment lost.

“We would ask that you seriously reconsider the ministry’s decision, keeping in mind the potential loss of employment and the spinoff effect on the local economy from North Bay to Mattawa.”

This is signed by some 31 employees of G. W. Martin Ltd in North Bay, and I have affixed my signature to that petition as well.

1510

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr MacDonald: I have 98 signatures petitioning the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mrs Grier: “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.”

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.”

This is signed by 118 people from Ontario, which brings it to a total of 2,281 people who have signed similar petitions. I have also signed that petition.

Mr D. R. Cooke: I hope you cleaned up the misconception.

Mr Sterling: Pardon?

The Speaker: Order. There is no debate on petitions.

Mr Sterling: I did not think so.

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

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:

“Whereas we believe the amendments to regulation 262 relating to the collective recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in opening or closing exercises in public schools deprive many Ontario citizens of their established freedoms, we therefore object to this loss of freedom.”

This is signed by a number of people in the city of Kanata. There is a similar petition attached from five people living in Plevna, Ontario.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Mackenzie: “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 those 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 injuries 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.”

Two petition sheets, signed by a total of 33 members, largely from the city of Hamilton.

Mr Hampton: I am pleased to present individual petitions on behalf of 127 individuals who reside in the community of Fort Frances in my constituency. They petition 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 support this petition and I have signed each petition myself.

Miss Martel: I have a petition.

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

“We care about injured workers. We protest the Ministry 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 91 members of the Quinte and District Injured Workers’ Group. I agree with them entirely. I have affixed my signature to it.

Mr Farnan: “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.”

The petition is signed by 14 individuals. I have affixed my name in total and complete support of the content and intent of this petition.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have a petition signed by several hundred individuals from around the Metropolitan Toronto area and from my own riding, as well.

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

I have affixed my name.

1520

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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 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 keen 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 unt11 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 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 signature to this petition. I agree with its contents. It has been signed by 19 residents of Niagara Falls and St Catharines.

Mrs Grier: This petition is 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 on the job and about half 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;

“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 20 workers in Ontario. and I have also signed it.

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 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.”

It is signed by a number of people, the bulk of them from the Fort Erie-Niagara Falls area. I, of course, have signed it as well and I endorse the statement contained in it.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: Now we are back to the angry teachers, the other angry workers.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Dispense with it.

Mr R. F. Johnston: The interesting thing about these, I say to the member, is that they came from the Mississauga area and there are a couple of hundred of them here who want to petition as follows:

“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 continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and binding arbitration process” -- l say, looking at the member for Middlesex (Mr Reycraft), who understands the gravity of the situation --

I have affixed my signature.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“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 compensated and what these injuries 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 and concerned citizens 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 programs to compensate injured 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 is signed by approximately 16 individuals. I have attached my name and I am in total and complete support of the intent of this petition.

Mr Mackenzie: I have a petition here 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.”

These are two petitions sheets, signed by a total of 30 people, largely from the downtown area of Hamilton.

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

1530

“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 16 residents of Ontario. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with them entirely.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: I think it is a good time to get back to angry teachers again. I have several hundred more names here of people from the Metropolitan Toronto area who wish to petition as follows --

Hon Mr Sorbara: Dispense.

Mr K. F. Johnston: The good thing is that I am not doing them page by page. I am being generous in terms of lumping them together.

“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 continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Kormos: I have a petition that is intended for the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads:

This is signed by 18 people: Brian O’Dell from Welland, Robert Winger from Welland and other persons from Port Colborne, Thorold and Niagara-on-the-Lake, and it is signed by myself indicating my support for the statement contained in this petition.

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:

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and to 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 Appeal 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 support this petition and have signed it.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Farnan: I have a petition, signed by several hundred teachers, 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 continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

I have affixed my name to this petition in total and complete support of the intent and content of this petition.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have another petition from people who wish to use their 600-year tradition of being able to petition the Parliament of the province of Ontario and the parliamentary system, as follows:

“To the Ontario -- To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario” -- they wish they could have somebody who could read to present it for them, given that these are teachers:

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continued to refuse to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process.

I give it to the chair.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario. It 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.

“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 approve of this petition and have indicated so by my signature.

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

This is signed by some 239 residents of Ontario. The petition was organized by the Hastings and Prince Edward legal services and I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with them entirely.

1540

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have a petition signed by several hundred people from Schomberg to Oshawa, Milton and Metro as follows:

“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 continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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 12 residents of the city of Hamilton. I have affixed my signature thereto and support their petition.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition intended for the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

That is signed by 23 persons, Scott Deschamps from Denistoun Street in Welland and a number of other people from Welland, Rob Petruniak from Niagara Falls, the Sylvestris from Deere Street in Welland and of course by myself indicating my complete support for the statement contained in this 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 is signed by 14 individuals. I have affixed my signature in total and complete support.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: On behalf of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren), I want to introduce this petition today.

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

“Given that property speculation in Ontario has contributed to driving up the cost of home ownership, to increasing the cost of building nonprofit housing, and to rent increases for tenants because speculators are rewarded under the provincial government’s rent review law, we demand that the government of Ontario impose a tax on the capital gain on nonprincipal residences and land, so that:

“100 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within one year;

“75 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within two years;

“50 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within three years;

“25 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within four years.”

There are several thousand signatures here, and I have affixed mine as well.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Kormos: I have a petition intended for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

“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.”

It is signed by 20 people, persons from St Catharines; Ron Walker from Welland; Earl Yochim from Welland; Don Boone from Niagara Falls; persons from Niagara-on-the-Lake; other persons from Niagara Falls; Robert Pante; Rob West from St Catharines; Len James from St Catharines, and of course by myself indicating my complete support for the statement contained in this petition.

Mr D. R. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I draw the attention of the member for Welland-Thorold to rule 31(g) which says, “Every petition that is in order shall be brought to the table.” I note that the member has been reading the same petition over and over again, I think, which has not been sent to the table.

Mr Kormos: That was a snotty thing to say. I have read different petitions, which is why I have identified some of the signatories, so that rational people would not be confused about the fact that I was reading different petitions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): Thank you. Perhaps I may, just for a moment. draw the attention of the House to standing order 31(g) which says, “Every petition that is in order shall be brought to the table and read by the Clerk if required.” I presume that when the member does not present it to the table, he is indicating the petition is not in order. This would be confirmed by the fact that he indicated at the beginning of the introduction that the petition was “intended for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly.”

He has presented the petition in accordance with standing order 31(b) but has not presented the petition to the table in accordance with standing order 31(g).

1550

Mr R. F. Johnston: It is almost as if he was a veteran around here. It is really quite impressive. It took me at least nine years to learn that myself; but I have a petition here which I can table.

Hon Mr Conway: Let me observe that Ross McClellan is a veteran.

Mr R. F. Johnston: It is true that he is.

Hon Mr Conway: Ross is here?

Mr R. F. Johnston: Not that he is in these hallowed precincts at this very moment.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have a petition that can be presented to the table. It is signed by several hundred people and it reads as follows:

“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 continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, and equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: This is to stick it to the member for Durham Centre (Mr Furlong) and all other members who do not like the democratic process of reading petitions. 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 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 by the public hearings on the bill, was developed without an adequate process of public consultation with 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 wage loss benefit 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.”

This is signed by 13 individuals in Ontario. I am pleased to present it on their behalf. I agree with it in its entirety and I have affixed my signature to it.

Mr Farnan: In accordance with the democratic process which allows Her Majesty’s loyal subjects to petition the government, I direct the following petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

Would it not be tragic. Mr Speaker, if workers were not able to petition the government in this way?

The Speaker: You may read the petition if you wish.

Mr Farnan: “There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to he 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;

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

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ 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 individuals. I have affixed my signature in total support and am delighted that the democratic system allows these injured workers to express their discontent.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr K. F. Johnston: I have another several hundred petitioners here, to bring to about 4,000 the number of petitioners around the superannuation issue which I have introduced in the last little while.

“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 continually refused equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable compensation increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

I have affixed my signature.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Kormos: I have a petition intended for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

This is signed by Garry Ward of Thorold, John Riley of St Catharines, Linda Clark of Port Colborne and a total of 19 people from --

The Speaker: Thank you. I have explained the standing orders to the honourable member before.

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 10 residents of the city of Hamilton. I have affixed my signature thereto and support the contents of their petition.

1600

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Pouliot: I have 15 petitions. Mr Speaker, but with respect for the time clement in this House, I ask your acquiescence if I can read one. All are identical and they represent the concerns of more than 200 people.

“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:

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

I take a great deal of pride in endorsing the contents of these petitions and therefore will affix my signature to them.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have my last set of petitions today -- about 300 names affixed to a petition, which brings to about 5,000 now the total of people disgruntled about the superannuation situation.

“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 continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, and equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Mackenzie: 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;

“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 28 members, these two sheets, mostly in Hamilton or the town of Stoney Creek. I have attached my signature to it and I support it.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition intended for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“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.”

It is signed by 20 people from the Welland-St Catharines-Niagara Falls area.

I have another petition.

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

“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 that would leave the future injured worse off. Workers who are killed in their work deserve much better than this.”

That is signed by 23 people from the Kitchener, North York, Amherstburg, Brantford and Windsor areas, as well as from Cambridge, Bramalea and Brampton and is signed by myself indicating my support for that petition.

I have another petition.

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

“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 compensation 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 than this.”

That is signed by Mel McIntee of Port Robinson and 19 others from the Port Colborne, Ridgeway and Welland area.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Wildman from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Mr Wildman: I have a few remarks to make on this. The House should know that the reason we are here today introducing the report of the resources committee on Bill 162 is as a result of a motion moved in the committee by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan), a member of the committee at the time, that the bill be reported immediately to the House.

At the time of the introduction to that motion, we had only just begun clause-by-clause deliberations on the report. I believe we had reached the end of section 2 of the bill and had dealt with two amendments. One was an opposition amendment and one was a government amendment.

The argument presented by the parliamentary assistant at the time was that there was need for more extensive debate on Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act in the House and that apparently there was not enough debate taking place in the committee. It was felt by the parliamentary assistant and her colleagues that it would be better to move the bill back into the House.

The committee has worked very hard and diligently on this piece of legislation. It is a major piece of legislation, one of major importance to the people of Ontario, particularly to the injured workers of Ontario and members of the labour movement.

Bill 162 was first introduced over a year ago in the Legislature by the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) on 2O June 1988. I think everyone in the House would agree that the current workers’ compensation system is injurious to injured workers and to workers’ health in general. I am speaking, I think, on behalf of all members of the committee about our report when I say there is no question that all members of the committee believe that the current system of workers’ compensation is inadequate and needs reform.

1610

The problem is that the amendments contained in Bill 162 are very controversial, and that came out during the deliberations on the bill in the committee, the hearings that were held by the committee and the debate which was initially begun on clause by clause.

It was suggested in the hearings and during the debate that in fact the amendments to Bill 162 introduced by the Liberal government would add insult to injury for injured workers. It was said repeatedly throughout the deliberations on the bill, whether by delegations that appeared before the committee or by members of the committee, that the bill should be scrapped and that the bill should be withdrawn.

When the Minister of Labour introduced Bill 162 in 1988, he said he hoped that the legislation would be passed by Christmas, without any public hearings.

