STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The House met at 1331.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I thought I'd use my moment to share with you some experience I had recently in Scarborough North at two wonderful collegiates, Albert Campbell Collegiate Institute, whose principal is Mr Harris, and Agincourt Collegiate Institute, Robert Myrvold.
I was at the graduation exercises there and I was so impressed with our young people that it gives me great hope again that our province is in good hands in the years to come.
The fact is that often what we hear in the papers are negative things about our teenagers, our students. These two institutions, and many others in my riding, produce some of the finest citizens of tomorrow, and even of today. I wish many of my colleagues were there at that graduation and awards night to see the excellent quality of citizens we have.
I remind our colleagues here that when they speak of our young people, I have confidence in them that when we leave here in our old age, those who will replace us are people of excellent quality. I have great hope in our province and great hope in our country.
WASTE REDUCTION
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns an Orillia health care facility that is wasting no time in meeting a waste reduction target.
By last August, Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, which generates about 348 tonnes of waste annually, was sending 48.3% less waste to the municipal landfill site than it was in 1990. The hospital's administration and staff expect to improve that waste reduction level to 70% by Christmas.
We all know that hospitals across Ontario are in the midst of waste diversion projects because the Ministry of Environment and Energy wants our health care facilities to achieve a 50% diversion rate by the year 2000.
The Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital waste diversion committee expects to crash through that 50% target set by the province by implementing a new composting program. Almost 40% of the hospital's waste going to the landfill site is food waste. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital expects to save about $2,000 a year by trucking 70 tonnes of food waste to a Midland-area composting facility.
I congratulate the administrator, Mr Ken Warden, and staff of Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, and Keith Marshall, the city's landfill manager and a member of the hospital waste diversion committee, for a job well done. By diverting waste from scarce landfill sites, they're saving taxpayers millions of dollars and extending the life of landfill sites, which are costly to replace.
PUBLIC HOUSING
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to bring exciting news to the Legislature. It concerns an experiment in public housing in my riding of Fort York that will serve as a model for all tenants in Ontario Housing Corp communities.
Here in downtown Toronto, the Alexandra Park Residents Association is taking the first steps towards what it hopes will be the first conversion of public housing in Canada to cooperative self-management.
It's an historic occasion, and I'd like to welcome to the Legislature the tenant leaders who have begun this very difficult process: Sonny Atkinson, president of the residents' association, and members of the co-op conversion steering committee which I'm also happy to be a member of: Monica Cottle, Manuel Da Rosa, Oscar Diaz and Jenny Palacios. I'd also like to recognize the work of two residents who couldn't be here today, Irwin Downs and Annette Dewar.
Working together with me, the tenants have secured a $40,000 grant from the Metro Toronto Housing Authority to conduct community outreach and education about cooperative housing which will lead to a tenant referendum on co-op conversion next spring. Just last Friday, at its most recent board meeting, the Ontario Housing Corp designated Alexandra Park as one of two demonstration projects in Ontario for the purpose of exploring tenant self-management.
Next week, the Alexandra Park Residents Association will meet the Housing minister, Richard Allen, to discuss the progress of their work. I'm pleased that he is supporting their efforts and I know all members of the Legislature will join me in congratulating these tenants on their historic move towards self-management.
CO-OP EDUCATION
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Today, seated in the members' gallery are two co-op education students from Burlington, Matthew Psutka and Lisa Erkelens. These two young people are working in my constituency office for their first semester to gain work experience and an understanding of what a member of the provincial Parliament does.
Lisa, Matthew and other students placed in my office by the Halton Board of Education have contributed to the work setting and have gained an understanding of the political process, and many of those who have been in my office in the past are now in university considering a career in politics. One indeed may some day sit in this Legislature as a member. They've learned that an MPP is not only a legislator, but an advocate for those who have nowhere else to turn as they work their way through the system.
Co-op education in Ontario has been in place for approximately 20 years, and its underlying principles are to offer a learning experience in a community work setting and give students the opportunity to investigate what may become their chosen career. In today's changing work environment, young people need an opportunity to experience a workplace as they make decisions about post-secondary options.
Too often, we hear only bad news about education and about our youth. Today I can tell you that we should concentrate on the positives like young people such as Matthew and Lisa. Welcome to the Legislature.
JUSTICE SYSTEM
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The recent proposal to the NDP government by the Harriet Tubman Association, currently being considered by the Attorney General, Marion Boyd, for a separate justice system for Ontarians on the basis of race has been rightly met with strong criticism from legal and victims' rights advocates.
According to crown prosecutor Michael Leshner: "This is human rights gone amok...when you start treating one group favourably...then you are dealing unfairly with everyone else's rights. That road leads to the destruction of the criminal justice system." Mr Leshner also noted that he and other crown prosecutors would be in violation of their oath to treat everyone equally before the law. As lawyer Thora Espinet said on behalf of many in the black community, "I don't want different treatment; I want equal treatment."
But according to Dick Barnhorst, director of Ontario's office of youth justice of the Attorney General's ministry, the idea of a separate justice system on the basis of race "would not be unreasonable." Victims of crime, however, say that he and Marion Boyd are wrong.
What is unreasonable is Marion Boyd's refusal to support victims' rights legislation that would give victims treatment in the justice system that is at least equal to that given to criminals. What is unreasonable is for the Attorney General to even consider assisting a group of offenders by establishing a separate judiciary for them while thwarting the necessary justice reforms that would prevent the revictimization of crime victims under the existing system.
It is time for the rhetoric on separate justice for offenders to stop and for the reform of our justice system in the interests of victims to finally begin in Ontario.
1340
SPADINA SUBWAY
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I was disappointed when Metro council stalled again on its approval of the Spadina subway extension to York University. Many Metro councillors are determined to deny our community this subway line, even though their own chief administrative officer recommended the subway as a first priority.
For too many years, northwest Metro has suffered under past Liberal and Conservative government neglect, and our community has gotten very few improvements. Our NDP government must not allow this to happen again. We must ensure that investments are made fairly across all communities.
We need this subway line, which will create tens of thousands of jobs directly and many more indirectly. It will greatly improve public transportation in northwest Metro in an environmentally friendly way. This subway will serve nearly 60,000 students and staff who attend York University daily. It will serve the new Seneca College campus at York, with an additional population of 5,000, and reduce traffic on our streets.
This investment must happen. It will revitalize local businesses and I venture to say eventually even return a profit to the TTC, as does the Yonge Street subway.
Metro is going to be considering this issue again very early in the new year. I encourage all members of this House to lobby their Metro counterparts to ensure that they come on board with the construction of the subway, but if this does not happen, then I urge this government to do it alone.
LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I bring to the attention of the House today another abuse of power by this NDP government.
Kathy Kennedy, the chair of the homemaker advisory committee for the Kingston and district branch of the Red Cross, decided to exercise her democratic right to share her views with others in her community on Bill 173, the long-term-care bill. She wrote a letter to the editor of the Kingston Whig-Standard.
The chief government whip, the member for Frontenac-Addington, responded in the same publication with a scathing personal attack on Ms Kennedy, accusing her of bias and misrepresentation. Ms Kennedy is correctly outraged by this member's attack. She responds:
"I am totally disgusted and shocked that Mr Wilson would have the audacity to so blatantly denigrate the immeasurable time and commitment that I and countless other volunteers dedicate to serving their communities.
"How dare Fred Wilson assume that he is free to abuse the power that the electorate of this community has given him!
"After agreeing to attend a meeting in October to discuss Bill 173, Fred Wilson...failed to show up.... To whom is Mr Wilson accountable?"
I place the question: Is the member for Frontenac-Addington simply continuing the Martel, the Ferguson, the Piper, the Christopherson, the NDP tradition of bullying anyone who disagrees with this NDP government?
NDP AUCTION
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): From our home office in Wawa, Ontario, we have the top 10 items auctioned off at the Hamilton NDP convention:
The 10th item was their principles, which were sold for $49.99 plus 3,000 Club Z points.
Number 9, lunch with Bob Rae for $25; two lunches for $15.
Number 8, the Agenda for People. No one bought it.
Number 7, a copy of the NDP-Liberal accord so Lyn McLeod would have something to run on.
Number 6, the highest-selling item, Mel Swart's motion for Bob Rae's resignation.
Number 5, afternoon lessons from Bob Rae on how to chain yourself to a tree.
Number 4, Bob Rae's human rights speech that was given in China.
Number 3, a copy of the social contract, which was bought. It was marked down by 5%, I might add.
Number 2, tips on garage sales for NDP MPPs after the 1995 general election.
And the number 1 item that was auctioned off at the NDP convention in Hamilton was their sense of humour.
LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yesterday, November 21, both the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail featured stories about the new and improved Mike Harris. They described the desperate efforts on the part of Mr Harris's American handlers to remake his image. We are supposed to believe that the new Mike is a kind and gentle caring kind of Mike: He walks his little dog; he goes swimming in the old swimming hole.
This is all very sweet except for one thing: The very same newspapers plus the Toronto Sun carry other articles about Mike Harris, about the real Mike Harris. The real Mike Harris is the same old Chainsaw Mike who would slash 20%, or roughly $11 billion, from the provincial budget.
Chainsaw Mike would take most of the seats of this Legislature away from rural Ontario, including the north.
Chainsaw Mike would slash welfare benefits for the poorest of Ontarians by approximately 20%, taking the food from the mouths of babies, my God.
Chainsaw Mike's views on immigration are well known and they are repugnant.
Chainsaw Mike says native people in Ontario have no business worrying about treaty rights and land claims.
To cap it all off, Chainsaw Mike and his gang held a convention this weekend. With their behaviour, it was amazing. The highlight seems to have been a videotape made by an imposter camera crew. Quoting the Globe and Mail, the phoney camera crew doctored television clips broadcast by the Conservative convention in order to "poke fun at NDP leader Bob Rae by engineering the soundtrack to give him a stutter." Fun for the Mike Harris Conservatives is laughing at a person's speech defect.
It's obvious that the Conservatives have learned nothing from the disgraceful attempts in the last federal election to ridicule the facial expressions of Jean Chrétien, but the people of Ontario recognize just how --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.
Mr Bisson: -- mean-spirited and cruel and despicable it is to make fun of people's physical characteristics.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, I have a point of order that I'd like to raise with the House. Yesterday, the new Minister of Northern Development and Mines complained about no questions being asked in the House. I must say that he is wrong and I must ask him to get back to his staff, because on September 15 and 16, in the estimates committee, I presented 11 pages of questions to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines -- of course, the previous minister.
I would just like the new minister to get back to those 11 pages of questions regarding northern health travel grants, the mining industry, highway conditions in the north and all kinds of issues that really affect people in northern Ontario. I would really like the new minister to get on with those 11 pages.
The Speaker: The member for Kenora will know that he does not have a point of order. However, he has brought matters of great interest to the floor of the House.
ORAL QUESTIONS
PHOTO-RADAR
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, before placing my first question, my first question was to the Minister of Transportation. We expect him to be in the House; is he --
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Here he is, yes.
Mrs McLeod: Oh, good. If I may just wait for a moment, Mr Speaker, while the minister takes his place, so that I can direct my first question to the Minister of Transportation.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): You might wish to stand down your first question and --
Mr Bradley: There he is.
Mrs McLeod: Shall I place it now?
The Speaker: Could we restart the clock, please. It's a full 60 minutes.
Mrs McLeod: As I indicated, my first question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, I have a letter here from the chairman of the region of Peel which was sent to the Premier; you may be aware of the letter. The chairman is concerned that while you are raking in all of the revenues from photo-radar, the municipalities across this province are going to be left holding the bill for the increased court costs of the new system.
I would ask you, Minister, if you will tell us whether or not you have any estimate of how much the new photo-radar court system is likely to cost the municipalities and the municipal taxpayers of this province.
Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): I welcome the question from the leader. Of course, I know that the leader and her party support the government in our desire to have the safest roads in North America.