On behalf of my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren), who is the chairman of the committee, I am, in the capacity of vice-chairman, simply attempting to present to the House the current state of the legislation as reported as a result of the motion passed in the committee last day.

We all know that initially when the bill was introduced, the suggestion was made that it should be --

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wildman: The suggestion, I believe, was made that there should not really be any public hearings of the committee and that the bill should be passed by Christmas 1988.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East, please show respect to your colleague. I know interjections sometimes take place, but they usually take place when members are in their seats. However, that still does not mean they are in order. I remind all members. The member for Algoma may wish to continue.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your comments. I would say, though, that the outbursts of various members are simply an indication of the controversy that has surrounded this bill ever since it was introduced in this House and during the committee hearings. This bill arouses very, very extreme feelings because this bill will have extreme results for injured workers if passed as presented by the Liberal government.

Initially, there was question as to what kind of consultation had taken place with the members of the labour movement, the people it most affected, the members of the injured workers’ organizations, the advocates for injured workers across the province; what sorts of consultations the government and the minister had entered into in order to bring forward this legislation which would have immediate and long-lasting effects for injured workers across Ontario.

As members know, the bill went to second reading in the Legislature on 19 October 1988. The recorded vote took place on 23 November 1988. At that time, 64 members of the party represented in government voted in favour of the bill. The members of the opposition opposed it.

The matter was then, after some controversy, referred to the standing committee on resources development, and at that time the suggestion was made that we should be holding public hearings so that indeed there could be consultation and input from members of the labour movement, the injured workers’ organizations, the advocates of injured workers and employees across Ontario. Then we would have an idea as to what kind of consultation took place prior to the introduction of the legislation and what the views were of the various groups involved.

At that time the committee decided that it would indeed advertise to hold hearings. There was a tremendous response to the advertisement. There were over 600 groups that indicated they wished to make presentations directly to the committee on this act to amend the workers’ compensation system in Ontario.

Some of those groups were employers’ groups. A very large number of those groups were unions representing workers in Ontario and injured workers’ organizations, as well as advocates for injured workers, the legal clinics and so on.

Over 600 indicated that they wished to make presentations, and all of those 600 got their names in on time. According to the advertisement’s deadline, they were in on time. They expected by getting their names in according to the deadline that they would indeed be heard by the committee.

Mr Pouliot: Were they heard?

Mr Wildman: No, they were not heard. The committee decided that it did not have the time, or it would not make the time, to hear all of the presentations. The committee only allocated enough time for about half of the groups that wished to make presentations to the committee.

Mr Miclash: Make it a minority report.

Mr Wildman: This is a reporting of the bill. There is no majority or minority report.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I guess it is necessary to remind all members that the Speaker usually recognizes one member to speak at a time. That has been done. I hope all members will govern themselves accordingly.

Mr Mackenzie: The interjections came from the other side, not here, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Again, I appreciate the assistance of all the members and I will now recognize the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to ensure that the members of the assembly have a full understanding of what occurred in the committee leading to the reporting of Bill 162 back to the Legislature.

The committee decided to hold hearings. The committee set aside enough time to hear approximately one half of all of the groups that had indicated they wished to appear.

One of the first things that was asked of the groups that appeared before the committee was what sort of consultation had gone on with the Ministry of Labour prior to the drafting of this legislation that would have such important effects for workers in Ontario.

I think it would be useful for the members of the assembly to hear some of the comments that were made by groups that appeared before the standing committee on resources development with regard to consultation. I have a few here which I think would be useful to quote.

The first one is from the Canadian Auto Workers council. It says, “We at the CAW feel strongly that the ministry should have at least consulted or asked for some suggestions from all interested parties prior to the introduction of such wide-sweeping changes.”

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union said, “We know all the problems with the present system, though for a reason that defies imagination, we were never consulted as to any changes.” The minister, who is standing in the wings, should be aware that OPSEU did in fact say it was never consulted prior to the introduction of this legislation.

The Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto said: “The intended bias of this legislation...is obvious from the start. If the legislation was sincerely intended to meet the needs of injured workers, why is it that their organizations were not consulted in the drafting of these changes?”

1620

I ask the minister again, along with the Metro labour council: If the legislation was sincerely intended to meet the needs of injured workers, why is it that their organizations were not consulted in the drafting of those changes? This is a question that was asked repeatedly in the committee hearings.

It is interesting to note that when these criticisms were made the ministry staff indicated that this was not correct, that in fact consultation had taken place. As a matter of fact, the minister’s office published a long list of organizations which it said the minister had at one time or another met with and consulted about Bill 162.

But unfortunately, when that list was published, a large number of the group said: “Wait a minute. We never met with the Minister of Labour on this legislation. We met with the minister on occasion but we did not talk about Bill 162. Some of them said: “Well, the minister talked a bit about Bill 162 but he didn’t hear anything we had to say. We didn’t make any comments” or “We didn’t have time. There wasn’t any consultation.”

Over half of the groups on the list indicated that they did not consult with the minister on Bill 162. Subsequent to that, the minister said. “Oh, well, this wasn’t an accurate list,” that really it was just a list that indicated groups that had somehow been talked to at one time or another by the minister and it was never intended to actually indicate that the minister had sincerely consulted on Bill 162.

The fact is that the vast majority of the labour organizations and the organizations representing injured workers that appeared before the committee during the public hearings said that they were not consulted. The committee went to something like 12 communities across Ontario to hold hearings.

Prior to the holding of hearings, the minority in the committee moved a motion that the committee should set aside enough time to hear all groups that had their names in before the proper deadline. However, the decision was made by the committee that this was not appropriate, that the committee did not have the time.

The committee held hearings in about 12 communities, starting at about 13 February and went to about 19 April, and it had an overwhelming response in every community. There were large numbers of delegations that appeared before the committee and we had a situation in each community that we visited outside of Toronto that we did not have enough time on the committee, because of the schedule as it had been decided, to hear all of the groups. In every venue there was a large number of groups that had their names in on time but were not able to make presentations.

Some members of the assembly might ask how that could happen. As I indicated, the committee had decided on a schedule that would only allow for about half of the groups. So what did the committee have to do? It had to somehow decide who would make presentations and who would not.

An intricate method was established for determining who could make presentations to the committee on Bill 162. What the committee did was take all of the names of the groups that had got their names in on time and put them in a hat or some other receptacle. The chairman, my colleague the member for Nickel Belt, was obliged to pull names out of the hat. This is how we on the resources development committee decided which groups had important things to say about Bill 162 and which groups should have the opportunity to make their presentations verbally to the committee. It was purely a game of chance. Pat Sajak would have been proud.

As a result, some of the groups that appeared before us, I suppose, had very important things to say; other groups, which perhaps had things to say and wanted to make presentations but did not have as much direct information about Bill 162 or the effects on the workers as other groups that were denied the opportunity, made presentations. We had large numbers who demanded to be heard in each hall where we went. They demanded to be heard.

What usually happened in those committee hearings is that a member of the minority would move a motion that all groups that had their names in before the deadline in that community be given the opportunity to be heard and that we extend the hearings. But the committee, in its wisdom, voted down such motions on every occasion.

Mr D. R. Cooke: They might be repetitive.

Mr Wildman: It was suggested, I hear across the floor, that some of the presentations might be repetitious, and there was repetition in the presentations. I have found it rather strange that it was suggested that since groups might be saying similar things, they should not be heard, or that since they were saying similar things -- incidentally, similar things that were in every case in opposition to the bill -- somehow they were not worth listening to.

I could never understand as an individual member of the committee, or on those occasions when I was chairman of the committee, why it was that members of the committee did not understand that if groups all said similar things in opposition to what the Minister of Labour was saying, perhaps they were right and he was wrong.

It is true that the majority is not always right; we saw that proven in the last provincial election. But on occasion, when the majority almost unanimously says the same thing, surely it must lead members of the committee and members of the assembly to question the position of the government. But that did not happen.

The government members on the committee and the opposition members on the committee all listened to many presentations throughout the period of public hearings. Some people who made presentations might be forgiven if they wondered aloud whether or not the members of the committee heard what they were saying. They certainly did not respond.

1630

During those hearings, the suggestion was made that since the committee had decided that time was of the essence and it was not possible to extend the hearings in each community, the committee could hold hearings in Toronto. The member for Essex-Kent (Mr McGuigan) made the suggestion that perhaps the committee could hold hearings in Toronto. That is something that we should have responded to.

We suggested that perhaps the committee -- more than a suggestion; a motion was put -- could hold hearings in Toronto and that groups that had had their names in on time and had not had the opportunity to make verbal presentations should be given the opportunity to travel to Toronto and make presentations. But despite what was said previously by the member for Essex-Kent, the majority of the committee decided that was an unwise and undesirable approach and in fact the committee decided not to hold further hearings.

It was said throughout, I must admit, that individuals and groups that had not had the opportunity to make verbal presentations could of course make written submissions to the committee and then each member of the committee would read all of the submissions and take them into account when it came to clause-by-clause debate on the bill.

We received many written submissions. A voluminous amount of information was provided to the committee. In most cases, the vast majority of cases, those written submissions agreed with the criticisms of the bill that were made in the verbal presentations to the committee. However, when it came to moving beyond and responding to the presentations, the committee was unable to take action.

Mr Speaker, I am sure you are concerned and curious to find out what the concerns were that were presented by the vast majority of groups that had the opportunity, what those that made written submissions to the committee said. In general, the vast majority of the presentations to the committee said Bill 162 was a bad piece of legislation that should be scrapped. They pointed to a number of problems with the legislation.

Rather than being misunderstood, though, I want to emphasize what I said at the beginning of my remarks. All members of the committee, I think without exception, agreed that the present system of workers’ compensation demeans workers, does not serve workers in this province, harms workers and their families. There is agreement, a consensus on the committee, and probably in the House, that workers’ compensation in Ontario is in a mess and needs to be reformed. That was also the position taken by the presenters, whether they be employers groups, workers’ groups or labour groups.

The interesting thing, though, is that many labour groups and worker groups that oppose the present system of workers’ compensation in Ontario said, “Bad as it is, it is not as bad as the system that would result if Bill 162 were to pass.” Bill 162 will not provide better pensions than the present, woefully inadequate system. It will not guarantee vocational rehabilitation to every worker who needs it. It will not result in guaranteed jobs for injured workers to return to -- that is, reinstatement -- and it gives a great deal of discretionary power to the Workers’ Compensation Board in administering the systemnot just in administering the system but actually in drawing up the regulations on how the legislation will be implemented.

Members of this House have fought for the dignity of those who by no fault of their own have been hurt on the job, have been injured and-disabled while working and unable to continue in the previous jobs they have been in in the past. Too many of us have worked to pass legislation now that will mean injured workers are denied justice and fairness by the system implemented.

We had the problems with the hearings, with the presentations, with the almost unanimous agreement in opposition to the bill that the bill was not even good enough to be amended but rather should be scrapped.

Unfortunately, the standing committee on resources development was unable or unwilling to extend hearings to ensure everyone had his say, so only those who had the luck of the draw were able to make their presentations before the committee.

It is true that other groups were able to make written presentations. The problem, though, with written presentations is that members of the committee were unable to ask questions of the presenter and are not able to get clarification of points that are made in the written presentation. They are not able to cross-examine, so to speak, the witness so that we get a better idea of what the position is of the witness, what exactly the criticisms are and whether or not they are valid. That is the problem with written submissions. But we were stuck with that position. There was nothing we could do.