Clearly, this government would be happy if we didn't raise one single dollar in revenue from photo-radar, because that would mean that the program was working perfectly and we would have a greater degree of safety on our roads.
But let me say to the member that we have indeed the understanding that the program is working and that people are reducing speed.
The program is also under review and I have consistently stated, as has my predecessor, that when that analysis takes place we will be happy to give all of the information to the opposition parties and to the public as to what the success of this program is. But let me point out that success does not come in dollars; it comes in safety, saved lives and the best safety record in North America.
1350
Mrs McLeod: I'm not sure whether the minister is telling me that there are no revenues from photo-radar or that there are no increased court costs and no costs for the municipalities or whether he simply misunderstood the question.
The question was in reference to a letter from the chairman of the region of Peel who is concerned that there are going to be increased court costs -- and there is a new court system that you propose as part of your photo-radar system -- and that those costs are going to be borne by the municipalities and therefore by the property taxpayers.
It has been made quite clear to the police services board of Peel region that the issue is an unresolved one and one of concern to them. I quote from the letter, "The board was informed that it is still unresolved as to which agency will be responsible for the full administrative costs associated with processing photo-radar tickets." Clearly what this board was told was that if the province isn't prepared to fund the additional costs of the court system, the municipal taxpayer is going to have to foot the bill.
Minister, perhaps you could just make a commitment today in this House to the municipalities that the implementation of your new photo-radar system is not going to create any additional costs for municipalities and municipal taxpayers. Just give them that commitment and we don't need to pursue the issue any further.
Hon Mr Farnan: Let me try and be very simple in answering the Leader of the Opposition. When you do an analysis, you don't make decisions before you have the results of the analysis. We have implemented a program. We have said we will study the results of that program. We will look at all the implications of the program. We'll get feedback from all of the people involved, including the municipalities, and we will weigh very, very carefully how this impacts on all levels. Then we will make decisions.
Usually, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, good decisions are based on information, statistical data that are evaluated, analysed. When we have that, we will make those good decisions. We don't, like you, make decisions on the fly.
Mrs McLeod: This is not a question about the effectiveness of photo-radar. I can assure you that there will be a lot of debate on the effectiveness of photo-radar in time to come. The question is about who is getting the revenues from the new system and who is bearing the costs of the new system. The municipality of Peel region is very concerned that the municipalities are going to have to pay the costs of a system that you've put in place.
It has one word to describe it, Minister, and that's "downloading." You could understand why the municipalities are concerned about any further downloading from this provincial government: They've seen enough of it already.
Let me again quote from the letter. This is not a concern we're raising in isolation. The letter from the Peel chairman says:
"I would...suggest it is incumbent upon your government to fully fund any additional expenses associated with this provincial initiative. To do otherwise would be to 'download' the increased court costs for this revenue-generating program on to those local municipalities that have provincial courts in their jurisdiction."
Municipalities are still angry about having to pay for the cost of a unilateral decision that this government made to dump $18 million in supplementary assessment costs on to their backs. This could be potentially millions of more dollars in downloading on to the municipalities. How can you justify even considering downloading the new costs for your system on to the municipalities while you keep all the revenues?
Hon Mr Farnan: When will the Leader of the Opposition cease to be a nitpicker and look at the big picture? The big picture is that we want safety on our roads. We want the safest roads in North America. Let me say that we welcome partnership. We want to work with the municipal partners. We want to have that dialogue. I give the assurance to this House today that I will speak with our municipal partners. I will discuss the issues. But I invite them to support a partnership which says, "We want safety on our roads."
We are not interested, believe me, in revenue. We are seriously interested in looking at a day when we can say, "Revenues are minimal because we have reduced deaths, we have reduced accidents, we've saved medical health costs and we have the safest roads in North America." We want the Liberal Party to join us in this challenge.
The Speaker: New question.
Mrs McLeod: I'm sure the chairman of the region of Peel would be happy to cooperate with the government after the minister tells him his concern is nitpicking.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Solicitor General. I believe this question is appropriately directed to the Solicitor General; if not, I'm sure he will refer it.
The minister will recall that it was more than three weeks ago, when the sitting began, that the government made a commitment to take prompt action to bring in legislation that would regulate after-hours clubs. It is now three weeks later. As I understand it, Thursday is the deadline for introducing legislation which can be considered during this session.
We have seen that this situation is becoming even more urgent because last weekend there was an incident at an after-hours club, this time in Hamilton. There was a stabbing in an after-hours club in Hamilton.
I believe that time is running out. This government promised action three weeks ago. There has been another violent incident, and yet we have still not seen the legislation. You've got two days left to keep the promise that was made. I would ask the minister, are you going to introduce legislation within the next two days?
Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): At the time the question was first raised in the House, the Premier advised that this was a matter of considerable priority for the government and asked me to head up a work group within the government to provide a package of responses that would assist all those who have responsibility in this area and those who would like more responsibility to take effective action, and he committed that it would happen this session.
Indeed, Thursday is the deadline for the introduction of legislation and, yes, legislation will be introduced within those time lines.
Mrs McLeod: I am pleased to have the minister's assurance that we will be seeing that legislation within the next two days.
I would also like, because again time is growing very short, some assurances from the minister that he understands that this is not a Toronto-only problem. There have been incidents, as he's well aware, at after-hours clubs in London and now, as we have seen, in Hamilton.
Will the minister assure the House today that the legislation that's to be introduced will give all municipalities the ability to regulate after-hours clubs?
Hon Mr Christopherson: The Premier made it very clear when he asked us to ensure that we responded to his commitment in the House that indeed it was province-wide and not just focused on one particular area, and that is the way the response is framed.
Mrs McLeod: One of the reasons I raise the question today and why we're concerned that three weeks have passed since the original commitment was made to introduce this legislation is that we are truly concerned that there may not be time for adequate debate and discussion of the legislation.
When we called on the government to act on this matter, we indicated that our caucus was ready to cooperate with the government in bringing forward legislation. But we also wanted to be sure that we could get the bill right, and that's why we called for the bill to go into committee.
I think there are some legitimate concerns that will have to be addressed as this bill is presented. We want, for example, to ensure that the legislation focuses squarely on violence in after-hours clubs. We want to make sure the legislation does not affect other late-night businesses.
So I would ask you, what provisions have you made to ensure that there is going to be room for adequate debate on this legislation in the House and what provisions have you made to ensure that there's time for consultation with municipalities and with other concerned businesses? Can you assure us that the issues that I've indicated as examples of our concerns today are going to be addressed and that the legislation can still be on the books by the end of this session?
Hon Mr Christopherson: As the honourable member knows, this matter was not new entirely when she asked the question. Our own colleague the member for Fort York had a proposed bill in the House that attempted to deal with this problem that he had in his community that affected Metropolitan Toronto, and indeed we've since broadened the scope.
I would say to the honourable member that in terms of the amount of time, I really would defer to the government House leader, in concert with his counterparts in your party and in the third party, to address that. I'm not equipped to do so.
I will say that although it's been a very short period of time, this has been an absolute priority for us. We've been working at it every day, putting together all the pieces. The honourable member will know that it's very complex. It deals with a lot of different pieces of legislation, and a lot of the legal considerations that she well knows about had to be taken into account.
It has been difficult to make it a long consultation process, but certainly we have not done this in the absence of input and consultation with municipal leaders, with AMO, with police and all of the other stakeholders. I grant you it's not as wide a consultation as we all normally like, but enough that we've been able to hear their concerns and their suggestions.
I think that when you see the package, you and others in the House and in the province will agree that we have here a measure that will go a long way in addressing this very serious public safety issue.
1400
JUSTICE SYSTEM
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. I have here a copy of a judgement by Mr Justice Wren of the Ontario Court (General Division) in the case of Regina v Callan. This judgement was issued this morning. It deals with an application argued successfully by the accused to have charges against him for date rape stayed because he was not tried within a reasonable amount of time.
Premier, what this means is that this individual charged with date rape will never come to trial and justice will never be served simply because there was not a courtroom available. How did this happen?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would first of all appreciate it if the honourable member would, as he would in the normal course of events, send me over a copy of the judgement, since he's quoting from the judgement. I would appreciate it if he could make that available to me. I think that's the least to which I'm entitled, just as a matter of basic courtesy.
I can only say to the honourable member that obviously we will take his question as well as the judgement of Mr Justice Wren, or Judge Wren, as notice. I can only say to the honourable member that given that this judgement will in all likelihood or could well be subject to the possibility of appeal, he will know as well as I do that for me to comment on the particular decision is inappropriate. I can't do it. I don't have the luxury of doing it. He may feel that he does, but I'm afraid that as Premier I don't.
I would simply say to him that as a result of the so-called Askov decision, which was the product of a previous set of problems, the government acted swiftly in order to ensure speedier trials. What I would say to the honourable member is that obviously I'll be discussing this judgement with the Attorney General as well as with others.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's happening again, Bob. It's happening again.
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You'd cut back 20%.
Hon Mr Rae: I would just make one personal observation, and that is that I'm very familiar personally with the circumstances surrounding delays in dealing with court cases, very familiar on a personal basis. I can assure the honourable member that obviously the crown and others will be responding to any reasons for judgement given by Judge Wren.
Mr Harris: I've just sent over the judgement. I'm surprised you don't have a copy of it, given the seriousness and what this means and the forewarning you ought to have had, that we have all had, that it's happening again.
On page 8 of the judgement it says: "The delay is virtually all institutional. There have been five trial dates set, the last three peremptory, and both sides were prepared to proceed on each occasion to no avail," --
Hon Mr Wildman: What will happen when you cut back 20%?
Mr Harris: -- ie, the defence was not responsible for this delay. The judge states, "The offence, on the allegations, is serious, involving forced intercourse in a situation where the parties knew each other."
Premier, the only issue at trial was consent. The offence took place on May 23, 1992. The first trial date that was made available was April 1995, nearly three years later, even though the judge also said this was a relatively simple case.
It has been four years since the Askov decision which warned you that unacceptable delays would result in cases being thrown out of court. Four years later, how is this being allowed to happen?
Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member that as a result of the Askov decision, major institutional decisions were made by this government with respect to the administration of justice.
Mr Harnick: You're still failing.
Hon Mr Wildman: You would cut back 20%.
Hon Mr Rae: Very significant increases were put into place, significant numbers of new judges were appointed, significant numbers of new courtroom cases have been announced.
I would say to the honourable member, there is a basic rule of parliamentary practice and that is that given, as I've told the honourable member, the very real possibility that in these circumstances the crown may very well decide to appeal the reasons for judgement given by Judge Wren, it is literally impossible for me to say anything more about this particular case except to respond in general to the honourable member by saying that excessive delays are unacceptable to this government, they're unacceptable to the citizens of the province.
Where there are circumstances which lead to delays, any government has a responsibility to deal with them, as we have done in the Askov case and, I can assure the honourable member, as we will do in any other cases which are brought to our attention.
Mr Harris: First of all, I want to state that I take offence at heckling on a question on date rape. Second, I don't think it behooves the Premier to defend the record of the government, when you had the Askov warning four years ago.
Furthermore, we recently met with the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario; I assume you meet with them too. They told us there were many cases in the system on the brink of being thrown out because of unacceptable delays. These are not minor cases. These are ones before Ontario's high court.
Premier, today we saw the first of these cases. How many more victims are going to be denied justice over the next few months because your government has failed to manage Ontario's justice system?
Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member, we are determined to make sure that cases are heard in a fair and effective manner, and we are all of the view that justice delayed is justice denied. We all share that view, which is a very basic rule with respect to the justice system.
Mr Harnick: What have you been doing for the last four years?
Hon Mr Rae: We have expanded substantially -- I say to the member for Willowdale, if it's wrong for someone on one side to heckle, then I would hope that the leader of the third party would say --
Mr Harnick: It's a tragedy.
Hon Mr Rae: Well, the member from the third party is heckling me again. I take this question just as seriously as the leader of the third party does, and I want to say to him, we have expanded substantially the resources available to the justice system. We have increased substantially the resources that are available for dealing with trials.
I will say to the honourable member that I can't comment on this individual case because of the prospects for an appeal and because I'm sure the crown will have some views with respect to Judge Wren's judgement as it has been expressed.
I'm not going to express my views on this subject except to say that it is obviously unacceptable in this province for there to be any situation where trials are being delayed to the point where the cases are not being heard.
That is unacceptable to me. I know it's unacceptable to you. It's unacceptable to this government, and it's a situation that we have been dealing with and we will continue to deal with.
The Speaker: New question.
Mr Harris: Obviously not effectively enough, Premier.
DRINKING AND DRIVING
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question as well is to the Premier. Yesterday in this House the member for Mississauga South introduced a private member's bill to get tough with drunk drivers. Your Attorney General so far has refused to proceed with this bill aimed at cracking down on the 81% of all highway deaths that are caused by drunk drivers.
Premier, given the seriousness of this issue, given the potential of the member's legislation to prevent tragedy from occurring, will you give your party's support to proceeding with this bill before we recess next month?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know this was the subject of discussion yesterday. I would say to the leader of the third party, we have already done a great deal in this area, and we realize and recognize that there is more to be done.
There are some constitutional concerns that I know have to be dealt with and understood, but I would say to the honourable member that I would hope the House leaders and others could discuss the nature of the member's bill, whether the member would entertain any amendments with respect to the bill she has put forward in her name, and whether it is possible by means of a discussion among the three parties for us to reach a conclusion.
1410
I happen to believe that in matters of this kind, which are not really partisan matters -- they're matters in which, for example on graduated licensing, we worked on a very consensual basis. The committee held hearings throughout the province. It was a very productive process and resulted in, I think, a substantial improvement in the law.
Without giving my blanket endorsement to the bill, because I've learned enough to know that's a little unwise, I can say to the honourable member that because of the respect I have for members opposite and for their good faith in matters of this kind, it's certainly something we're prepared to discuss and that I would hope the members of the official opposition would be prepared to look at as well as we discuss the steps that can be taken in this area.
It's an area in which I've taken considerable personal interest, for reasons that are quite obvious, and I will continue to take a considerable interest in this area. If we can move the yardsticks forward together on a basis that can be done speedily and quickly, then let's do it.
Mr Harris: I appreciate the Premier's comments and I appreciate that he believes, like I believe, this ought to be proceeded with in a non-partisan way. It is in that spirit that I want to ask you about what happened yesterday.
The Attorney General said, and this was in response to a question, "We made a conscious decision that for some of the changes in licensing that would be required under" Mrs Marland's bill and the proposals that she made for an automatic suspension, for example, "until trial for drunk drivers" has proceeded, "We needed the opportunity to see the effect of some of these other areas of licence change, particularly the graduated licence" -- ie, "No, we won't proceed."
Hon Mr Rae: No.
Mr Harris: That's what she said in the House, Premier. These are the quotes.
Hon Mr Rae: I agree with you. Read all of it.
Mr Harris: Outside the House she said this: "I'm really hopeful we'll be able to get the Legislature of Ontario to consider the 90-day suspension." Inside the House, "No, Mrs Marland"; outside the House, "I'm hopeful we can get the Legislature to consider it."
Given that inconsistency, what is the position of your Attorney General? Is she willing to proceed in a non-partisan way or is it one thing inside the House and then, in front of the TV cameras outside, something else?
Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the leader of the third party that I object to his characterization of the exchange yesterday, which I was not present for but which I have had an opportunity to read. For him to take the words "We needed the opportunity to see the effect of some of these other areas of licence change, particularly the graduated licence" as saying no, and say that was her response, I would say is a bit of a reach and a reach that I think takes the leader of the third party into the realm of the truly inaccurate.
What I would say to the member opposite is this, to give the answer that I gave before, and that is: So far as I'm aware, the member for Mississauga South's bill is not yet printed. If it's printed already, then I stand to be corrected. My understanding is that it was introduced yesterday and it hasn't been printed yet. I look forward to seeing it when it's printed.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Bill 195.
Hon Mr Rae: When it is printed, Margaret, we'll have a look at it. I will look at it, we'll all look at it --
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Thanks, Bob.
Hon Mr Rae: Thank you, Steve.
We'll deal with it effectively and we'll deal with it on a basis that is not partisan.
I can say to the honourable member, I don't think there's a member in this House who is not interested in dealing with issues of traffic safety and with saving lives and with the problem of drunkenness as it relates to driving. We're all interested in dealing with this question.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.
Hon Mr Rae: If there's a practical way in which we can move the yardsticks forward quickly, let's do it. However, I do think we have to have the opportunity to see the bill and to see whether there are some changes that are going to be required to make it stand the test of appeals to the courts.
Mr Harris: I think it's fair for me to point out what I thought was partisan politics, saying one thing in the House and one thing outside. I accept the Premier's commitment that this is not his intent. As the Legislature would know and I know all members would be interested in knowing, without heckling, there were 30,000 drunk driving convictions in 1992; 59% were repeat offenders; in 1992, 353 Ontarians dead from drunk driving.
Had that been a plane accident in one fell swoop, it would have been a national tragedy. Because it was spread out, somehow or other it hasn't received the action that it needs. It is time for tough action. I believe there will be non-partisan, full support for Ms Marland's bill. My commitment to you -- and I hope that it can be printed for cabinet tomorrow -- is we'll make copies available for your cabinet meeting tomorrow, because I think it will take that kind of action if we're going to proceed before the end of the session.
If we're going to do that, I want to acknowledge and accept the Premier's commitment to go forward, and quite frankly there really isn't a further supplementary required.
Hon Mr Rae: Since the honourable member made a speech, perhaps I can be given the same opportunity, and simply say to him that anything we can do that's constructive and that has a degree of consensus within the House is something that we're certainly prepared to look at. I would hope that House leaders would be in a position to do that.
I haven't seen all the features of the bill. There may be some problems that are raised by legislative counsel as well as by others with respect to some of the implications, the extent to which the bill as it is worded will stand the test of a constitutional challenge and other challenges which we have to deal with in this day of the Charter of Rights.
But I can say to the honourable member quite categorically that this is an area in which the government has continued to take a real leadership role in which we recognize the impact of the toll on our highways. Many of us have been affected by these issues personally, and I can assure the honourable member that this is not an issue which I take lightly and if there's something we can do on a constructive basis, we will do it.
CHARITABLE GAMING
Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Minister, could you please advise this house how many charitable gaming licences have been issued since October 1993 and how many of those licences were issued pursuant to an investigation -- or in other words, following an investigation -- of the application and the applicants?
Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No, I don't have those numbers in front of me. If he has them, perhaps he could send them over. I'd be glad to follow up in the supplementary, because I don't quite know what he's getting at here.
Mr McClelland: What I'm getting at is the following, Minister: In point of fact, in the last year you have issued between 40 and 45 new licences. Last October, from existing charitable gaming operators, you collected an application fee of $10,000 randomly from a number of operators. No investigations have been made; none whatsoever. You have only now lately been collecting application fees from offshore companies. There is no investigation in terms of ownership. There is a percentage threshold whereby applicants need not disclose who is in fact owning the company. We know the charities are not receiving the funds that they expect. We know that there are bad operators.
Millions and millions of dollars are being spent in charitable operations, Minister. You have promised now for month upon month upon month that you were going to clean up charitable gaming in the province of Ontario. You have failed to do so. You have collected, as I say again, $10,000 fees randomly, and have done nothing but issue countless licences. You don't know who is operating; you have no background in terms of the ownership.
Minister, when are you going to address charitable gaming and clean it up and protect charities, the reputable operators, and the public who in good faith contribute to charities in this regard?
Hon Ms Churley: What I can say to the member, and I'd like to be able to get back more specifically to him on his specific question, is that when we came into office, the charitable gaming situation really was a mess. They were not regulated in any way. The operators and the providers, the people who provide the equipment to the charities, were not in fact regulated in any way. We have changed that. As the member knows, we brought in the Gaming Services Act and we have a new Gaming Control Act, and we've cleaned up the system quite a bit. There is a large influx of staff. There is investigation going on. There are regulations going on.
We have been doing a tremendous amount in terms of making sure that the money that should go to the charities is going to the charities, because before we brought in this new act, this sector was not regulated in any way whatsoever. They are being regulated now by this government, and if there are any problems left, we will certainly be dealing with them.
1420
PICKERING LAND USE PLANNING
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Environment. Yesterday the mayor of Pickering revealed that your government was spending over $1.8 million on two planning processes in the Pickering area for projects on the same site. One is for a dump and one is for a housing development. Minister, why would you waste time and money on two clearly incompatible projects on the very same piece of property?
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The member refers to a statement made by the mayor of Pickering which was not completely correct. The costs that were alluded to by the mayor were not accurate. Since the previous government announced the Seaton community with no plan in place, the government has actually spent under $2.5 million over five years on extensive feasibility studies for the area and this year it is estimated that it will spend under $700,000, not the $1.8 million the mayor claimed would be spent this year. So the figures were not completely accurate.
The fact is that the previous government made an announcement regarding Seaton and a commitment without having carried out the required studies, and we are determined that we will not proceed with such a project without ensuring that there is accurate study done to determine whether the project should go ahead, and if so, how it should go ahead. The mayor of Pickering is part of an advisory committee that is involved in this study and he is fully aware of all of this.
Mr Harris: I guess the defence is, "Yes, we're wasting the money, and yes, the left arm doesn't know what the right arm is doing." One minister doesn't know what the other's doing, but we're going to argue about how many millions that we're actually wasting. You're wasting millions of dollars. Quite frankly, you're wasting millions of dollars on the whole GTA garbage crisis trying to find a solution and you're no closer. The Interim Waste Authority has been an unmitigated disaster and still is. The most recent fiasco on the Seaton housing lands just further proves it: that the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.
Minister, tonight I am meeting with concerned residents in the York region to listen to their concerns about your ill-conceived and narrow approach to the GTA garbage crisis, and I intend to tell them as I have told other communities in the GTA that my party will scrap Bill 143, we will disband the IWA and we will consider all waste management options.
Since an election is only months away, since you're now down to a matter of weeks that many of your members are going to be able to sit there and heckle, why won't you do what we say we are going to do? Why don't you do it today and stop the millions of dollars of waste that are going not only in Seaton, but in the whole interim waste management authority and in this crisis in garbage, and the dollars that are going to it? Why don't you proceed now and scrap it, just wash your hands of it and wait until an election and we can get on with solutions?
Hon Mr Wildman: I'm not certain that is a supplementary question. The first question dealt with Seaton; this is dealing with the IWA. In a very lengthy statement the member uses terms such as waste and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Surely it would indeed be a waste of effort and investment if we were to do as he suggests and to scrap the IWA process after this point in time when we have just gotten to the point where we are beginning the full environmental assessments with regard to a set of landfill sites which are indeed needed and will probably be found to be needed.
The member also indicates that we should not be planning for Seaton; that we should in fact, I guess, go ahead with the Seaton development without doing any studies, and not spend any money on environmental considerations and planning to determine where the roads might be if the project goes ahead, where the housing might be, where the industrial sites might be. The member would like to go ahead. Perhaps the member would like to even establish housing where a landfill site might be located because he doesn't think they should be doing any planning.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is also to the Minister of Environment and Energy. In 1972, the Tory party at the time expropriated some 23,000 acres of land in North Pickering. They didn't know what they were going to do with it. They came forward with some plans that were later cancelled. They put the whole area into turmoil by expropriating people's homes. The Liberal government that followed wanted to cover all of this land in 7,000 acres of urban sprawl and increased taxes in a huge way.
My question has to do with the process under which the planning in this area is going ahead. We should remember that Ataratiri cost the previous Liberal administration some $300 million because it wasn't planned appropriately. Could you describe for this House and my constituents the process under which this planning is taking place and what the differences are between planning with New Democrats and planning with Liberals and Tories?
Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the interest of the member. He asked me what the difference is in planning under the New Democratic Party government and the Liberals and the Tories. Having listened to the leader of the third party's last question and his preamble, it's obvious that he doesn't believe in any kind of planning; he would like to scrap all attempts at planning.
With regard to the previous government, it approved Seaton without having done any planning. I suspect they may have wanted to do some planning afterwards, after the fact. We are currently involved in a process which will determine how we are going to proceed, and it is based on planning.
In September 1993 the Ministry of Housing established a community advisory committee called the Seaton Advisory Committee, which has local residents and municipal officials, including the mayor of Pickering, to decide whether a residential community should be built on the 7,000-acre site or not. That's the difference.
Mr Wiseman: Given the use of the word "feasibility" and also given that the Interim Waste Authority is in the process of assessing whether or not a landfill site should go into the Pickering area, my question is, is it possible that neither one of these things could happen?
Hon Mr Wildman: As the member knows, with regard to the landfill site, we are involved in an environmental assessment process. The Environmental Assessment Board will hear all of the evidence and make a decision based on the evidence, and it is conceivable that if the IWA has not been successful in presenting adequate evidence that the particular site is appropriate, the board would rule against it. It is quite possible that it would not go ahead.
It is also possible that the advisory committee on Seaton might determine that the project should not proceed. It is also possible that they might decide that it should, and if they decide it should, then they will have to make recommendations on the size of the community, how it will be laid out, what the transportation systems will be and so on. All of this process will be done in as efficient and cost-effective a way as possible. It doesn't make sense to proceed on these things without having done the proper environmental studies.
1430
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): In the absence of the Premier, I guess I'll direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Minister, even though your government is the largest advertiser in the entire province of Ontario, we can see that as a result of your being unable to get any good press you've decided to publish your own newspaper, the Ontario Star, modelled, quite curiously, on the same format as the Toronto Star; I wonder if it might have been printed there.
Minister, I've read this with some interest. In the Ontario Star you accuse me of attacking injured workers because I have said that the workers' compensation system should not be a social benefit program but rather an income replacement program for injured workers. Minister, you will know that this indeed was the original concept under Justice Meredith's report in 1914 for the workers' compensation system, that workers would give up their right to sue for injuries in a workplace, and in return employers would fund an insurance plan to replace their income and rehabilitate them.
Minister, you might be interested to know that last week, your members of the resources committee, the NDP members on that committee studying amendments to Bill 165, defeated a Liberal amendment that would have given injured workers a seat on the Workers' Compensation Board. They defeated it. Can you tell the people of Ontario who is really attacking injured workers? Explain to the injured workers in this province why the NDP is denying them representation on the Workers' Compensation Board.
Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for showing the newspaper that was printed, but for the information of people listening to this question period right now, not one dollar of taxpayers' money went into the publication of that newspaper. First of all, let's get that clear.
Secondly, when the member is discussing Bill 165 and how he feels we are hurting injured workers, I would ask him to get on with it and let us get Bill 165 through so that we can help over 47,000 injured workers out in this province receive over $200 a month which they have been waiting for for a long, long time. So get on with it and pass this bill. This government cares about people, and especially the injured people.
Your last question was, why was there not a seat on the board for injured workers? Through cooperation and discussion through all of the groups, there is a possibility that an injured worker may sit on the committee. But the most important thing is, let's get on with it, pass Bill 165 so that we can help injured workers in the province.
Mr Mahoney: This is the same old story: "Don't bother putting it in the bill. Trust us. We'll fix it later." You know Bill 165 is going to be passed because your House leader has introduced a closure motion which will be debated today. You know that.
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: He's instructed the committee, if the Minister of Municipal Affairs would take a Valium here --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Mr Mahoney: The House leader knows that he's even instructed the Chair of the committee that he can only allow one recess. That's how draconian this government is getting in relationship to closure with all of these bills.
Minister, my amendment at the committee said very simply this: "Four directors representative of workers, including one member of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers, to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
Your members of the committee, Minister, voted it down unanimously in a recorded vote. They should be ashamed of themselves, and if you're now telling this House that as the minister you are prepared to correct this injustice and ensure that the Ontario Network of Injured Workers has a place at the table, then say so now in this House, right here, today. Will you do that?
Hon Mrs Coppen: When I am asked by the opposition why I don't do something for the Workers' Compensation Board, why I don't do anything for injured workers, I point at you and say, what did you do for over 50 years? You tell me, since 1914, what did you do for them?
We're trying to help them, get them on to the road to recovery so that they will be back in the workplace, working in cooperation with business, getting workers back there, helping them out financially -- as I said, 47,000 workers. Don't wave a finger at me. You tell me what you did in all of the time you were here, 1914 to 1994. It took a New Democratic government to make changes for injured workers in this province.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I understand the minister will be making an announcement this Thursday in Trenton about incentives for private forestry. He knows that this industry is of extreme importance to residents of rural Ontario, because of not only the tourism industry and the snowmobile clubs across central Ontario, but also the long-term sustainability of our forests in Ontario. He also knows that I've brought this measure before the House on numerous occasions.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Mr Hodgson: Since the minister is taking this announcement down the road to Trenton to avoid the scrutiny of this House, I would like to ask him to shed some light on the nature of his announcement. What will it consist of? Does it incorporate any federal funds, like the multimillion-dollar eastern Quebec private woodlot program?
Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The member is quite right that private land forests are important in Ontario. Almost 12% of our forested land is in private hands, and some of that privately held land is very valuable in terms of having high-quality hardwoods that fetch a very good price in the markets. So we have been looking, over the past year, at approaches for a rational private land forestry policy for Ontario.
We have been handicapped somewhat by the fact that the federal government in Ottawa contributes $65 million to private land forestry in the province of Quebec and nothing to private land forestry in Ontario. This is despite the fact that about 8% of Quebec's forested land is held in private hands and over 12% of Ontario's forested land is held in private hands.
We indicated at the recent federal-provincial ministers conference that we think this is unfair. We think the present federal government is being most unfair to Ontario, but to this point in time the federal government is deaf to Ontario and does not see anything unfair in the present relationship.
Mr Hodgson: I can appreciate the minister's hardship --
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On the comment about being deaf, I would ask that the honourable member please withdraw it. I find it unparliamentary.
The Speaker: The minister.
Hon Mr Hampton: The federal government is not listening to Ontario.
Mr Hodgson: I'm sure the minister will try to make the 98 Liberal MPs at Ottawa listen to the concerns of rural Ontario when we renegotiate with them on private forest lands. But I would like to just ask the minister, yesterday at the agricultural convention his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs took credit for not cancelling the agricultural land rebate. In fact, he met his expenditure control reduction targets without sacrificing a program that helped the people of rural Ontario.
Minister, last night at the debate the Premier again reiterated, like all opposition leaders, that we will not change or scrap the farm land rebate program.
My question is, regardless of whether the federal government has helped or not -- I understand there's an unfairness, an inequity problem -- why didn't his ministry follow the example of his colleague's ministry and reduce the amount of bureaucracy to meet his targets, as our plan calls for, instead of cancelling a program which affected the lives of people in rural Ontario and affected the economy?
I understand that he's taking the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, along with the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, along with the parliamentary assistants, to Trenton. He recognized the importance of this, but why didn't he meet his expenditure control reduction targets the same way it was done in Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, without sacrificing a program that was essential?
Hon Mr Hampton: I'm sure the member would like to know that some of the entities in Ontario that were receiving the managed forest tax credit were in fact entities that were not really following sustainable forestry principles. They were simply using the system that was in place in the past as a means to get money from the government; in other words, as a subsidy from the taxpayers of the province.
It is clear to us that what we need to have is a system which has a very strong policy and education plank to it, as well as some financial incentives to it, as well as an opportunity to work with private sector partnerships in terms of sawmills, in terms of tourism organizations, in terms of snowmobiling organizations, so that we can do all these together. We believe that what we're working on has those components.
I would just say to the member opposite that we are doing this under very tight financial circumstances. As I read the so-called Common Sense Revolution, it would further reduce the budget of the Ministry of Natural Resources by 20%.
The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his reply, please.
Hon Mr Hampton: I would say to you that your plan would make it next to impossible to do any of this.
1440
FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Mr Minister, everybody would know that over the last summer we were out on committee dealing with Bill 171, an act to deal with sustainable forestry in the province of Ontario. At the same time, and probably somewhat before that, the ministry undertook discussions through what was called the Carman exercise in regard to building a new business relationship with the forest industry.
I'm wondering if the minister can respond to some of the questions that I have been getting back home in the area of Timmins, Iroquois Falls, Matheson, in regard to the cost that this supposedly would or would not inflict on the forest industry in regard to those business relationships. Would it cost more money, less money or is it no different?
Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The member asks a very good question and a question which I think does require some public information. What we have done is to move away from a very inefficient system, which was very much the product of the former Liberal government, a system which the auditor had an opportunity to comment on last week and point out all the inefficiencies. We have moved now to a forest renewal trust fund system and a new stumpage fee.
The new stumpage fee is very much attached to market prices. As the market price of pulp moves up, the stumpage fee moves up. As the market price of lumber moves up, the stumpage fee moves up, and so on if the prices decline. So we are very much dealing in situations where private industry will be able to afford the stumpage fees.
As well, we've put in place a forest renewal trust fund which will essentially provide that when wood is harvested, money must go into a trust fund to ensure its renewal and when renewal is accomplished, money will flow from the trust fund to cover those costs. In our view, this system is very much cost-neutral. The real winners in this system are the forests of Ontario.
Mr Bisson: I want to follow up on that, on two issues. The first one is that in regard to those companies that are out there now trying to negotiate and arrive at those new business relationships, what can we do as Ontarians to try to encourage that negotiation to take place and get it concluded to a successful end? The other issue is, what happens with the independent loggers out there in regard to the people cutting on crown units? What will we say to those people in regard to the new business relationship, and how would that affect them?
Hon Mr Hampton: The new sustainability agreements which we are signing we're signing first with the very large forest products companies, those companies that presently hold forest management agreements. To date, we have signed an almost $6-million agreement with Rainy River Forest Products. We've signed agreements with Avenor and E.B. Eddy worth $18.5 million, and with Green Forest of Chapleau and Kimberly-Clark of Terrace Bay worth almost $9 million for the trust fund. So we intend to sign up all of the FMA holders, the large companies, this year before proceeding to deal with smaller operators and smaller order-in-council licences after January 1.
There will be a lot of opportunities for the smaller logging operations and smaller sawmilling companies to form a number of flexible arrangements. They may want to arrange some sort of co-op. They may want to expand the size of their orders in council and take on the responsibilities of an FMA holder. They may want to work in close partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources --
The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.
Hon Mr Hampton: -- but there will be a lot of flexible opportunities for small loggers, and I think they'll like the system very much.
NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will be well aware of the many serious problems that have been occurring in terms of the northern health travel grant system. I must say that I was somewhat encouraged back in February 1994 when there were some revisions and changes made to the program. However, eight months have now passed and what we've found out is that the government has only succeeded in making things worse and a much more bureaucratic mess of the entire system.
Minister, doctors, patients, even your own bureaucrats have told me that your solutions at that time have only indicated disaster and brought disaster to the program. My office is receiving hundreds of calls regarding the program and the nightmares and the so-called solutions that you came up with. Can you explain to the House the bureaucratic mess that your alleged reforms to the northern health travel grant have created and how you plan on fixing this mess?
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, it will come as no surprise to you to know that I categorically reject the preamble to the member's question that our changes to the northern health travel grant have created, as he puts it, "a bureaucratic mess."
What our changes to the northern health travel grant have been about is making sure that citizens of northern communities get better service, and that as we work to improve the standards and the consistency of health care across northern Ontario, we lay the foundation for making sure that we have a better distribution of specialists and of general practitioners in communities all across the north. That's what we've been trying to do and that's the kind of pressure we've been responding to, by making changes in the northern health travel grant that would make sure people are referred to the specialist closest to where they live.