Some might wonder why there was such enormous interest in this legislation. It is obvious that this is the first piece of legislation introduced in this Legislature since 1914 that brings about major cutbacks in compensation. We know that the original 1914 legislation was a trade-off, where workers gave up their right to sue employers in exchange for a no-fault publicly administered system of compensation for workplace-related disabilities.

Many, many groups that appeared before the committee said Bill 162 is a betrayal of that tradeoff, of that agreement and of that concession made by workers in 1914. Every major reform of the workers’ compensation system since 1914 has been aimed at and has had the result, in some way or other, of trying to alleviate the problems in the system to improve benefits for workers. According to those groups, this is the first time we have legislation presented which in fact will cut the benefits to injured workers.

There are a number of areas of criticism I mentioned before that I would like to expand on. The first and one of the major ones, probably the major one, is the dual award pension system. It was said repeatedly to us in the committee by presenters that this will result in smaller pensions for workers, particularly because of the system of determining wage-loss payment based on potential jobs, not on the actual situation of the injured worker.

We had many, many presentations before the committee on what this really means. The term that was used repeatedly in the committee was “deeming.” It was pointed out that the Workers’ Compensation Board already has a system it is implementing that determines the effects on the worker financially on the basis of what the worker’s, and I quote the word, potential is, not on what the worker’s actual situation is.

In one of the presentations in Timmins, I think we had one of the most ludicrous examples. We had an organization appear before us that pointed out that it had information the Workers’ Compensation Board was dealing with the case of a custodian who had been hurt on the job. He had injured his back and was unable to return to that work. The Workers’ Compensation Board, in considering this case, looked at the worker and said, “Okay, you’re going to have to get so much compensation for your back, but in determining what the level of benefits should be, we have to look at what your potential is.”

In the wisdom of the Workers’ Compensation Board, it was deemed that this worker could be an air traffic controller. None of us can deny that in Timmins and across Ontario there is a tremendous demand for air traffic controllers. I suppose a member of the committee might be forgiven if he or she assumed that if the board felt this worker could be an air traffic controller, the board would provide training for this worker and that the board had done some sort of aptitude testing to determine if this worker could indeed be an air traffic controller. But no, that was not the case. The committee was told the worker was simply informed that he could be an air traffic controller and that it would not be too hard on his back.

The board came to the conclusion that if this worker did indeed get employment as an air traffic controller, he would make more money than he made before when he was a custodian and that therefore he did not need any extra benefits. So we have a case of a worker who does not have a job, who cannot return to his original work, but the Workers’ Compensation Board informs him that because he might at some time or other become an air traffic controller, he does not need any benefits.

1640

This was the centre of a great deal of controversy before the committee -- the deeming system -- a system that is apparently being implemented by the Workers’ Compensation Board in anticipation that Bill 162 will be implemented. Will it be implemented? It is already being implemented.

We had numerous presentations before the committee. I think the one that sums up this portion of the legislation and the problem with it the best for me was the one from the iron workers in Sudbury. The representative of the iron workers informed the committee that this legislation means the worker is deemed if he does and deemed if he does not.

Hon Mr Sorbara: That’s clever.

Mr Wildman: I hear someone saying that’s clever. It was a clever choice of words, a play on words, by the representative of the iron workers, but it is tragic for the worker who is treated this way by the Workers’ Compensation Board.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union, for instance, said, “From decisions made by the board in the last few years, we have every reason to believe that the proposed wage-loss system will be nothing other that bureaucratic voodoo, where the board slots workers into imaginary jobs that the board considers suitable and available.”

The Confederation of Canadian Unions said: “We already know how the WCB is dealing with the supplements under the current section 45. Workers are seeing their supplements reduced or are being denied supplements on the basis of this section of what the WCB deems the worker to be capable of earning. We see no reason to expect the WCB to change this practice after Bill 162.

Of course the Workers’ Compensation Board will not change this practice after the implementation of Bill 162, because deeming is central to the dual award system proposed in Bill 162.

The United Steelworkers of America, the Toronto Area Council, said, “Pensions must reflect not only an individual loss of life, but also and actual lost wages, not deemed lost wages.”

That is what it means. If the board deems that the worker is capable of doing a certain job, even if that worker does not have it, then the worker is deemed to have lost only the difference between what that job would pay and what he made before in his other job. Of course, if the new job that the worker is deemed to be capable of doing has greater remuneration than the previous job, then that worker gets no benefits. So the worker is put in the situation not only of having no benefits and no job, but also no hope of ever improving his or her situation.

In Sudbury, the Mine, Mill and Smelters Workers’ Union said, “If an injured worker is able to perform work after medical rehabilitation, then there must be a real job for him to perform and not a phantom job that someone feels the injured worker can do.”

That term “phantom job” was used over and over again before the standing committee on resources development in the hearings. We heard repeatedly that workers are being deemed to be able to do jobs and therefore their benefits are being determined on that basis, even though not only did they not have those jobs, but also none of those jobs were available, in the view of the worker. On top of that, as indicated, not only medical rehabilitation, but other rehabilitation is almost always needed in order for the worker to take the job. We will be getting into dealing with what the committee heard about rehabilitation in a moment.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union said, “The injured worker will not necessarily have this job” -- that is, the job he is deemed capable of doing -- “but the board in their infinite wisdom will rule that the injured worker should be able to do the job and the wage-loss pension will be calculated on these fictional earnings. This is not wage loss. It is not rehabilitation. It is legal fiction designed to save the board money.”

That was another comment we heard repeatedly, that the whole purpose of this legislation and this section of the dual award system was to cut benefits and save the Workers’ Compensation Board money.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 870, said: “The WCB in Ontario has used the deeming process to calculate pension supplements. Deeming has consistently been used to inflate earnings capacity and to ensure that the supplements are reduced or not awarded.”

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers said, “The WCB has proven extremely adept at finding phantom jobs which the disabled worker could theoretically do, and which pay at least as much as his or her previous employment, whether such a job is actually available or is related to their own background and capabilities.”

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers said, “The phantom job scam created by the deeming provision in Bill 162 cannot be justified and it is extremely inappropriate that the board is the sole determinant of what constitutes suitable and available employment for the worker.” Again, we have the term “phantom job” and the problem related to the board’s discretion that we will be dealing with in a moment.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1977, said: “What must be realized here is that the worker is not working or earning any money in this imaginary, fairy-tale job. If Mr Peterson or Mr Sorbara applied this principle of deeming of imaginary jobs to unemployed workers, they could probably reach zero unemployment in the province of Ontario.”

Yes, I suppose that is a great way to deal with the unemployment problem. You just say: “We deem all of these people to be capable of certain jobs and as far as we are concerned, they are doing the jobs even though they may not have them. Therefore, we have no unemployment.” That is how the injured workers in the labour movement view what is being done by the Workers’ Compensation Board now and what is being proposed by the Ministry of Labour in Bill 162.

1650

Finally, CUPE, Local 114, said on this matter: “The Minister of Labour has continuously informed us that Bill 162 will not contain the element of deeming workers at phantom jobs. It would appear that this belief is based on the provision that the worker’s wage loss must be determined having regard to suitable and available work. It must be pointed out that the current legislation also contains reference to suitable and available work. The present section also clearly states that the board must compare actual pre-accident and post-accident earnings. Despite this, the WCB has exercised its discretion in such a way as to deem workers’ earning capacity from jobs they do not have.”

If there was one matter that was raised most often in the committee by representatives of workers, it was this terrible proposal that workers could be deemed to have jobs they did not have and their benefits would thus be determined as a result of this deeming.

One might expect that as there were so many presentations objecting to the deeming provision, when the committee came to the point of actually dealing with clause-by-clause, there would have been amendments proposed to get rid of deeming and to ensure that a worker could only have a wage loss calculated on his or her actual employment. But no, we did not see any of those amendments proposed.

It has been suggested that one of the advantages of this legislation, which has been proposed and dealt with by our committee, is that it guarantees rehabilitation for injured workers. This has been another matter of significant controversy. This was denied by group after group which appeared before the committee. We had a number of presentations in that regard.

The United Steelworkers of America, District 6, referred to the task force that was commissioned by the government with representatives from the labour movement, business, the medical profession and so on to look at rehabilitation by the Workers’ Compensation Board. It is a task force that the minister claimed had been listened to. He said that in the drafting of Bill 162, 75 per cent or 85 per cent, I think it was, of the recommendations of the task force had been implemented.

It is interesting that one of the co-chairpersons of that task force said in response that in his view 85 per cent of the recommendations of the task force had not been implemented as yet, and were not being implemented in Bill 162. So the United Steelworkers of America, District 6, referred to this task force. It is called as a short form the Minna-Majesky report after the two co-chairpersons.

“The Majesky-Minna report recommends a case management approach to vocational rehabilitation. The task force recommendations in general emphasize respect for individual dignity and quality of life. The system recommended by the task force would ensure comprehensiveness and continuity of the provision of vocation rehabilitation services. The meritorious recommendations of the task force have not found their way into Bill 162 either in spirit or substance.”

The Building and Construction Trades Council: “Bill 162 does not answer workers’ concerns about the inadequacy of rehabilitation services provided by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The government acts as if the task force on vocational rehabilitation never took place.”

It is ironic that throughout our discussions and deliberations on the committee, all members of the committee -- Most. not all; I think the member for St Catharines-Brock (Mr Dietsch) on occasion defended the system. Most members of the committee said that rehabilitation was terribly inadequate for injured workers in Ontario. If that is the case and if that is the view of members of the committee -- I would suspect that they are generally representative of the members of the assembly. If they are, then one would expect that in Bill 162 there would be a provision for vocational rehabilitation for injured workers and that the task force that was commissioned by the government would indeed be responded to by the drafters of the legislation.

The Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto: “The Ontario government commissioned a lengthy, costly and excellent report on rehabilitation, the Majesky-Minna report. Yet soon after, the same government has introduced legislation on the subject area studied which ignores the changes advocated in the report. The legislation provides a right to a vocational assessment but does not direct the board to provide services to the worker even if the assessment shows the need for them.”

That is the central problem with Bill 162 as deliberated in our committee. Repeatedly, members of the government party said that Bill 162 does guarantee rehabilitation for injured workers, but the fact is that the Metro labour council was quite right. All that is guaranteed for an injured worker is that the injured worker should have an assessment. Frankly, all that is guaranteed is that the injured worker should be contacted. There is no guarantee that the worker will receive rehabilitation, and even if the worker is offered rehabilitation, that rehabilitation will be what the board deems to be appropriate for the worker.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario Division: “The system can never be successful, without a genuine and effective commitment to rehabilitation.” As an aside, I think all members of the committee would agree with that. “Such a commitment has never arisen voluntarily from the board, and our members” -- that is, the members of CUPE -- “know that as long as the board retains discretion over rehabilitation it never will. Only when the injured worker has a statutory right to rehabilitation and a corollary right to reinstatement will there exist even the possibility of such a commitment.”

The Minister of Labour has said on occasion to the committee and also to other members of the public that Bill 162 will obligate the Workers’ Compensation Board to provide vocational rehabilitation to injured workers.

However, we heard repeatedly from representatives of labour and also members of the injured workers’ groups who appeared before the committee that Bill 162 does not guarantee vocational rehabilitation. In fact, they said it would mean less rehabilitation than is presently being provided, even though that is considered woefully inadequate.