It may surprise the member and others to know that not always all good things reside in Toronto. There are sometimes, and there are, some first-class specialists in parts of northern Ontario who often have not been receiving enough patients in order to encourage them to remain in northern Ontario, or to allow the facilities there to recruit new specialists because the volume of patients isn't enough. So by encouraging people to use specialists in northern Ontario we can, over the long run, greatly enhance and strengthen the health care system for people in remote communities.
Mr Miclash: I know that not all good things reside in Toronto. I reside in northern Ontario; my leader resides in northern Ontario.
But Madam Minister, may I bring a specific case to you? Again, it reiterates the problems with this system. We have a Red Lake patient who was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon in Thunder Bay, who in turn suggested she see a neurosurgeon in Toronto. Even though the nearest neurosurgeon is in Winnipeg, the Thunder Bay specialist believes that it might be in the best interests of the patient to go directly to Toronto.
She understands that the minister will not pre-approve travel grants, and we found this out in many cases. However, the patient decided to go on and inquire about the likelihood of the success of her application to see the Toronto specialist directly, rather than travelling to Winnipeg first.
The response she received from the ministry was that in order to be covered for travel to Toronto, she would have to be referred by the Winnipeg specialist first. Thus, we warrant two trips, additional OHIP costs and, of course, additional northern health travel grant coverage and, again, to the patient, unnecessary time delays.
This is only one of a number of great examples of the archaic, bureaucratic system you have created and I want to know what your immediate plans are to address the concerns. Again, I receive many, many calls around this system from people, northerners, who are being denied the best possible health care that is due to them.
Hon Mrs Grier: Is there a specific case and a specific problem? I'd be happy, if the member gives me details, to look into it. But I must say to him that the system receives on average 11,000 applications per month. We have established administration of the system in northern Ontario, in Sudbury. We believe we are dealing with the issues and the questions in a way that facilitates the needs of the residents of northern Ontario, and in a much better way than has been done in the past.
I do not deny that there may sometimes be glitches, or it may take too long to respond, but the initial referral is often the one that triggers how the case is dealt with, and in the case which he mentions, I would have to be sure that the initial referral had in fact all of the information at their fingertips before the referral was made, but if he will send me the details, I'll be happy to look into the specifics of that one.
1450
PETITIONS
LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM
Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I've been asked to present this petition from residents of Peterborough, Nottawa, Collingwood, Stayner, Wasaga Beach and Barrie, and it reads:
"We, the undersigned, oppose Bill 173 as it now reads, feeling if it is not amended it will result in less service, more costly service, serious reduction of volunteer involvement and the inability of local communities to ensure our health-support needs will be met."
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the assembly of Ontario and it reads:
"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and
"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and
"Whereas there are other neighbourhoods where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated; and
"Whereas no one was consulted -- not the local residents and business community; not leaders of community organizations; not education and child care providers; and not even the NDP member of the provincial Parliament for Fort York;
"We, therefore, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the NDP government of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."
I sign my name under this petition.
LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition, which contains 312 names from people from St Catharines, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Niagara Falls, Welland, Thorold, Fonthill, Grimsby and Beamsville, reads:
"To the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario, and the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of Health of the province of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Bill 173, if unamended, will mean less service, more costly service, a decrease in volunteers and the inability of local communities to ensure the long-term-care system meets their needs."
I agree with this petition and I affix my signature to it.
LAKEHEAD PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the Thunder Bay District Health Council has recommended the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital; and
"Whereas the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital is the only provincial psychiatric hospital serving all of northwestern Ontario, from the Manitoba border to Sault Ste Marie; and
"Whereas the severely mentally ill that the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital serves cannot be cared for adequately and safely in a general hospital setting or in the community;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario to reject the recommendation for the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital."
Mr Speaker, as you can see, there are a lot of signatures here, in fact 12,202.
SCHOOL FACILITIES
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I will add my name to that petition too, but I have another one to read to you addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:
"Whereas the north River Oaks community in the town of Oakville qualifies under provincial funding guidelines for a new public elementary school;
"Whereas the province of Ontario has provided no funding to the Halton Board of Education for the last fiscal year for any new school facilities;
"Whereas the residents of our community believe that a quality education in a local school is a high priority;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to provide funding for a public elementary school for the north River Oaks community."
River Oaks is in my constituency and I've affixed my name to this petition.
LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition signed by several hundred petitioners that says:
"We, the undersigned, are extremely upset that Bill 173, if not amended, will result in less client service, a more costly service system and a decrease in volunteers in the long-term-care system."
I agree with this petition and add my signature thereto.
WASTE DISPOSAL
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): This is to the Legislature of Ontario, a petition where I have approximately 500 signatures:
"Whereas the Ontario Waste Management Corp is proposing to build and operate a huge centralized toxic waste incinerator and landfill site in the heart of Ontario's farm land;
"Whereas toxic waste must be treated at the source because transportation of such huge volumes of toxic waste on our highways is suicidal;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to change the mandate and directions being promoted by this crown corporation."
I affix my signature to this petition.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario has long represented a serious inequity between the two regions; and
"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario is often between 10 and 20 cents a litre; and
"Whereas residents of most northern Ontario communities have no access to public transportation options and are therefore dependent on private automobiles; and
"Whereas in 1990 the election promises of the NDP at that time were to 'equalize' the price of gasoline across the province and these promises have not been kept; and
"Whereas" I, the Kenora MPP, have "called upon the NDP government to keep their 1990 election promises; and
"Whereas the elimination of motor vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario residents does not compensate for the high price of gas in the north;
"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the NDP government fulfil its election promises to the people of northern Ontario by equalizing the price of gasoline across the province."
That's signed by people from Dryden, Kenora, Thunder Bay, actually a few from Balmertown, Red Lake, from Keewatin as well, a number of places across my riding. I too attach my name to that petition.
ADOPTION
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the right of adopted persons in Ontario to know their natural identity is denied; and
"Whereas the present disclosure system under the Child and Family Services Act is discriminatory, inefficient and expensive and government has demonstrated an inability to provide service in a timely fashion since 1979; and
"Whereas the provincial government studies since 1976 have repeatedly recommended that adopted adults be granted unrestricted access to their original birth certificate registrations; and
"Whereas there is widespread public and political support for these rights to be recognized and codified; and
"Whereas Bill 158 has passed second reading in the House by a wide margin of 49 to 3 on May 12, 1994, and is now before the standing committee on social development; and
"Whereas this bill addresses the right of adopted persons to obtain their own birth certificates and provide a mechanism for birth parents to register a veto prohibiting contact from the person they surrendered parental rights to; and
"Whereas 1994 has been designated as the Year of the Family;
"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the 35th Parliament of Ontario to act without further delay and respectfully request that Bill 158 be put on the committee's immediate agenda."
This petition has my signature of support as well.
ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Parliament of Ontario and it reads:
"Whereas every year in North America animals are used in cruel, outdated tests for cosmetics and household products;
"Whereas these tests are not required by provincial or federal law;
"Whereas many non-animal alternatives are available and are already in use by many companies;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass into law a bill which prohibits the use of animals in cosmetic and household product testing."
I attach my name as well to this petition.
LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition signed by 448 residents from Thunder Bay, Geraldton and Sault Ste Marie, and it reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned, are concerned that if Bill 173, the Long-Term Care Act, goes through unamended, it will result in less service, more costly service, loss of volunteers and reduce the ability of communities to develop a long-term-care system."
I agree with this petition and I have affixed my name.
1500
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a further petition regarding Bill 173, signed by several Burlington constituents, the first of whom I notice is Ms Jean Haye, a nurse at St Peter's chronic care hospital in Hamilton. This petition states as follows:
"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and
"Whereas seniors and the disabled are entitled to accessible community-based care; and
"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care; and
"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize and value the work of volunteers in this province;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that amendments are made to Bill 173 to allow for provision of community care based on the needs of the local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of that care."
This petition also has my signature of support.
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:
"Under the existing Child and Family Services Act, only a core group, namely professional persons and officials, are required by law to report a child's need for protection. Many children may be spared serious injury, maiming and death if neighbours, friends, families and acquaintances who believe on reasonable grounds that a child is or may be in need of protection report promptly to the Children's Aid Society.
"Therefore, we are requesting an amendment to the Child and Family Services Act, section 72, where every person would have a special responsibility to report and must comply with the reporting law or face penalty."
That's signed by over 200 people in my area.
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:
Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:
Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care / Projet de loi 173, Loi concernant les soins de longue durée.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.
Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 17, 1994, this bill is ordered for third reading.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
COUNTY OF KENT ACT, 1994
Mr Hayes moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr160, An Act respecting the County of Kent.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Just before I call the order of the day, the House leaders have had some discussion around this afternoon's business, which will be government notice of motion number 37. We've agreed that I'll be doing the leadoff for the government on this motion this afternoon. I will take a few minutes.
The government wishes to reserve 15 minutes at the end of the discussion for the member for Sudbury to do a windup and the two opposition parties will split the remaining time.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is this agreed? Agreed.
TIME ALLOCATION
Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 37:
That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the standing committee on resources development shall complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at its meeting on Monday 28 November 1994. All proposed amendments must be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon on the abovenoted day. At 4 pm on that same day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further amendment or debate, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The Chair may allow only one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a);
That the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment if necessary until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;
That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on resources development, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading;
That two hours and 30 minutes be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;
That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(g) shall be permitted.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): This afternoon no doubt we will hear from both of the opposition parties --
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Right so far.
Hon Mr Charlton: -- complaints about this time allocation motion.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): That's right.
Hon Mr Charlton: They will profess to be the supporters of the democratic process and they will chastise the government for limiting debate and for preventing the opposition from pursuing --
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Nineteen times, unparalleled in the history --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. You'll have your time to debate it.
Hon Mr Charlton: They will chastise the government for having limited the democratic process in terms of the debate on this bill.
Right from the outset, I would like to set the record straight. The debate on this legislation started last spring. In the House leaders' discussions before the end of the spring session, I sat down with both of the opposition House leaders, the then member for Bruce and the member for Parry Sound, and asked them how much time they required to deal with this bill in committee. They both went back to their respective caucuses, they dealt with their respective critics and came back to me with time proposals for the committee hearings on this legislation.
I admit that at that time I attempted to talk them down from the amount of time they had requested for this bill, but in the end I gave both of the opposition caucuses all the time they had requested to deal with this Workers' Compensation Board set of amendments.
Mr Turnbull: How many amendments did you bring forward because it was such an incompetent draft?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for York Mills, would you please take your seat. I would ask the House to refrain from heckling. You'll have a chance to debate the resolution later on.
Hon Mr Charlton: Not only did I give them all of the time they had requested to deal with this bill, but when it was not finished at the end of the allotted time during the intersession, I sat back and patiently allowed the bill to continue in committee into this session. It was supposed to have been finished, by agreement, before this session started, but I patiently sat back and allowed the bill to continue into this session in committee.
Each week at the House leaders' meeting I asked the respective House leaders to go back to their caucuses and to come and tell me what was a reasonable expectation. Last Thursday both of the opposition caucuses told me, and told me clearly, that not only had they failed to live up to the agreement we had reached in terms of time last spring, but they had absolutely no intention of allowing this bill to be completed during this session this fall.
1510
This bill has been in committee for over 120 hours. The opposition has made it absolutely clear that they are not prepared to allow government legislation to proceed, that their objective in this committee is to talk until the session is run out, and that's precisely the kind of thing that both opposition parties have been doing in all four of the committees to which we referred legislation.
I don't like to use time allocation any more than anyone else in this House does, but these time allocation motions, since they've been in the orders and before they were even part of the standing orders in this House -- and the Liberal government used them and the Tories used them in the early 1980s -- get used when opposition parties at the end of the day make it clear that at the end of the day they are going to use the rules --
Mr Turnbull: You've used it three times.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills, please. There's no point in reminding you all the time; I'm just asking you, please, to refrain from heckling. The minister has the floor.