At a public forum in Toronto, the Minister of Labour stated, “Bill 162 for the first time puts in the law of the province of Ontario the obligation on the Workers’ Compensation Board to provide vocational rehabilitation.”

But what does the bill actually say? This is what the bill says: “The board shall provide a worker...with vocational rehabilitation services if the board considers it appropriate to do so.” That is in subsection 54a(3) of the bill.

The minister’s statement that this would require the Workers’ Compensation Board to provide rehabilitation to workers in Ontario would be correct if the bill’s section stated, “The board shall provide a worker with vocational rehabilitation services.”

1700

But the bill as drafted by the minister says that these services will only be available if the board considered it appropriate to do so. In fact, we were told on many occasions before our committee that Bill 162, for the first time, puts into the law of Ontario major cutbacks in the provision of vocational rehabilitation.

Workers who have only received medical aid -- that is, half of the close to 500,000 yearly claims to the WCB -- or a pension will not be eligible for vocational rehabilitation. For example, in a typical hearing-loss case where a worker receives a hearing aid and sometimes a pension but is not off work, the worker will be barred by the legislation from asking for vocational rehabilitation.

Vocational rehabilitation services under the present act could include any measures aimed at getting injured workers back to work and assisting in lessening or removing any handicap resulting from their injuries. These provisions have indeed been limited to consultation and the provision of information, but under this bill, all it can mean, frankly, is a visit or a call from a WCB employee that would carry out the obligation of the board to provide services.

If that is what the minister meant, that the bill will require the board to provide services, it certainly falls short of what people who appeared before the standing committee on resources development stated repeatedly, over and over again, was needed for workers if we are to get workers out of the trap of workers’ compensation and back into the workforce.

Under the bill, even if the WCB decides to provide a vocational rehabilitation program to a worker, that program will not include diploma or degree courses or retraining, which are presently considered under the rehabilitation system. The proposed bill will define in law a very limited list of services, including vocational training, language training, general skills upgrading, refresher courses, employment counselling and assistance in finding a job.

If a worker is lucky enough to get as far as having the board help him find employment, Bill 162 will again, in law, limit that aid to six months, with a possible additional six months of assistance. Presently under the legislation there is no limitation.

In fact, from the presentations made before the resources committee, it appears that this legislation will dramatically reduce the future obligations of the Workers’ Compensation Board to provide vocational rehabilitation services.

Bill 162 will put into law the recently adopted strategy of the WCB to limit voc rehab to providing injured workers with a vocational assessment. If this assessment is then used in determining the potential wage loss when the WCB deems a worker capable of doing another job, we are moving away from rehabilitation to using the rehabilitation staff to limit a benefit for workers.

Obviously, rehabilitation is directly related to reinstatement rights. Repeatedly before the committee, the representatives of labour and injured workers said there must be a statutory right to reinstatement. Under Bill 162, however, reinstatement rights are so truncated as to be almost meaningless. In fact, they are less than presently legislated under the Human Rights Code.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission says that an employer’s obligations to rehire injured workers contained in Bill 162 are not as broad as already exist under the Human Rights Code.

Before our committee, we heard that reinstatement rights are a cornerstone of this legislation. It appears, though, that the government’s proposals are so flawed that the government should withdraw the bill, as was suggested by so many groups before the committee.

The former chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission appeared before the committee on 1 March 1989 and he pointed out that reinstatement and re-employment obligations contained in Bill 162: I do not apply to construction workers -- that has been changed somewhat and I will deal with that in a moment -- and small businesses with fewer than 20 workers or others excluded by future regulation; (2) only apply to a worker with at least one year of continuous service on the day of the injury; and (3) end, at the latest, two years after the injury. None of these limitations are contained in the Human Rights Code.

Bill 162 only obligates an employer to offer the worker the first opportunity to accept suitable employment that may become available with the employer, and again the Workers’ Compensation Board will define “suitable employment.”

On the other hand, the Human Rights Code requires that employers accommodate disabled workers, which means, according to Mr Anand, that the employer must make an individualized assessment of the specific needs and circumstances of the workers involved and, where appropriate, the employer may be required to make adjustments to work practices, redefine job duties, modify the physical layout of the workplace and so forth.

If this legislation, Bill 162, is indeed a step forward for the rights of workers to reinstatement, how is it that the former chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission could say that the provisions for reinstatement in the legislation are not as good as currently exist in the Human Rights Code?

All through the piece, the committee heard repeatedly that one of the problems with the legislation is that it does not deal with the problem of discretion on the part of the WCB. In fact, the discretionary powers of the Workers’ Compensation Board are increased under Bill 162. It was pointed out that the Workers’ Compensation Board will be drafting the regulations if the bill were to pass. Of course, it is true that the regulations would have to be ratified by order in council, but the WCB staff would be designing the regulations.

However, there are a number of other examples of the WCB being given too much discretion as far as the representatives of injured workers and labour were concerned when they appeared before our committee.

Bill 162 is riddled with key words like “considers” or “suitable" that will be defined by the Workers’ Compensation Board. I do not think any members of the assembly have to be reminded about what happens to workers when they have to face discretionary decisions by the bureaucracy at the Workers’ Compensation Board.

The history of that bureaucracy indicates that “discretion” too often means arbitrary decisions. Almost inevitably, when the worker is faced with a discretionary decision of the bureaucracy at the Workers’ Compensation Board, the benefit of the doubt is not given to the worker. The worker has to prove everything and if the worker is unable to prove his situation to the satisfaction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, the WCB employees exercise their discretion to the detriment of the worker.

1710

I am not being critical of the staff of the WCB. They simply implement the policies and regulations of their employer, the Workers’ Compensation Board. This legislation is not going to do anything to try to deal with that very serious problem of how the board interprets legislation and regulations and how the board determines policy.

We had a number of presentations before the committee with regard to the reinstatement provisions.

The United Steelworkers of America, Local 6409: “Is a worker who has been employed for less than a year any less injured? No. Therefore, should they not be eligible for reinstatement? Why is there not an obligation to a new worker?”

OPSEU, Sudbury, “Is it fair or reasonable that two workers, one with less than one year’s seniority and the other with more than one year’s seniority, both having permanent impairments of 20 per cent, for one to be reinstated and the other not to be reinstated? I submit that it is not only unfair, it is inhumane.”

The Ottawa and District Labour Council: “We believe the exclusions under the bill are unacceptable. No reinstatement for workers employed less than a year -- this flies in the face of what every safety officer knows to be a fact. Workers are injured in far greater numbers when they are new to a job. Workers under a year suffer greater chance of injury and should not be punished for it.”

I think those comments by the representatives of labour who appeared before our committee sum up the problem with this section of the act. It is completely unacceptable to anyone who believes in fairness to say that a worker, because he or she has worked for 11 months before getting hurt, should not be eligible for reinstatement while a fellow worker who has worked for 13 months should be. It is just not fair.

There were certainly a lot of questions raised before the standing committee on resources development as to whether or not this could be challenged in the courts as an infringement and discrimination on the basis of the worker’s length of employment.

Why any fairminded government would propose legislation which would discriminate so blatantly is beyond me. Certainly it is surprising, I think, that the members of the committee, when they heard this described to them, did not move immediately to amend that part of the bill so that we would not be reporting a bill today which still contains this discrimination within it.

It has been said by the majority members of the committee that the government did indeed hear the concerns raised by workers and their representatives in the hearings and the arguments that were presented in the committee and it was as a result of this that the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara), on 25 May, provided to the committee a number of amendments which he said responded to their concerns that had been raised by people in their presentations to the committee.

Then the question is, what did the amendments do? Frankly, I might be forgiven if I were to characterize the amendments as minor in nature. The amendments did not address any of the major problems with the bill that led so many representatives of worker groups to call for the withdrawal of the bill.

The amendments would still result in smaller payments for those who have permanent injuries, reinstatement rights would remain limited and rehabilitation is still not guaranteed. The arbitrary power of the board was confirmed.

Subsection 45a(3) of Bill 162 was unchanged in this new version that we are now reporting to the House. If this legislation is passed by the assembly, the Workers’ Compensation Board will still have the power to make arbitrary judgement calls based on possibilities rather than on the real situation of the worker. Despite what has been said by the minister and members of the government party, the deeming provision in Bill 162 is alive and well and has not been changed.

The reinstatement rights are still in conflict and less than those provided with the Human Rights Code. As I indicated before, the code covers all workers with no time limits.

One minor change that was made by the minister and which he tried to characterize as a major one is that the construction sector, which specifically had been exempted from the past version of Bill 162, would be dealt with by regulation. The minister proposed an amendment to the legislation that would state categorically in the law that members of’ the construction trades would be eligible, but that somehow this would be done and it would be done by regulation, again increasing the arbitrary power of the Workers’ Compensation Board, which will be designing the regulations to be passed by the cabinet.

Rehabilitation still will be extended to injured workers only if the WCB considers it appropriate to do so. As I have said, the treatment of construction workers in the new bill, as presented by the minister, highlights the bottom-line concern with Bill 162, that it increases the arbitrary and discretionary powers of the Workers’ Compensation Board and the government to the detriment of injured workers.

Many problems were identified in the hearings on the bill. These have not been rectified by the minister’s amendments which he put before the committee on 25 May. The minister did make the concession that the previous inability to appeal decisions to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal would be changed. However, if one is aware of the present system and the way the corporate board interprets that provision in the current situation before the Workers’ Compensation Board, there is no provision in the amendments that would stop the 86n-ing of decisions of WCAT.

In section 86n, for those members of the assembly who might be less familiar with it, the corporate board of the Workers’ Compensation Board takes the position that it has the right to review and change decisions made by the independent appeals tribunal. In fact, in some cases reviews by the corporate board of decisions of WCAT have taken many, many months and still have not been resolved.

Although the minister in his amendments did allow for appeals, he did nothing about the 86n provision which would make it possible for the WCB corporate board to use its discretion and to deny benefits that might be awarded on appeal by WCAT.

1720

Some other problems with the bill that were presented to the committee that I have not dealt with deal with the fact that it determines two classes of pensioners: those injured before Bill 162 and those injured afterwards. I have not even attempted to deal with the problem of industrial diseases. Industrial disease claims are not dealt with at all in this bill despite situations that we have raised in the Legislature like the gold miners and the lamp plant workers. They are not protected by any provisions in this legislation.

I have gone on at great length about the deliberations of the standing committee on resources development on which I have the privilege of serving as the vice-chairman. I regret very much that the chairman, my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren), was not able to be present today because I am sure he would have made an even longer – well, I do not know whether it would be longer but certainly a more comprehensive description of the proceedings of the committee and the difficulties faced by workers who will be affected by Bill 162 if it passes.

I want to say, as the vice-chairman, that I appreciate in general the work that has been done by members of the standing committee on resources development. I say that, though I must say I regret very much that the members of the committee on the majority side were unable to find it in their hearts to extend the hearings to ensure that all people who had indicated that they wished to make presentations before the committee would have the opportunity to do so.

I regret that they repeatedly decided the ministry should be listened to rather than the injured workers and the labour movement. I regret very much that they decided repeatedly not to accommodate groups that had indicated they wished to make presentations but were denied. But most of all I regret that, while they listened to the presentations and they listened to the arguments about Bill 162 and its provisions and what effects it would have in regard to the dual award system, the deeming, the lack of rehabilitation, the failure to require reinstatement, the increasing of the WCB’s discretionary powers to the detriment of workers, they did not hear what was said and they did not respond to what was said.

In most cases, unfortunately, they remained silent and sort of took an attitude similar to that popular song, “Don’t worry, be happy.” They said to workers who appeared before us who had spent years fighting with the Workers’ Compensation Board: “Oh, don’t worry. We are in charge. Things will be okay. Your concerns are unfounded.” These workers and their representatives had been fighting for years with the Workers’ Compensation Board in dealing with problems of deeming, problems with regard to rehabilitation, problems with regard to assessments. They did not accept that these workers and their representatives might know more about it than members of the Legislature.

I recall on one occasion an injured worker -- I think he was a representative of the Union of Injured Workers -- said in a very moving presentation to the committee: “What would happen if the Workers’ Compensation Board, in exercising its discretion with regard to deeming, were to deem that I with my bad back can’t continue to do a labouring job but I could be an MPP? After all, there is not a lot of physical labour involved. You sit there and you listen. You don’t say much. When you do talk, you don’t make a lot of sense.”

I felt that this worker said very clearly how he felt about the way the government and Bill 162 are treating him and the way the Workers’ Compensation Board has repeatedly treated him. It may sound farfetched, but in fact he could be deemed capable of being a politician. The fact that a person was not elected or did not have a political position would not matter, and the fact that we, as politicians, may make more than he did before he was hurt would mean that he would not get any benefits. That would make as much sense as the example I used earlier about the worker who was deemed to be capable of being an air traffic controller.

I want to pay tribute, as I did in general to members of the committee, particularly to my friend the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel), who has led the debate on Bill 162 in the committee day after day. I do not think there is any other member of the committee, certainly not myself, who is as knowledgeable about the ramifications of Bill 162 as my friend from Sudbury East. All members of the assembly owe her a great debt, and I regret very much that the majority on the committee did not hear her concerns or her criticisms and respond to them.

It is with regret that I report on behalf of the committee the decision of the committee to move and to pass a motion that this committee report the bill today. I hope that in the deliberations on this bill in the Legislature we will be able to make the changes in those provisions of the legislation which would be of detriment to workers in this province. But I must say that my experience on the committee does not make me optimistic that the majority will hear the concerns of injured workers and will at least change those provisions of Bill 162, if not indeed scrap the bill and start over with proper consultation with injured workers and their representatives in the labour movement.

Mrs Marland: As a member of the standing committee on resources development and as a Progressive Conservative, I would like to tell the members that my personal experience with Bill 162 has been a very real experience for me. I would suggest to members of this House who have not had the experience that we had, as that committee travelled this province and listened at first hand to examples from the injured workers and their families, that they have really no idea what the implications of what we are doing today really mean.

It is really almost difficult to know where to start in this debate this afternoon. In fact, if I were to say that I was somewhat shocked by the motion placed before the resources development committee on Thursday by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan), it might be an understatement, because I thought that the Liberal government of Ontario has advertised and reinforced itself all the time for the four years that it has been the government about how open it is, how it believes in listening to the people, how it has campaigned in what seemed to a very large number of people, obviously, to be in a very sincere way about the fact that it was going to be a totally different government from ever before in this province. It was going to be a government with no walls and no barriers.

What we have in this motion to do with Bill 162, the bill to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, is that we are dealing with a motion that absolutely creates the walls and the barriers. In fact, more than that, this motion means that everything we have been doing for the last six months has been a total waste of time, a total farce; totally irresponsible on the part of the Liberal government that now brings in this motion.

1730

What happened was that originally when Bill 162 was introduced on 20 June 1988, it was the hope and expectation, I understand, of the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) that this bill would go through very quickly. Before the bill was drafted, there was a lot of eager anticipation for a remedy to the problem with workers’ compensation existing today in this province.

One would think that a responsible government, if it wanted to draft a piece of legislation that was indeed going to work, would go to the very basic principle of consulting people who would have to work with the new legislation and would be impacted by the new legislation. I speak of two groups of people. I do not speak only of those workers who, tragically, have been injured in the workplace, but of their employers, of industry, of the people who make the economy of this province go around.

When you look at the major employers in this province and you look at the small employers of this province, it does not take very much common sense to understand that the whole system of workers’ compensation is not working in anyone’s best interests today. It certainly is a very expensive system for the employer. We hear all the time from both large and small industries and firms that the burden of their unemployment insurance premiums is just about at the margin of whether they make a profit, and for some small firms whether they even stay in business.

We certainly have examples of injured workers who have received their compensation for injuries in the workplace after two and three years of battling and fighting for that compensation and who really cannot survive on what they receive. We also know there are injured workers in the province today who do not choose to survive on their meagre pensions. If they had a choice, they would like to be rehabilitated and be retrained and be able to be independent financially. Unfortunately, because there is no right to rehabilitation for injured workers, they do not have that opportunity.

This Bill 162 is not the answer to the problems that exist in Ontario today with injuries in the workplace. It is not the answer for the employer and it certainly is not the answer for the employee. How can it be? This Liberal government drafted this piece of legislation without any consultation with the people who are impacted by it, with the people who need the resolution to the mess that workers’ compensation is in today. If the government does not talk to the employers and if it does not talk to the unions and the injured workers and their families, then it does not understand what the mess is.

I think it is totally irresponsible of the Minister of Labour to have a piece of legislation drafted by -- I do not know the bureaucrats who drafted this, so this is not a personal attack on any bureaucrat who works in the Ministry of Labour, but I really have to wonder how, with an existing problem and an opportunity for a remedy, any white-collar bureaucrat sitting in the Ministry of Labour’s ivory tower could come up with this piece of legislation.

Frankly, it is a very poorly drafted bill. The fact that it does not answer the problems, in our opinion in the Progressive Conservative Party, is totally irresponsible, and the fact that workers’ compensation today has a $7-million unfunded liability means we are in an urgent situation. For four years, the Liberal government has talked about salvaging this system and bringing in something that would work. Quite frankly, Bill 162 is not the answer.

I would like to quote from a speech that was made by Mr Justice Roach in 1950. At that time, Mr Justice Roach headed the royal commission of inquiry and he said: “The public benefit by the fact that the worker, though disabled, is enabled to retain his self-respect. The compensation which he receives is not charity. He has in fact purchased it.”

The workers in this province did purchase their right to compensation when in 1915 they gave up their right to sue their employers if they were injured in the workplace. In exchange for that, they were going to be compensated if they were injured in the workplace.

I think down through the 75 years since that act was passed, this system probably worked for a while. It probably worked partially for some people and it probably worked more successfully for others, but right now we have a system that is not working for anyone, and as I have said, because of increased costs it is not affordable for the employer either.

If there is one thing that upset me the most about the motion that was brought to our committee last Thursday to move Bill 162 out of committee and into the committee of the whole House, I think it was the arguments that the member for Halton Centre, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, made herself. I just want to read what her arguments were, because if you read her arguments outside of these chambers, you would read them as the very argument as to why the bill should stay within the committee.

The fact that the standing committee on resources development travelled this province for some two months, as we did; the fact that the resources development committee spent in excess of $100,000 with staff time, travel time, hotel accommodation and hearing rooms in order that we could listen to the public and its reaction to Bill 162, the same public the Minister of Labour chose not to listen to before the bill was drafted; the fact that we were doing his homework after the fact at tremendous expense, I may say, the fact that all of that took place -- I think for those of us on the committee, I would not question that we were very sincere about our responsibility we had as we travelled this province and listened to group after group.

1740

I want to just comment on that because it is very important to emphasize that this Liberal government, with its openness and its willingness to hear from the public, did not want this bill to go to committee at all. Their intent was to have this bill receive second and third reading and be rushed through the House when it was introduced last year.

Because we demanded that this bill be put out to committee and get input from the public, which as I say the ministry had not heard from in the first place, because that had not taken place, there we were on the road listening to these groups. The members should bear in mind that we listened to something like 312 groups. We had requests from over 600 groups.

The selection of which groups we heard from was done literally by the luck of the draw. Our chairman, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren), actually sat and drew names out of a hat in a colloquial sense. That kind of selection about whom we might hear from as the committee conducted its hearings was absurd. It was absurd because we had over 300 more people who wanted to be heard from. The opposition members of the committee wanted to extend the committee hearings in order to be fair to all those groups who had something to say to the committee about Bill 162 and about why there are things in this bill that do not work in the interests of employers or employees. We could not extend the hearings and accommodate these extra people. When we discovered that we had some time, maybe an hour here or an hour there, we added to the scheduled deputations list by drawing their names.

I have no way of knowing whether we heard from the people who had the most knowledge of the bill, the most knowledge on the subject of workers’ compensation, the most knowledge about what it is like to be an injured worker in Ontario today and try to seek compensation. I have no way of knowing that and neither has any single person in this Legislature, including the minister himself. Nobody knows whether we have heard what needs to be heard on this bill, because those meetings were shut down to a limited time.

Considering that we have waited all these years for reform of workers’ compensation in this province, would it really have mattered if our committee had sat a few more weeks? The truth of the matter is no, it would not have mattered had this committee sat a few more weeks.

In hindsight, what has happened has been, as I said a few moments ago, a total farce. What has happened is this: The committee heard the input from those groups that were fortunate enough to be invited to make briefs and present deputations to us, yet the committee members --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Madam Speaker, you have control of this chamber and I request that you ask people to have regard for the order that prohibits interjections, because it is very difficult at this point for me even to hear myself.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Hart): As all members know, interjections are out of order. The member should disregard the interjections.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, madam Speaker. I will try to disregard those interjections. It is interesting that they are coming from the same members of the committee who chose not to listen to the public when we were on the road. They are now choosing not to listen in this chamber, so it is a rather predictable reaction, I suppose.

Anyway, the point is that there were 10 or 11 members on the road with this committee who heard from these groups. It is only those members who have heard the poignant stories and actual case histories. It is not the rest of the members in this House. With resopect, I know there are members in this House who, through their own constituency offices, work all the time with workers’ compensation cases. I know that, but as far as I am concerned, unless the other members in this House heard the actual debate and comment and the briefs presented to us in response to this bill, as we of the committee did, then I do not know how, quite frankly, by bringing this bill out of committee and into this House now for the committee of the whole House to debate, they will be able to stand up and make comment on the input we heard.

Where are we? We are now in the place where what is going to happen is that all the money, all the effort, all the cost of our travelling as a committee has gone out the window. It has gone out the window because those committee members are now not going to be allowed to sit any more on this bill. The committee hearings have been shut down. We are not going to be permitted to go through this bill section by section to really investigate what the bill is saying and how it relates, in fact, to what those committee members heard when they were on the road.

As far as I’m concerned, if this is the Liberal government’s way of caring about employers who are trying to conduct business in this province and have very heavy workers’ compensation premiums to pay; if this is the way this Liberal government cares about injured workers who have total frustration and dissatisfaction with compensation when they are injured in this province; then on its own head be it, because it sure is not going to be on ours. What we have said all along is that we do care about people as employers who are trying to do business in this province.