Hon Mr Charlton: At the end of the day, we have a majority government in the province of Ontario and the opposition has made it clear that they intend to stifle the ability of that majority government to pass its legislative agenda.
I have been reasonable and patient with both of the opposition parties with respect to this legislation. They have broken the agreement we reached last June by not finishing the bills in the time we had agreed. I've been patient since that time and when last Thursday they tell me they have absolutely no intention of allowing the legislation to be completed, I have no choice but to proceed in the fashion that I'm proceeding today. That's unfortunate, but that is a real part of the political process when the rules of the House are being abused beyond limit by the opposition. So we are proceeding with time allocation today and it is the government's commitment to proceed to see this legislation completed before the end of this session.
Mr Offer: I'm pleased to join in this debate. Let me say at the outset, I thoroughly disagree with all of the comments made by the government House leader. There is absolutely no question that the only reason that the government is forcing this particular bill through the Legislature is because it is a piece of legislation which has been thoroughly criticized by people across this province.
Injured workers have criticized this legislation. Employers have criticized this legislation. Anybody who has had anything to do with the workers' compensation system and has read this legislation has criticized this bill. The government knows that; it recognizes that; the members of the committee who have sat on that committee know that, that there weren't very many people who came into that committee who had anything else but extreme criticism of the legislation.
Injured workers said this bill doesn't help them. Management said this bill doesn't address the concerns in and around the WCB system. The reason that the government is using the time allocation closure motion is to ram this thing through notwithstanding the very valid concerns that we have heard throughout the province.
I have taken just a quick check on how many amendments the government seeks to introduce on this bill. A quick count shows 29 amendments the government wants to make to the bill, and when you take a look at the bill, you see that there are in total 36 sections. Of those 36 sections, 11 are just of a technical, not a substantive, action.
So we have about 25 substantive sections. The government is seeking to change those by 29 amendments. You are rewriting a piece of legislation the general public will have no input on. There will be no debate around those changes and you should be thoroughly criticized for your actions.
I have said this is a bad piece of legislation. It's a bad piece of legislation for employers; it's a bad piece of legislation for the injured workers; it's a bad piece of legislation for anyone who has anything to do with the WCB system.
My riding, as you know, Mr Speaker, is known as Mississauga North and it's that part of Mississauga north of Eglinton Avenue. It includes communities such as Meadowvale, Meadowvale Village, Malton, Streetsville, East Credit and a variety of areas in between. It is a growing community. It is growing not just in terms of residents but also in terms of the business community.
I must tell you, as I am sure many members experience in their constituency offices, a great deal of time is taken up with WCB cases, not just from the injured worker standpoint but also from real concerns that employers have with respect to the funding of the system, an important aspect. It is not the government that funds WCB; it is the employers of this province that fund WCB, and they are concerned with the direction this government is taking that system and they want some say. They want to be able to comment on particular pieces of legislation and they want to share their concerns.
The government has not listened and this bill does not address the real concerns in and around the WCB system. When you don't address those concerns, then not only are you not meeting the issues raised by the business community, but you are not acting in the best interests of the injured workers of this province.
Concerns are raised in my constituency office, and through meetings that I hold throughout my constituency, over the service around the WCB, the type of service that is being given to injured workers. Concerns have been raised over the funding of the WCB system and these are valid concerns that have to be met. This bill doesn't.
For the government to ram the bill through using another time allocation motion is to say to all of those people, to all the businesses that are located in my riding of Mississauga North and ridings throughout the province, to the injured workers, that we are not going to listen.
Notwithstanding the significant, serious and valid concerns that you made on this bill, notwithstanding the serious, significant concerns you raised in and around the direction the government is taking under WCB, the government says: "We will not listen. We will not listen and we will still proceed with the bill." I believe that to be a significant disservice to the people in my area and throughout the province.
There have been a number of areas of concern that were raised. The government sometimes tries to trump up this fallacy that this is a piece of legislation which is going to in some way, shape or form start the WCB process on a better financial footing.
Interjection.
Mr Offer: The previous Minister of Labour only seeks to interject. But the fact of the matter is that when you read the legislation you will see that this bill does nothing of the kind. It will not in any way, shape or form set the WCB system on a better financial footing. In fact, it could be argued that now we have some legislation which will do just the opposite.
1520
I will give you one example, for those who might not have read the piece of legislation. Let me be very clear: I was, and am, a member of that committee as we grappled with this particular bill. As we know, many times initial decisions are rendered in the WCB which are appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, which is referred to as WCAT.
The government says that this particular bill carries a new financial accountability. The interesting thing that we asked the government was, does that mean that this financial accountability holds to WCAT, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal? Are they subject to the new financial accountability where every decision is appealed?
The answer by the government was no, WCAT is not bound by this bill. In fact, the financial implications of any WCAT decision will have a significant impact on the unfunded liability, and there is no control under this particular bill.
For the government to trump up this financial accountability argument is just sheer fallacy. For anyone who cares to read the legislation or who cares to speak to representatives of the Ministry of Labour, it will be clear that the appeals tribunal is not subject to and is not bound by this bill which is the subject matter of the time allocation.
I believe that maybe, just maybe, one of the reasons for the time allocation is not what the House leader said, but rather because more and more people recognize that this bill is a bad piece of legislation and are sharing that with the government. There is no support for this bill, and the impact is going to be that the government has got to ram the bill through in order to make it law. I think that is irresponsible in the extreme.
The second area which I want to talk about is this again-ballyhooed argument by the government that this in some way helps injured workers. I must tell you that during our committee hearings we received a great many representations by injured workers.
Many men and women who have been injured on the job through no fault of their own took the time and effort to come to our committee to share with us their concerns. They did not come to say, "Thank you, government, for this bill." They came to say: "This bill needs some real work. This bill is not the bill that the government says it is. It is not one that is in the best interests of injured workers."
Let's use an example; talk without example is something that must be weighed. I know my colleague from Mississauga West introduced an amendment to the bill which would do a significant yet very straightforward change.
Right now, workers' compensation has a board made up of a number of individuals. There is no person on the board as of right who represents injured workers. Rather, if there is an injured worker on the board, it is only because someone says, "Oh, you can sit here for awhile, but if we don't want you to sit here when we don't feel like it, then you won't sit on the board."
Injured workers came to our committee on a daily basis and said: "We want a position on the board as of right. We want a position on the board just as workers generally have positions on boards, just as representatives of the public have positions, just as representatives of management. We want our right to be on that board." A very straightforward amendment, basically it said that injured workers have the right to have a position on the Workers' Compensation Board.
You would think that a government that professes to have the monopoly over the representation of injured workers in this province would say yes. What did the government members do? The government members voted against. They voted against giving to injured workers in this province a right on the board.
What seems so incredible is when we read the purposes of the bill. It is to provide fair compensation to workers who sustain personal injury, it is to provide health care benefits to those same workers, it is to provide rehabilitation services to facilitate workers' return to work, and it is to provide for rehabilitation programs for their survivors.
The purpose of the legislation is directed to injured workers. Why then does the government not give to those same injured workers a right to be on that board? The question is very straightforward; the question is very direct. Why doesn't the NDP government give to injured workers in this province the right to have a say on a piece of legislation for which they are the main purpose? And the government said no to the injured workers. The government has said no to many people that came before that committee. That is the real reason for this time allocation.
Interjection.
Mr Offer: The former Minister of Labour interjects, but the former Minister of Labour spent no time at that committee. The former Minister of Labour was not there when those presentations were made by those injured workers. The former Minister of Labour was not there when management came and said, "We believe in a workers' compensation system, but it's necessary that our concerns be met as well."
For the government to say today, "This time allocation motion is necessary because of some long-standing debates that are taking place," is ridiculous. The reason that the government is ramming this legislation through is because everybody is against it, and the only reason they can get it through is if they use the rules of the House to basically say, notwithstanding the concerns raised by injured workers in my riding of Mississauga North and I trust at ridings around this province, notwithstanding the concerns raised by the business community in my riding of Mississauga North and again throughout the province: "No. We shut the door to those concerns. We don't let you in. You can come to the committee, we'll go through the two or three weeks, and then we'll introduce a time allocation motion so that notwithstanding what we heard, notwithstanding all the very valid concerns about the future financial health of the board, notwithstanding the valid concerns raised by injured workers in this province, we are going to shut the door on those concerns." I think that is absolutely irresponsible.
Now, what cannot be argued is that according to a quick count, the government has introduced something like 29 amendments to a bill that has 25 substantive sections. What is the government going to do? What do they say to all of the people who care strongly about a workers' compensation system, who recognize and believe in the principles under which it was formed and want to make certain that those principles so many years ago remain intact and in fact grow? The government, by this time allocation motion, is saying, "We know what's best." It is the usual arrogant, holier-than-thou approach that this government takes on so many pieces of legislation.
Mr Speaker, you will know that this is not the first time we debate a time allocation motion in this Legislature. In fact the government House leader, I think, reads from his previous notes. All he does is change the bill number and the subject matter. He always says the same thing. What he neglects to say is that the time allocation motions are not the creatures of opposition parties. The time allocation motions are not things that are brought forward by the opposition or third party. The time allocation motion is brought forward by the government.
1530
It is not because of a huge amount of approval of a piece of legislation. Make no mistake about it. The time allocation motion brought forward by that government on this bill is not with respect to the fact that people approve of the bill. It has everything to do with the fact that people from all parts of this province disapprove of the bill.
It is a piece of legislation which carries equal criticism from the injured workers as well as from the business community. It's important to note that we heard much of the same criticism from both groups. The injured workers are very concerned that they have no say as of right over a particular piece of legislation which has as its purpose their so-called best interests.
I have a concern when the government seeks to ram through a piece of legislation that shuts the injured workers out of a WCB system. I have a concern when the issues raised by management are not addressed in the legislation; in fact, one could say they have been turned the other way.
There is no financial accountability in this piece of legislation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal will be able to do whatever whenever it wishes without any regard to what the impact will be on the unfunded liability of this particular system, which now rests at something like $11 billion and growing each and every day.
This is an important subject matter. The subject matter of workers' compensation is one that is felt in my constituency office, through meetings that I've held and, I trust, by other members. Because of the importance of the WCB issue, the legislation must be treated in the same way. This government has not done that. They have introduced a piece of legislation which has been roundly criticized from all quarters. Instead of listening to the concerns, they ignored the concerns. Instead of further debate, they have time allocation. Instead of opening the door to the people of this province, they shut that door. For that, this government is held accountable and will be held accountable.
This bill is of no assistance to the injured workers in my area. This bill is of no assistance to the funder of the system, which is the business community. This is a piece of legislation which has shut the door in their faces. This is a piece of legislation which is and should be roundly criticized. For the government to once more embark on its time allocation motion procedure, which is evidence of it not listening, is continual, continual, well-deserved criticism of the government.
They are doing a time allocation on WCB. They have done one on long-term care. They have done one on waste management. They continue to implement and ram through pieces of legislation of which the general public not only does not approve but indeed wants to be heard on. This government is famous for not listening.
This bill is an example of their arrogant, irresponsible approach to an issue which cried out for discussion, which cried out for some real, energetic work. Injured workers are not well served, the management funders of the system are not well served and the people of this province, because of the arrogant approach exemplified by this government, are not well served. I am thoroughly and firmly opposed to the actions that the government has taken today.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I can't say that I'm pleased to participate in the debate today concerning the time allocation motion. I'm extremely disappointed that the people in this province have not had an opportunity to fully debate all of the concerns that have been expressed regarding the hearings that were held this summer. For the House leader to stand in this House and try and indicate that the opposition parties were not cooperative is simply not the truth. We have fully cooperated.