To read the words of the parliamentary assistant in our committee last Thursday when she moved the motion that we not continue committee hearings any more, that we just get it back into the Legislature and ram it through, despite the fact that it does not work, that it is not what people think it is, that the employers and the industry in this province who did come before the committee prefaced all their presentations by saying, “We support this brief because we believe it is not going to cost us any more money” -- Well, what an Alice in Wonderland world that is. The truth of the matter is that there is no guarantee in this bill that it will not cost employers any more money, and if it is not going to be the remedy for the problems that exist today, then it is a waste of time passing it.

But last Thursday, the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan) said, “Since that time, we have spent about 26.5 hours in committee.”

She continued to say, “Having reviewed that statistical data and the nature of the debate which has occurred in committee, it is my conclusion, and I believe will be the conclusion of many other members of the committee” -- of course, the Liberal members -- “that the bill could be better dealt with in the House in committee of the whole House. I believe it is a complicated bill, that we have benefited minimally at this point from the debate in the committee, and that when the bill is before the committee of the whole House we can benefit from more extensive debate in the House.

“I believe the bill is an important one,” she goes on to say. “It is one that I think really deserves particular consideration that is not tinged with what I can only describe as the use of the rules to delay the debate that I believe is so important ... I feel strongly that there are very important matters requiring substantial discussion and debate and that we will not see progress unless the bill is referred back to the House.”

1750

Is it not ironic that this bill, in the words of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, is an important one? It does require more extensive debate. She says “important matters require substantial discussion.” All I want to ask is, by whom? Those people in this House who did not hear from the public as the members of the committee did; that is by whom.

When the parliamentary assistant talks about the use of the rules to delay debate, that has to be the funniest line of all. The fact of the matter is that it is this 94-seat majority Liberal government that is using the rules to limit the debate. It is this Liberal government which has chosen to stop the debate in committee, the very committee that heard from the public, and bring it into the committee of the whole House. Is that not an ironic situation? This Liberal government does not care about the problems of workers’ compensation today in the province.

I want to show members why we know that this is a fact with this Liberal government. I want to read into the record a letter from someone we heard from in Thunder Bay. This going to be a difficult letter for me to read, because it does have some swear words in it, and I am not a member who uses profanity. I do not resort to profanity in any of my conversations or debate.

But this letter has to be read into the record, because it is from someone who tried to deal with our Minister of Labour and this is what she got. Her name is Evelina Pan. Evelina Pan wrote to the Minister of Labour on 10 February 1989. She said in her letter:

“Dear Sir:

“I was one of the participants at the meeting at the auto workers’ hall in Thunder Bay on the evening of Thursday, February 9, where you were asked to speak on Bill 162, workers’ compensation.

“I was dismayed to hear the sort of language which you chose to use. I don’t expect members of cabinet to be perfect, nor to necessarily agree with their views, but I do believe that any group which invites you to speak deserves to be treated in a courteous manner: that is to say not to be ‘treated’ to foul language. I will name only a few instances. Speaking to Steve Mantis: ‘You beat the shit out of me.’ Speaking to Charles Meeking: ‘No fucking way I’m taking that job.’ Speaking to Francis Bell: ‘...Shit all over the bill.’

“I’m afraid that you felt that because we were a group of trade unionists that we must be uneducated, both in the formal schooling sense and in the sense of etiquette, and therefore that type of language would be acceptable. I don’t accept it and I don’t think anyone should. In the future I hope that you will learn to conduct yourself in a style that befits a representative which the electorate put into office. I also hope that you will issue an apology to the group for your bad manners.

“Yours sincerely,

“Evelina Pan.”

Now, Evelina Pan copied this letter to the Premier (Mr Peterson), the member for Fort William (Mrs McLeod), the member for Port Arthur (Mr Kozyra) and Charles Meeking, president of the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council.

There was a subsequent letter of apology from the Minister of Labour, but all I can say is that when Evelina Pan came before us at the Thunder Bay hearings, when she gave us this letter, I realized that the attitude of the Liberal government, through its Minister of Labour, has been well demonstrated by the fact that this minister thinks everything he does is something he can treat so lightly as to insult any group in this province. As Evelina Pan said, this group in the auto workers’ hall was very upset and distressed.

That kind of language has to reflect an attitude. I am not so puritanical as not to realize that in the real world some people do use that kind of language. But we do not expect a minister of the crown, who represents the people of his government, to use that kind of language which insults and degrades everybody when speaking to people in this province

As far as I am concerned, the language in this bill, which uses words like “suitable” and “available” is just as senseless as the profanity the minister used in his speech and in his conversations with those people in that hall that evening of 9 February. I hope what will happen is that somehow or other this Liberal government will come to its senses before we go through this process any further, and that finally it will recognize that the people of Ontario, both employers and employees alike, deserve something better as a solution for workers’ compensation. They deserve to be heard and listened to not just for the process of elimination.

What we have now is a process that eliminates those groups that spoke to the committee, because for sure the people in the Legislature who will be debating Bill 162 from this point forward will not be the people who have any knowledge about what the real issues are. The people of Ontario deserve better. Those of us who are concerned for the people of this province -- as I have said, employees and employers alike -- in the Progressive Conservative caucus are ashamed of the fact that this bill is now being rammed through and taken out of the hands of the committee with no resolution having been achieved until this point.

From now on, the people who will be speaking will not be people who benefited from the case histories we heard. I regret that because of the time, I cannot give members some of those case histories, but some people have prattled all the way through this. In fact, I just would like to name the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr Black), the member for York North (Mr Beer), the member for Ottawa West (Mr Chiarelli), the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr Faubert), and particularly I would mention the member for St Catharines-Brock (Mr Deutsch), because he is a member of the committee.

The fact that they have chosen to interject and prattle all the way through my speech is fine. It does not bother me, but it must bother their constituents. I think it would bother their constituents very much that they are not interested in injured workers, their employers in this province and the right of injured workers to have rehabilitation, dignity and integrity in being able to be self-supporting.

Some other time, when I have more time, I would appreciate the opportunity of putting on the record the cases that I am fully confident none of these prattling members to my left would.

Miss Martel: I am sorry that none of the Liberal members, especially those who were on the committee, have seen fit to get up and talk about this motion. Their participation here in the House today exemplifies exactly the type of participation we have seen from those members in the debate in committee on clause-by-clause. It was absolutely zero. They did not even have the decency to stand up to try to defend the government legislation. That tells a lot, but I assume they have their marching orders in here just as they had in committee, when we sat all through the course of public hearings and then through clause-by-clause on this particular bill.

1800

Usually when I start to speak in this House on a particular issue before this House, I am quite pleased to participate in that debate. I respect the parliamentary traditions in this House. I respect the parliamentary process and the ability of members to come in here from all sides, from all political spectrums, to express their views on different issues that affect this province.

But we are dealing here today with a motion concerning a bill which I have had some particular dealings with for many months now. I am confident, as I stand here in this House, as I was in the committee during clause-by-clause, to say that I do understand this bill very well, and I understand the amendments to the amendments, and the amendments to the amendments to the amendments.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I realize we are it an unusual circumstance in that we are still in round proceedings and have not proceeded to the orders of the day, and therefore the normal six o’clock adjournment would not automatically occur. I would therefore notice the clock and see that it is now a few seconds past six of the clock and seek the unanimous consent of the House to adjourn.

Hon Mr Conway: I will indicate to my friend the member for Nipissing publicly what I have indicated to the opposition privately, and that is that we will not be giving consent for the adjournment of this.

The Acting Speaker: As the member for Nipissing knows, without unanimous consent the debate shall continue.

Miss Martel: As I was in the process of saying before I was interrupted, I have studied this bill for a great many months now and I have spent many hours as well on the road across this province, speaking to injured workers’ groups, speaking to trade union movements, speaking to many riding associations to outline our party’s opposition to this bill.

I should point out that our opposition to this bill has not changed. We recognized early on after it was introduced that in fact it was fundamentally flawed, that it could not be amended by mere tinkering, with some amendments to try and fix it, but that because there was no process of consultation in the first place, the whole bill should be withdrawn and we should start again.

So I come into this debate today dealing with a bill that is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed. I am angry and I am frustrated and I am extremely tired. I cannot believe that the government of the day is going to proceed with this bill. I say that in light of the overwhelming body of opinion, those who came before the public hearings and stated their opposition to this bill.

I remind members of this Legislature that it is not only the New Democratic Party which is opposing this bill bitterly. There is a combined effort by the trade union movement in this province, by the legal clinics in this province that deal with workers’ compensation -- and almost all of them do -- and by injured workers’ groups in this province. They themselves have read this bill, studied it and taken a look at it from their expertise as members who deal with compensation every day. They have said, as we have said, that the bill is fundamentally flawed, that it is not going to make the system of workers’ compensation any better in this province and that in fact it is going to make the system even more unfair, even more inhumane and more unjust than ever before.

While members, in particular on the government side, do not want to recognize that fact, they certainly cannot ignore the fact that the people who came before the committee hearings were people who are very well versed, well skilled and have a great deal of experience in dealing with the workers’ compensation system and the board. While the government may not like what they had to say, it cannot say that their opposition comes from ignorance or their opposition comes from blatant partisan opposition that they are trying to express against this Liberal government. That has been alleged on more than one occasion in this House and outside, and I think that is really unfortunate.

In any event, we are sitting in here today debating a motion concerning a bill that I think is fundamentally flawed and should have been withdrawn a long time ago.

Before I begin the whole body of my remarks, I want to go through what has happened in committee and why I think this Liberal government has moved the bill out of the standing committee on resources development and into this House. I made some remarks about this in committee on Thursday and again yesterday, and I will make them again today for the benefit of all those who were not in attendance.

I think what the government has finally recognized -- and it has taken a heck of a long time -- is that the New Democratic Party is serious about its opposition to this bill. As I said yesterday in committee, I was very surprised that, in fact, last week the government House leader approached a member of the Tory party and asked that member: “Is the New Democratic Party serious about its opposition to this bill? Are they really serious about holding this bill up?” I could not believe, for the life of me, that it has taken the government House leader this long to figure out that, yes, we are serious; yes, we believe this bill should be withdrawn and, yes, we will continue to oppose this bill in the face of this massive opposition for as long as we possibly can.

I cannot understand why it took him so long. He obviously had not been following many of the debates in this House or in committee, but certainly seemed to me to take a long time for him to understand that, yes, we were serious and, yes, the government in this case was going to have to ram this bill down the throats of the workers in Ontario because we were not going to give this bill to them at all or co-operate in any way. shape or form in getting this bill through in order to get out of here.

I think the second thing that is motivating the Liberals in this case has to be the embarrassment that comes every day in this House during question period. Whatever brave face the Premier (Mr Peterson) of this province might like to put on -- and he certainly tried today -- the fact of the matter is that there is a large number of very serious allegations concerning not only contributions to the Liberal Party but members in this House. As the scandals unfold day after day, as the investigations are geared up and as questions concerning Envacc and other important issues came to the fore every day, it cannot be very pleasant for the Premier of this province or some of his colleagues to see that unfold.

When we came back here in April, I remember that the government House leader had a long, long list of bills that were a priority and that had to be passed before we could recess this summer. It is amazing how many of those priority bills have been’ pulled off the table in the last number of weeks as the scandals continue to grow and unfold in this Legislature.

That is not by accident; let’s not kid ourselves. We see a government that wants to get out of here as quickly as it can but it also wants to get this bill out of the way because, God knows, if it carries over the summer and the committee deals with it over the summer that is only going to start a second round of outside agitation and a second round of opposition, demonstrations, petitions, etc, against this bill.

I think what the government has in mind is that if we clear Bill 162 out of the way and shut this place down, the Liberals can certainly avoid the embarrassment they are feeling every day during question period; but, second, when this House resumes in the fall, the Liberals can come in with a clean slate, perhaps a cabinet shuffle and they can try and start again to repair some of the damage that has been done to their reputation over the last number of weeks.

Third, I think the motivation behind the motion that was moved in committee on Thursday has to be that some form of commitment was made to the Workers’ Compensation Board on this bill. I repeat again that early in February our research department called to the WCB inquiring about how we could get information concerning Bill 162 and the board’s opinion of Bill 162. We were told by the communications department at that time that the WCB would not give out information on this bill until it was passed at the end of June 1988. This is at the same time, I point out to members of this House, that the resources development committee had only just begun the course of public hearings around the province.

What did the people at the WCB know that members on that committee did not know? What kind of arrangements had been made with the board concerning the passage of this bill and what form it would take that members of this committee, and in particular the New Democratic Party, were not privy to?

1810

We have passed the end of June but certainly that commitment could still be met if, in fact, this government moves closure here in the debate in this House. If we put all our cards on the table -- and we might as well -- the motion that was moved in committee on Thursday really is that: a closure motion. I have no illusions that very shortly in this House, when this particular debate is finished, there will be a motion to close this particular bill down. I think anyone who thinks otherwise is certainly deluding himself. Otherwise that committee could have dealt all summer with this bill. We could have gone right to the fall, because there is so much business to be dealt with and so much of that bill to be dealt with that we could have gone on at great length.

I think anyone who is trying to kid himself and say that this is not what is going to happen in the next few days, that in fact the government is not going to close this down and ram this bill through is sadly mistaken. That is an unfortunate thing as well, because this bill is so absolutely important, it is so critical, that to have no changes to the bill and to have it put in place in the way it was -- never mind that the amendments would not have changed much anyway -- is really a disaster for working people in this province.

I just want to point out, as my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) and my colleague in the Conservative Party have pointed out, some of the things the parliamentary assistant said when she moved the motion to report the bill on behalf of the government. She said, “We can benefit from more extensive debate in this House.” If ever there was a bigger joke, I don’t know what it is; because for anybody who has sat in that committee for any length of time or for anyone who has taken up some of the Hansards and read what has gone on at committee, there has been no debate in that committee. It has been all one-sided. It has been all on the part of our side.

It seems to me very strange that the Liberal members on that committee could not even get up and defend this legislation. The parliamentary assistant spoke on behalf of the ministry and on behalf of the government. Dick Clarke, who is a Ministry of Labour official, answered some of the questions that were raised but, other than that, the government members on this committee kept their mouths shut, as I am sure they were told to do, and we continued to carry the debate day after day after day.

It would be interesting if we were to break down exactly what went on in that committee. The parliamentary assistant pointed out that we had spoken for about 26.5 hours on the amendments themselves on the clause-by-clause consideration. It would have been interesting if we could have had a breakdown of who spoke, how long they spoke and from which side they spoke, because I think it would be an embarrassment to this Liberal government to see that its members could not even get up the courage to respond to this bill and say why they were supporting it. Time and time again it was the members in our party, my colleagues, who were in committee with me, who again and again pointed out our opposition, and why, and why the bill should be withdrawn.

The second thing the parliamentary assistant said which I want to comment on was, “There will not be progress until this bill goes into the House.” I point out again, that anyone who thinks that we are not going to do the same thing we did in committee day after day is sadly mistaken. There will be no progress on this bill in this House because we will do the same thing as we did in committee, which was to speak at length on every motion, to divide on every motion, to take the 20-minute recess that the rules of this House allow us in committee -- and we will do the same thing in here when this bill comes up for debate.

The parliamentary assistant can rest assured that there will be no progress, as there was no progress in committee. It is a bit of a farce for her to suggest it, but I suppose she did not have much of a reason to say why the bill should come back in here and she had to say something.

Third, the parliamentary assistant pointed out, “The bill is an important one and it should not be tinged by the use of rules to delay debate.” It seems to me that she must be taking some lessons from the government House leader because that is the same kind of line that members of this House heard from the government House leader some five or six weeks ago when he stood in his place and ranted about how the opposition was abusing the rules of this House by using petitions and bell-ringing, and that in fact this government would move unilaterally to change the rules and make sure that would not continue to happen.

I point out again that never in the history of this Parliament or of this province, in terms of rule changes, has one side, the government side, ever tried to move changes of rules on its own.

I point out again that it was not the first time we had beard that kind of comment in that committee. Some weeks ago, we had the member for Kitchener (Mr D. R. Cooke), who was in the committee and who, when the opposition rightfully asked for a 20-minute recess, suggested to the chair that the rules in that committee should be changed too, so that the opposition members could not call for their 20 minutes, and that they should be changed then and there, because he was disturbed of course by the fact we could actually legitimately use some rules to delay the debate in that committee.

I do not know if the House leader is going around training people in this place concerning rules or how we should undermine or take away the rules of the opposition in this House, but certainly what I heard from the member for Halton Centre in that committee on Thursday disturbed me.

Following closely from that, I suppose, was the allegation that because the opposition members used the legitimate rules we have to delay the debate in fact this in some way, shape or form stymied any participation by Liberal members on that committee. I point out again that absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Every member on that committee had the opportunity to participate at great length. Most members who sat in there day after day had been on the public hearings, had heard the concerns, had read through, I hope, some of the amendments to the amendments to the amendments that the minister had moved on 25 May.

Again, the Liberals chose not to speak during the course of the clause-by-clause debate. They chose not to defend the reason why this bill is an important one. That is probably the truest thing she said during the whole course of her comments.

This bill is tremendously important, not only to people who will be injured in the future but to those who are injured now and to all those people who deal on behalf of injured workers in this province and to employers as well -- all of the people involved in the compensation system in this province.

I cannot believe that because this bill is important, as she says, we would then turn around and put it into the House, because most members of this House would not have had the opportunity to participate in the course of the public hearings or in the course of the clause-by-clause discussion. They would not have heard the stories from injured workers concerning the need to do away with deeming, concerning the need to retain permanent pensions for the life of a worker.

It seems to me a bit of a farce to put that bill into the House, because most members in this House will not have read the bill. They will not have read the many amendments to the amendments or the amendments that were put forward by the minister and they will not have the benefit of what we who took part in the public hearings had in relation to this bill and what should be done with this bill.

Finally, the point must be raised that we are debating a motion today to report this bill back into this House and I think all members, especially members on that committee, should ask themselves, “What are we to report?” In fact, in the number of weeks we sat in that committee, day in, day out, we have gotten through all of one and a half pages of this bill. We are going nowhere fast. In fact, we never reached any of those parts of the bill that those groups who came before us had substantial problems with.

In light of that, it seems strange to me that w e would come to this House and report that we have had some progress and we are putting it back into the House for the continuation of that progress. In fact, the bill has not been changed in any way to respond to the concerns of the unions, the injured workers’ groups or the clinics across the province.

I guess the only thing that can be said is that at least now it is going to be on TV and people can see who is talking about this bill, either to oppose it or to defend it, and it will be interesting to see if that prompts any of the Liberals on the committee to actually get up and say something in defence of this terrible piece of legislation.

1820

We should not be here today, but the Liberals really forced our hand last Thursday and they decided that this bill should come in here in anticipation, I am sure, and I repeat again, of a closure motion in this House. Because we have been put in this position, as a party and as members of this Legislature, I intend to speak at great length on this bill.

There are a number of things I want to say concerning our position, concerning what the hearings were like, concerning this whole process and concerning how bad this bill really is.

I want to go through my remarks in two ways and I will point out to members of the House that the focus of my remarks will really be on two things. The first will be what in fact should be reported by this committee to the public at large about this bill and about the process, but information that probably will never be public; secondly, what should have been reported by this committee if the Liberal members on that committee, after the course of public hearings, had had any guts and said that this bill should have been withdrawn, as we heard time and time again during the course of public hearings.

I intend during the course of my remarks to use a large amount of reference material. Some of the things about this bill and the process are better said than anything I have said and I intend to put them on record now.

I want to start, I think in a most appropriate way, by pointing out to all members of this House what should be reported.

The first thing that should be reported is that the Liberal Party position on the dual award system has shifted dramatically from 1982-83 to 1988 when Bill 162 was introduced. I suppose that is what happens when you move from a position of opposition in this House to the position of a big majority. In fact, you will see that the Liberal members’ position has shifted tremendously. They were in defence of workers in 1932-83 and in many cases Bill 162 is a complete opposite to what the Liberal members voted on and argued for during committee hearings in 1982-83 on a similar dual award system.

Let me go back and look at the history and put it into perspective for members of this House.

In 1980, the then Minister of Labour, Dr Bob Elgie, announced that one Professor Paul Weiler, had been appointed to “make recommendations with respect to the workers’ compensation system in Ontario.” There had been at that time a large debate most recently before that in 1975 about how the system should be reformed, how the system should be changed and at that point, Dr Elgie was looking for someone who could make some kind of report on, in particular, the payment of permanent pension disability awards.

The task given to Professor Weiler was, more specifically than anything else, to look at the possible changes in the system to make, in his words, “compensation more fair, more humane.” Professor Weiler carried out his study. In November 1980, he released his report to the Minister of Labour and that report contained 21 basic recommendations.

Those recommendations were made by the Minister of Labour at that time, Dr Elgie, and they formed the basis of what the Tory government of the day called the WCB white paper. It was introduced in June 1981 in the hopes that there could be an avid discussion with all members of the public, all groups interested in workers’ compensation, on what Paul Weiler had said, on what the government intentions were and on what in fact, in the end, would be the legislation.

It is interesting to note that the Liberals did not do this. We are talking about major reforms introduced in the white paper, which was a draft for people to discuss and comment upon. It was not actual legislation, as was introduced here in this House in June 1988.

It was interesting to note what Dr Elgie said in that regard and how his view about how this whole process should be handled differs from the view and the actual path that was taken by this Minister of Labour. In, the white paper, this is what Dr Elgie had to say:

“This white paper sets out the government’s proposals for change in the province’s workers’ compensation system.

“When I received Professor Weiler’s report last November, I caused it to be circulated widely to labour and management groups and to other interested parties for comments and suggestions. I have had a number of responses and have had several meetings with interested parties to discuss the proposals. As might be expected, there are some differences of view on the substance of the proposals. In the main, however, there is a broad consensus in favour of the major thrust of the proposed revisions.

“However, before introducing a bill in the Legislature, it has been decided to circulate this white paper, setting out the 21 substantive revisions which the government believes may be appropriate and illustrating how these revisions would apply to the day-to-day administration of claims. The present intention of the government is to proceed with enactment of the new legislation along the lines set out in the draft bill as soon as possible, unless I receive strongly supported reasons for modification.”

Is it not strange that the approach taken then by the Tory government was greatly different from the approach taken by this particular Minister of Labour? In fact, a report was done by Paul Weiler and on the basis of those recommendations the government did not move with legislation immediately but decided that there should be the fullest public input on those recommendations and then legislation would be drafted, based upon what the committee heard during the course of those public hearings. What a change. What a difference that might have made if the same approach had been followed with Bill 162, but of course, it was not.