We have introduced amendments. Unfortunately, there were many more amendments than we had hoped would be necessary. However, after hearing the viewpoints of all Ontarians this summer, the injured workers, the employee groups, the unions, the business groups and numerous other groups associated with health care and from other areas in the province, we simply felt that we had a duty and we had a responsibility to introduce amendments that would respond to the concerns they had expressed. It's for that reason we introduced them. We had hoped that the government would provide us with ample time to fully debate and discuss all of the amendments. However, it now appears that is not to be.
Indeed, I had the impression this past summer and now again this fall that the government was more interested in closing off the debate, not discussing the content of the bill, because at numerous times they introduced motions for adjournment and recesses, and at times I wondered what was going on. It was obvious that they didn't want the public to fully understand what was contained within the bill, because this bill does not respond to the needs of employers, employees or injured workers. It does not serve anyone well and will simply leave to another day and another government the need to thoroughly reform the workers' compensation system.
It is extremely unfortunate as well that the government has again, for the 19th time in four and a half short years, introduced this motion of closure which effectively limits debate on an issue as important as workers' compensation. During the time that our party was in power for 42 years, we only introduced closure three times. We knew how important it was to listen to the voices of the people in this province. The Liberals in their five years in office only introduced closure four times. So I think you can see that this government has indicated time and time again, now 19 times, that it doesn't want to listen to Ontarians; it simply wants to introduce legislation. They want to put it through as quickly as possible.
We've seen this now in the area of waste management. We've seen it in the area of long-term care, another bill that will have horrendous consequences on the lives of people in this province. We're going to be faced with a huge bureaucracy. We're going to eliminate the volunteer component in the delivery of long-term care, the VON, the Red Cross, the Meals on Wheels, and instead we're going to have a huge bureaucracy and people will be left with no choice whatsoever as to what type of care they want and from what care provider.
As far as the long-term-care legislation is concerned, it's obvious the government's only concern was not to best serve the needs of the senior citizens and the disabled, it was simply again another attempt to facilitate unionization.
So much of the legislation that has been introduced the last four and a half years has been geared to facilitating unionization and increasing the number of unionized workers in this province. It has not responded to what is in the best interests of the majority of people in this province; it's been a response to a small, small special-interest group. It's time that this government started to listen.
1540
Furthermore, I would suggest to the opposition that last evening as we sat in committee, I was prepared to discuss the amendments to Bill 165. In fact I introduced a motion for unanimous consent to sit beyond 6 o'clock in order to finish the discussion and the debate. However, the member for Durham East refused to give the support necessary for unanimous consent. Personally, our party wants to make sure that all of the amendments are thoroughly discussed and debated, as opposed to coming in here and spending at least two and a half hours discussing time allocation.
I'd like to talk now about this bill since this will be the only opportunity we have to fully discuss Bill 165. Up until now, the government has forced any debate or discussion to take place in committee and the public has not had an opportunity to participate or listen.
There was tremendous optimism in this province when the Premier indicated his desire to reform the workers' compensation system, because everyone recognized that major reform was long overdue. In fact there was a feeling of optimism at that time that recognized the fact that if the two parties, business and labour, could indeed work cooperatively together and were indeed truly committed to the process, we would see that much-needed WCB reform.
However, how quickly that optimism faded when the Premier aborted the very process he had established. He had established the process by bringing together into the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee both business and management. He had asked those individuals to take a look at long-term reform, to take a look at recognizing that the system was in some financial crisis. Instead of listening to the proposals that had been put forward by the PLMAC that were part of the accord, he himself hastily introduced a bill, Bill 165, on May 18 of this year which bore little or no resemblance to the original accord.
The bill totally ignored the reform plans that were recommended by the Premier's very own hand-picked business advisers. It does not reflect the accord that was reached between business and labour. For this government to continue to pretend that it does in any way, shape or form is totally false, since the business community throughout the summer continued strenuously to denounce Bill 165 and asked repeatedly that it be withdrawn and that the government go back to the drawing board. I can tell you, that was the position of our party. We agreed wholeheartedly with this position.
Bill 165 does absolutely nothing to address the fiscal crisis of the system or the lack of financial accountability, although the government tries to pretend that it does. Unfortunately, the only thing this bill does do is to place the NDP political agenda ahead of the total workers' compensation system.
Not surprisingly, the agenda that we see in Bill 165 very, very strongly resembles the labour agenda, the original labour agenda. As a result, the confidence and the trust of employers in this government have once again been severely eroded.
I'd like to deal with some of the major concerns with the bill. Certainly one of the primary reasons for discussion and debate and bringing the two sides together was the need to deal with the issue of the unfunded liability. Instead of reducing the unfunded liability of $11.7 billion to zero, this bill will instead increase it to about $15 billion in the year 2014. In fact, there are those in this province who have indicated that it could well increase to beyond $15 billion; it could be $31 billion, or even in excess of $50 billion.
Unfortunately this government still fails to recognize that the Workers' Compensation Board in Ontario is in crisis. The system is technically bankrupt now because today it owes injured workers in this province more than $11 billion more than it has money to pay them. I don't think people understand sometimes what an unfunded liability is, but it simply means that it owes $11.7 billion more than it has money to pay the injured workers. That's why, if this issue is not addressed, if the unfunded liability is not reduced to zero, we could place in jeopardy the future benefits that are owed to injured workers.
It's obvious that without the fundamental reform that was suggested by the management representatives of the PLMAC there may eventually, as I said before, not be enough money to pay the injured workers unless the taxpayers in this province pay the money. Certainly I believe everybody in this province has recognized and has indicated to us they want no more taxation by any government at any level, whether it's federal, provincial or municipal. They have hit a tax wall.
We also need to recognize that the huge sum of $11.7 billion that is the total of the unfunded liability is a cause of concern for the bond rating services. They have identified the unfunded liability as a cause for concern with respect to our provincial credit rating. Thus, it is important to realize that the unfunded liability acts as a disincentive for businesses that might consider relocating or establishing their operations in our province. We recently heard about a company that decided to move to New Brunswick -- it was a courier service -- because the rates were much more favourable in the province of New Brunswick than they are here.
So what companies are doing, and I'm going to have more to say on that later, is taking a look at what would be the cost of workers' compensation, what would be the cost of the assessment, if they were to move into Ontario. When they recognize the high cost involved, they are choosing to locate either in the United States, New Brunswick, Manitoba or elsewhere. They are not coming into this province.
We have, as a result of our very onerous employment legislation, created a wall around the province of Ontario. There has been so much red tape, there has been so much regulation, we have seen so many changes to employment legislation that people are simply not expanding and making more investments in Ontario, and they're not coming into the province. As a result, it's legislation such as Bill 165 that is preventing the creation of new jobs in this province.
1550
That's part of the problem with so much of the legislation that the NDP is introducing. Instead of helping the people that it is intended to help, it is simply driving business out of the province or, if they're not here, it is discouraging them from ever opening up operations here.
We need only to take a look at employment equity, another piece of legislation that will introduce some changes for employers in this province. Again there's quite a cost involved in the implementation. We've had pay equity and we've had the increases in the minimum wage.
All of these incentives, these new pieces of legislation intended to help workers, are actually having a negative impact as they contribute to a loss of jobs or a lack of the creation of new jobs in this province.
The purpose clause is another major cause of concern. Although it was to include a financial responsibility framework, this was never included in the manner in which it was intended, and the way the bill is presently worded, it provides the authority to expand benefits and coverage without any regard for the impact on the system or the Ontario economy.
The purpose clause and the financial responsibility framework were intended to inject a balance into the system, a balance between securing benefits for injured workers and the need for financial accountability at every level within the system.
It was agreed by both sides that the purpose clause should require that any proposed change to the benefits, the services, the programs or the policies under the act be thoroughly analysed in order to evaluate the overall consequences of the proposed changes on workers and employers. None of this is reflected in the present purpose clause before us today.
As currently drafted, this bill does not require cost to be taken into account when new provisions or policies are considered by the government or the Workers' Compensation Board.
If you apply this to such issues as stress and chronic pain, it means that the Workers' Compensation Board will evaluate the changes with no regard whatsoever for the system to fund these improvements, a system which, as I said before, already has an unfunded liability of $11.7 billion, an unfunded liability that will grow to at least $15 billion by the year 2014.
I'd like to now move to experience rating. We all know that experience rating in Ontario has represented one of the best examples of joint policy development between the business community and government. It is an intelligent balance between employer accountability and the basic insurance principles of workers' compensation.
We now know that the government intends to complicate the process by measuring health and safety in the workplace, vocational rehabilitation and return-to-work practices, as well as the employer accident cost and frequency.
If this is the case, if these are the changes that are going to be made to experience rating, will this mean more red tape for the employer community? Will it mean that there is more administrative involvement at the WCB? Will it mean there are more employees hired? Is this going to move the program from a program that measures and rewards results to a program that is going to measure and reward process?
Unfortunately, the answer to all of those questions is a resounding yes, and I can tell you that the people who came before us during the summer hearings indicated that if that is the case, that would be a grave, grave mistake.
What is the government's intention regarding this proven, workable program that presently is the only remaining program through which employers can control their ever-increasing WCB costs? Presently, almost all industries in this province are covered under one of the experience rating programs, and they have been a very, very major factor in reducing accident frequency in Ontario by more than 30% since 1988. Our party, the Ontario PC Party, says loud and clear to the government: Don't touch experience rating. It works.
Let's move now to the benefit increase of $200 per month to injured workers. Instead of assisting older workers who are in genuine need of additional assistance, it further stresses the financial health of the system by awarding these additional benefits without any kind of needs analysis. Furthermore, the $200 benefit has been extended to older workers for life, and not age 65 as agreed to in the discussions between labour and management.
There was some agreement that there be a royal commission, that there was a need for a royal commission. However, that hope, that optimism for the commission and the possible work that it could do, has also faded because a prominent labour leader was appointed to head up the commission.
Many people now wonder if it is even possible to have an impartial review. I would say to the government that if the system is to be reviewed and if we are to identify what needs to be changed, it should never have put in place someone as prominent as the individual they presently have to head up the royal commission. There should have been neither a prominent business nor a labour leader chairing the royal commission. There should have been a neutral chair.
This bill also gives the government the authority to impose policy on the board of directors for up to one year after the bill comes into force. This is totally unbelievable. This undermines the very principle of independent administration. That was one of the cornerstones of the system that was designed by Justice Meredith 80 years ago.
This power is totally unprecedented and it is almost extraordinary for an agency with which the government says it is attempting to establish a more arm's-length relationship. In fact, in one of the last letters that the former Minister of Labour wrote to me, he indicated to me that he couldn't become involved because this was an arm's-length relationship that needed to be respected. Now we see that they have totally ignored the principle of independent administration.
This change will enable the government to direct the Workers' Compensation Board to do virtually anything. At the same time, the government is under no obligation, as I've stated earlier, to act in a financially responsible and accountable manner, and it is under no accountability to any body or any agency for its actions. This provision was not proposed in the accord, and it is certainly further evidence that this government is acting in its own interests to ensure that its political agenda is going to be fulfilled, particularly in the last year of its mandate. Again, the government has totally ignored the wishes of the people of this province and decided to act in a very authoritarian and dictatorial manner in being responsible for policy development.
1600
The re-employment provisions of Bill 165 are inconsistent also with the accord. They do not reflect the understanding reached by business and labour on this very complex issue. The accord recommended that the current act be enforced by the WCB and that positive initiatives be pursued to encourage and promote re-employment. Well, I can tell you that Bill 165 totally distorts the spirit of that agreement. The mediation provisions were not recommended or agreed to in the accord, and what is going to happen here is that it will impose yet more bureaucracy in an already overcrowded and very, very complex system.
Through these provisions, the bill is intentionally moving the WCB away from the role of being an adjudicative body to an agency that is focusing on return to work and mediation as its primary function. This was not a part of the PLMAC accord. The WCB's primary mandate is to determine entitlement to benefits and services under the act and then to provide those services, not the other way around. It is not in the WCB's mandate, nor was it ever proposed in the accord, that the WCB's vocational rehabilitation focus should change from one of rehabilitating the worker to the point of employability to securing the worker with employment, which this government and this bill appear to be attempting to do.