That study, those recommendations and the white paper itself were taken or assumed by the standing committee on resource development of the day. That committee held public hearings across the province, that committee went through the fullest possible review of those recommendations and on 16 December 1983 there were three reports tabled in this Legislature: the majority report of the Tories in support of the white paper and a dissent on the part of both the Liberals and the New Democratic Party.

I want to look at the dissent, in particular, by the Liberals and some of the things the Liberal members on the committee at that time said with regard to the dual award system which appears in Bill 162 and with regard to three other issues which appeared in the white paper and again appear in Bill 162. I think members will clearly see how the position has shifted. I say again, that must be what happens when a party in opposition assumes power with a big majority.

I want to look at the text of the legislation. First of all, I want to deal with the dual award system itself, which I should point out, as many members will recognize, is really part and parcel of this particular bill and one might say is at the heart of the proposals in Bill 162. The dual award system was a little bit different from that which is proposed in Bill 162. The white paper says this:

“It is therefore proposed to initiate a dual award system of compensation for permanent disability cases. First, the board will be directed to pay lump sum awards to individuals who lose a limb at work or suffer from other serious physical impairment.”

That is basically the same as what appears in Bill 162. The only difference, of course, is that the lump sum payment envisioned by the Tory government at that time would begin to discriminate on the basis of age at age 4O In Bill 162, that discrimination begins at age 45. What it means in effect, is that if you are above the age of 45, under Bill 162 you get $1,000 less in your lump sum payment, and if you are below the age of 45, you get $1,000 more. It is the most insane and asinine way to compensate injured workers that I have ever seen. On that, we are almost the same, except that in the Tory proposal the discrimination began at age 40 instead of 45.

The second and probably the more important part is also reflected in Bill 162. It is that loss of earnings is supposed to be made up if you cannot return to your former employment or if you return at a wage loss from what you experienced before you were hurt. The white paper said this:

“Second, the board will also provide periodic compensation benefits designed to replace the net wages which an individual worker actually loses as a result of his physical impairment. Among other things, the worker must also have an incentive to co-operate in all of the these efforts in returning to work. If, however, an injured worker refuses to accept employment which is suitable for him and was actually offered and available to him, the board will then be empowered to deem that he is effectively earning the income from such a job in calculating the wage loss for which he is to be compensated under the statute.”

1830

That is a significant difference from anyone who is dealing with Bill 162. In fact, the white paper proposal did use deeming, but the deeming was only to be allowed in the case where the worker actually out and out refused employment that was offered to him. The stipulation was that the employment had to be suitable and it had to be available, and if those cases were met and he refused, then the board had the power to deem.

I point out to workers what two members in this House -- actually three, but two I will quote from in particular -- had to say about the practice of the board deeming and about the practice of trying to determine what the wage loss would be using the words “suitable” and “available.” I point out again that the deeming process under the white paper could only take place if in fact the work was suitable and available and the worker turned it down.

This is what was said by the present Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) regarding these two words, “suitable” and “available.” I quote:

“It is the word ‘available’ that concerns me. For example, as I am sure you are now aware, there are some situations where workers are simply told, ‘There is work out there, go find it.’ The other difficulty is that it may be available, but it can be available in such a geographical location as to put considerable hardship on a worker. It can also be available in the sense that it might be available for three or four months, but it is not a job that is going to last.

“It is all of these connotations of ‘available’ that concern me. In the general definitions at the beginning of the draft bill there is no reference as to how you would tighten that down. It is too loose. Those of us in the Legislature who work with the compensation board people fairly frequently know that those are the kinds of things that cause so many of the conflicts.”

A truer word was never spoken.

Let me go on and point out what his colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr Wrye) had to say in terms of “suitable” and “available” and why it was going to be necessary for members of that committee to define those two words in order to ensure that deeming on the part of the board was used in the most limited cases and not with an overall broad sweep in terms of trying to punish injured workers. The member for Windsor-Sandwich said this:

“I view writing an act without a definition of the words ‘suitable’ and ‘available,’ leaving all of that discretionary power to jurisprudence or that board or a combination of both, extremely frustrating. Perhaps it is unfair on my part, Professor” -- that is Professor Weiler -- “however, I find it most frustrating because our history of relations with this board has not been the type of history that would lend itself to this kind of discretionary power. I honestly think that injured workers and those of us who have had dealings with them are going to find it very frustrating.

“How can we do thus without a definition of ‘suitable’ and ‘available’? I do not understand why we are going to leave all that discretionary power in the hands of the board or of jurisprudence, as you have described it. As a legislator, I have a real problem with saying that we are going to set up this appeal board and give them all the wide-ranging power to give us a set of jurisprudence on the words ‘available’, and ‘suitable’ when in point of fact those of us who are elected on behalf of injured workers and a whole lot of other people ought to have the political courage to begin to define those words. If we do not have the political courage, I quite frankly don’t know what the hell we are doing here.”

It is amazing that even in 1982-83, when these Liberal members sat on the committee, they could express then the same concerns that groups who came before us expressed: that you could not leave all kinds of discretionary power in the hands of the board because, quite frankly, all that would do would increase the conflict, not only for injured workers but for employers and all representatives who had to deal with the Workers’ Compensation Board.

So we had two Liberals who decided that you could not leave those definitions open-ended, you could not leave that to the board to decide, but in fact members of that committee had to have the courage to go ahead and define those words to limit the discretionary power of the board. The Liberal members on that committee in December 1983 supported the Tory recommendations on the definitions of the words “suitable” and “available.” And I quote:

“Following extensive discussion, it was therefore agreed that suitable work should be work which the individual is physically capable of performing, for which the individual is qualified and which does not place unrealistic demands on the worker. Reasonable consideration should be taken to ensure that the worker does not risk re-injury or aggravation of the original condition in returning to work.

“The committee also agreed that the board should make an assessment of suitable work only when the worker was fit and had either recovered from his injury or had received proper vocational rehabilitation. It was agreed that work should be considered available to the worker when the worker has actually been offered specific work that is suitable to the worker.”

What a far, far cry from what the Liberals have proposed in Bill 162. What a dramatic shift of positioning from what they thought was so important in 1982 to what they have found to be acceptable in Bill 162. Let me just point out the contrast and the complete turnabout that we have witnessed in this particular section, from the white paper to the deeming involved in Bill 162.

If you go to Bill 162, you find out quite quickly that the words “suitable” and “available” that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr Sweeney) and the member for Windsor-Sandwich were so worried about are in fact not defined anywhere in this bill. The most that has been done, and this was after the course of public hearings and after numerous cases on deeming were raised, is that the Minister of Labour moved to try to qualify what he thought “suitable” and “available” should be. It is not a definition, but to put some limits on what the board can consider, and this is his response instead of an actual definition of “suitable” and “available.”

“For the purposes of clause 20(1a)(e)” -- and that is the section on deeming -- “in establishing criteria for determining what constitutes suitable and available employment for a worker, the board shall have regard to, (a) the fitness of the worker to perform the work, (b) the health and safety consequences to which the worker, in performing in the environment in which the work is performed..., (c) the existence and location of potential employment opportunities for a worker in the labour market in which the worker is expected to be employed and, finally, (d) the likelihood of the worker securing employment.”

That is all the protection injured workers have against the board’s power to define “suitable” and “available.” He could not even define those words. All that could be done by this Liberal minister was in fact to try to set out some guidelines, and only after the committee heard case after case of workers being penalized by deeming on the part of the compensation board.

That is not the only problem when it comes to deeming. In fact, although the minister has put out some guidelines for the defining of “suitable” and “available,” he has done nothing to respond to all of the other criteria that are used in the deeming process besides suitable and available. Those include in the bill:

“(a) the net average earnings, if any, of the worker at the time the board determines compensation under this section; (b) any disability payments the worker may receive for the injury under the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan; (c) the personal and vocational characteristics of the worker” whatever that is and what ever the board finally decides it should be -- “(d) the prospects for successful medical and vocational rehabilitation of the worker; (e) what constitutes suitable and available employment for the worker; and (f) such other factors as may be prescribed in the regulations.”

We have just opened up the floodgates because in point of fact there is absolutely no protection anywhere in this bill, even in the most recent amendments moved by the minister, that stops the process of deeming or that in any way, shape or form even limits the board’s discretion in that particular case. That is a far cry, I point out again, from what the Liberals found acceptable in 1982-83. It is a far cry. You could say it is a huge backslide, as a matter of fact.

It is really unfortunate that what two ministers in this present House found so unacceptable in 1982-83 is now so unacceptable when it is the Liberal government that is moving a bill that has a dual award system.

1840

The dual award system and that particular problem is not the only area where the government has moved from its position taken when in opposition in 1982-83. The next section I would like to look at concerns what is called integration of Canada pension plan or Quebec pension plan. What it proposes in Bill 162 is that when workers’ earnings are calculated and those workers are in receipt of any money from the Canada pension plan for the disability or from the Quebec pension plan, in fact their compensation payments are going to be reduced to take into account the payments they get from that other source.

It is interesting to note what the Liberals said in this regard in 1983, and I am quoting from their dissent:

“WCB benefits should continue to be considered separate and apart from CPP benefits. This issue involves a number of complex judgments and cannot be represented as simply black and white. It cannot be stated, for example, that an injured worker has an absolute right to such stacked benefits. On the other hand, it equally cannot be stated that such stacking would provide for more than actual income loss, one of the fundamental principles of these reforms for reshaping workers’ compensation.

“Apart from the argument against the overcompensation theory, there are two other reasons why this action should not be taken at the provincial level”; that is, the integration of CPP. “It is, in the judgment of the Liberal minority on this committee, highly improper in the first instance for a provincial authority to presume that it can fund a provincial program out of money collected under an act of another jurisdiction.

“Notwithstanding earlier measures in Quebec and Saskatchewan, it would seem that, at a minimum, Ontario should ask the federal government for authority to use funds from another plan to pay for the benefits flowing from legislation to protect injured workers. It is, in the view of the Liberal minority, a change which quite properly should only be taken by the federal jurisdiction after proper consultation with those providing funding for CPP.”

So they were against that. It is interesting to note that in spite of what the dissent said in 1983, if you take a look at Bill 162, and I just did a quick review of it last night in this regard, in fact in three places on one page in this bill it talks about deductions for CPP and QPP payments in respect of calculating the benefits of workers. So, in fact, what was good enough for the Liberals while they were in opposition has not been good enough for the Liberals when they have come to power. Now, stacking should not be allowed and now workers who collect workers’ compensation should not be allowed to collect CPP in the same way without having a portion of that payment deducted.

I point out again that it is a far cry from what the Liberals found acceptable in 1982, and I can only wonder what has caused that change of heart.

The third particular area that is worth discussing here concerns benefit contributions made by employers. The contributions we are dealing with are those made by the employer concerning healthcare, life insurance and pension credits on behalf of the worker. The Liberal position in this regard was that the Liberals not only agreed with the Tory majority’s position that the employer cover the whole share of the cost of these benefits, they also wanted to go beyond the one-year coverage, and they said this:

“It is the view of the Liberal minority that the original proposal and the majority recommendations contain an extremely important omission. Injured workers will receive the protection of their former employer or the board until the day they return to employment. If, for whatever reason, they return to work with a new employer who offers less benefit coverage, no provision has been made to make up for that loss.

“We believe that situation should be rectified. In the first place, employment benefits are a form of income an

11 juillet 1989