Also, the penalties that are proposed for employers who do not participate in the vocational rehabilitation programs were not a part of the accord either. Yet again, the government has unilaterally proposed the penalties for its own selfish reasons. The accord attempted to promote positive incentives and cooperation as a way of improving the effectiveness of these programs, not imposing penalties on employers for non-cooperation in programs that are of questionable value and effectiveness.
In fact, it brings me back to the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, where we have a situation as well where employers question the effectiveness of the programs that are presently in place, because the government has simply not recognized the need for sector-specific training, particularly in the small business area. They have also not recognized that there are different modes of delivery of programs.
Again, they base everything they're doing on the classroom and moving everybody to one location as opposed to recognizing the new technology that is available to take workplace training programs into the workplace and make sure that all employees in this province can quickly be trained in very sector-specific ways to ensure that we do have safety in the workplace.
This bill does not address many of the real problems such as the shortage of services available to employers. There's nothing in here at all, and employers have told us about the shortage of services. It does not address the regional disparities that exist, the availability and lack of availability of medical and vocational rehabilitation services for injured workers or the lack of internal programs and services within the WCB to assist employers in developing effective return-to-work programs.
Certainly, it doesn't deal with the one issue that all MPPs deal with on a regular basis, and that is the numerous calls that we get from the injured workers who are not responded to when they phone the worker adviser or other individuals. One of the first things that we need to take a look at is how we can more appropriately and more efficiently respond to the concerns of the injured workers, because right now they're phoning our offices because they simply cannot get satisfaction at the WCB.
These are a few of the concerns and questions about Bill 165. I wanted to give this overview. The bill, as you can see, totally ignores the depth of problems that are facing the Workers' Compensation Board, fails to recognize that the system could face insolvency if the unfunded liability is not reduced and a plan determined to reduce it to zero, and that workers' benefits and Ontario businesses are also at risk.
It is very unfortunate that this government did not put the interests of the workers, the employers and the injured workers ahead of its own political agenda.
At this point in time I would just like to mention very briefly some of the reforms that the Ontario PC Party believes are necessary. They are necessary if we are going to return the WCB to its original concept as a workplace accident insurance plan.
Our proposals to deal with WCB reform include, first and foremost, the entrenchment of the concept of financial accountability in the purpose clause, (2) a freeze on new entitlements such as stress until there is a plan in place to deal with the unfunded liability, (3) limit stress claims to those that result from a traumatic event, (4) reduce benefit levels as Manitoba and New Brunswick have done to 85% from 90% and investigate lifetime pension awards, and (5) replace political appointments with a new management team of insurance professionals to improve productivity, case management, quality and customer service.
We have seen this happen in the province of Alberta, and they are now at a point, because of a new management team, a new CEO, where they have almost eliminated their unfunded liability, and certainly there was no reduction in benefits whatsoever.
This is something that this government could have done. Instead, during the last four and a half years they have put in place political appointments as opposed to people who have experience in the insurance field and are able to function as management professionals. They could have improved productivity, case management, quality and customer service. However, they selected not to do so. Instead, they put more and more political appointees into senior positions.
(6) We need to introduce value-for-money audits and spending controls.
It's absolutely ridiculous that the WCB was able to get away with awarding a contract to build a new $200-million office tower without first getting government approval or at least being accountable for the decision. Then this summer we discovered that they didn't even have enough space at Simcoe Place and they were moving out, moving up to Downsview, and putting the overflow staff in there and, again, they were prepared to blow $7 million on renovations for people who couldn't get into Simcoe Place.
So talk about mismanagement; We've seen nothing but mismanagement, and our party very strongly supports value-for-money audits and spending controls. It's high time that we take a look at what's going on and that we protect the money that is needed to pay the benefits of the injured workers and not squander it.
(7) We need to examine contracting out for both the administration and provision of workers' compensation services. We need to enlist private sector expertise to develop less expensive and more effective ways to retrain, rehabilitate and respond to the needs of injured workers, because at the present time there are many individuals and certainly we saw them during the hearings, we see them in our offices. We are simply not doing the best job possible of rehabilitating and responding to the needs of the injured workers in this province.
1610
(8) We need to replace the bipartite model of governance with a multistakeholder model. We need to ensure that the two thirds of employees in this province who are presently not represented on the board do have representation. We need to ensure that the injured workers have seats on the board.
(9) We must eliminate the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. It is not working; bipartism is not working. We need to make it a department of the WCB. We need to ensure that we focus on accident prevention, that we work cooperatively to develop programs that do respond to the needs of the employee in the workplace and that they're just not programmed to ensure that a couple of people have jobs in providing training in unrelated areas than those in the workplace.
Finally, (10), we need to redefine "accident."
I'd like to share now some of the presentations with you. As I indicated to you, we heard from numerous people throughout the province this past summer.
The first one is from the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade. They indicate here:
"Instead of reducing the unfunded liability, it will increase it to $15 billion by 2014.
"Instead of imposing fiscal responsibility by means of a purpose clause, it provides authority to expand benefits and coverage without any regard for impact on the system....
"Rather than providing employers with more meaningful incentives for reducing workers' compensation costs, the bill introduces more complexity, imposes additional punitive measures and seems to replace experience rating altogether with a system that will recognize a 'process' rather than results.
"By failing to come to grips with the question of how to fund those who would need special consideration under the revised indexing provisions in Bill 165 (the application of the Friedland formula), the bill once again rides roughshod over any semblance of fiscal responsibility....
"Instead of creating a more 'arm's-length' relationship between the government and the WCB, the bill by authorizing the government to issue policy direction...undermines the very principle of independent administration....
"We would ask you to give some serious thought to the damage the government's approach has caused. To begin with, everyone loses; employers will continue to face cost increases; workers will continue to face uncertainty about future benefits and, perhaps worst of all, neither party has any faith left in the system itself.
"...let me assure you, the crisis is real. Consider the following:
"The unfunded liability is real and it must one day be paid. It is irresponsible and destructive to simply pass the debt on to the next generation of employers....
"Assessment rates have increased by almost 200% since 1980, yet accident frequency has declined by 30% since 1989....
"We now face a debt of $11.6 billion; in 1980 it was less than $1 billion. Projections by qualified actuaries suggest that this could reach $31 billion by 2014. If the costs of future economic loss awards are not contained, it could go as high as $52 billion.
"It is a fact that the system is technically bankrupt now."
That's from the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade, and they conclude by saying this:
"As you consider Bill 165, ask yourselves, please, what does this bill do to protect the long-term financial interests of those it is supposed to protect, the injured workers and employers of this province? Ask yourselves too, please, which is more likely to bring about a healthier and more fiscally responsible system, Bill 165 or the business caucus proposals and the accord agreed to by the business and labour stakeholders in Ontario?"
Here we have the presentation of the board of trade in the city, Metropolitan Toronto, and again they indicate:
"The most critical element in the negotiated package is the financial responsibility framework. If the financial responsibility framework is not reflected in the purpose clause of Bill 165, the unfunded liability will continue to grow and the workers' compensation system will continue in chaos.... The bill must address the problem. The government and you personally" -- this is a letter to Bob Rae -- "have an obligation to amend the bill to assure that health is restored to the system." This was written on June 27, 1994, to the Premier.
I have here the presentation that was made by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce on August 24, 1994. The chamber of commerce, of course, represents many, many businesses throughout the province, both large and small. It says here:
"In January of this year, the chamber conducted a survey" of its members. "Over 70% of these individual businesses and their community representatives identified immediate action on annual assessment increases, accountability to the taxpayer, and immediate action on the unfunded liability as priorities for workers' compensation reform.
"More telling than these numbers was the sense of outrage and frustration with a system that is failing to respond to their needs. Our office continues to receive calls from members who are simply fed up with the political football that workers' compensation has become. Some even make it a point to threaten to 'vote with their feet' on this issue. That means jobs are in the balance.
"Bill 165 will not satisfy even the most basic needs of our members on workers' compensation." They go on to ask that the bill be withdrawn.
Again, you can see that reference is made to the future investment in this province, the expansion, and again the business community is saying that this bill is another example of a roadblock which makes it more difficult, and as a result they will, if need be, take their jobs outside of the province of Ontario.
We must recognize that so much of this legislation is leading to decreased job opportunities in this province, job opportunities that are so desperately needed by not only our young people but many older workers who have been displaced. This government totally neglects to take that into consideration as part of the equation as they continue to introduce far, far more regulation and red tape.
In fact, it's amazing. Yesterday we stood in this House and we took a look at the legislation that was intended to "clear the path," to get rid of some of the red tape and the regulations. Well, I can tell you, that was not even a baby step forward. But I can tell you also that this legislation, such as the WCB changes, the changes in the employment equity policy, the minimum wage, those are giant steps forward and do have a giant impact on the lack of creation of new jobs in the province.
1620
Here's a submission on August 23 from the Federation of Temporary Help Services. They recommend "...that Bill 165 be withdrawn, at a minimum...the purpose clause should be redrafted to restore financial integrity to the...system; the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee's Friedland formula should be applied with no exceptions; and the NEER program should not be undermined."
Before I go on and refer to some of the other presentations, I just want to make the government aware of the changes, the reforms that are taking place elsewhere in the other provinces. Other provinces are recognizing that workers' compensation needs to be reformed because it was enacted prior to unemployment insurance, the Canada pension plan and personal income tax being introduced.
As we've had these new social programs unfold at all levels of government, unfortunately we have not had an integration with the workers' compensation system. Program integration is being addressed by the other provinces; however, we don't see much of a recognition in our own province.
We need to do a couple of things. We need to ensure that benefit stacking is prohibited. We need to ensure that where payment is made to a claimant for the same compensation purpose in various jurisdictions, an election under one regime must be made and all overpayments recovered.
We need to establish policy concordance between the WCB and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal and establish in the act that final determination be consistent with the merit principle on the side of the WCB. We need to provide the WCB with strong statutory authority to pursue cases of fraud.
If we are going to reverse the fortunes of Ontario's workers' compensation system, it's going to require some attention to these principles and a willingness to make difficult but necessary decisions. Many other Canadian jurisdictions have recently acted aggressively, as I said before, to redesign their workers' compensation systems. Previous measures undertaken in Manitoba and New Brunswick to reduce injured worker benefit levels have already improved their financial pictures. In addition, New Brunswick has reintroduced a three-day benefit waiting period.
Amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act of Prince Edward Island, Bill 52, will lower benefits to 80% of loss-of-earning capacity for 39 weeks and 85% thereafter, lower the level of indexation in the act and provide wage-loss benefits only where a claimant returns to work and suffers a new injury or aggravation of the old one.
Again, these provinces are making these changes because they are recognizing that workers' compensation was enacted before we had unemployment insurance, before we had the Canada pension plan and before we had the personal income tax regimes that we have today. As these new social programs have unfolded, there has been no integration with the workers' compensation system and that is an issue which needs to be addressed at the present time, which other provinces appear to be doing.
The member for Durham East questioned me as to how Alberta had been able to reduce its unfunded liability. I think he suspected they had cut their benefit levels. As I assured him, and I want to assure you again, there was no reduction in the benefit levels. They are one of the few provinces not to reduce benefit levels.
I also want to let him know that this was done under a Progressive Conservative government. It appears that other governments with different political stripes have cut the benefits. Benefits have been cut to 80% or 85% a year in the following provinces, or they are being considered, and I just want to read the list again: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and New Brunswick.
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am not about to say that I'm proud to sit next to Ralph Klein.
Mrs Witmer: At least in Alberta there will be money to pay the injured workers, and also they now have their claims dealt with very efficiently and very effectively. They don't have the delay as we do in this province.
Mr Mills: There are no hospitals to put people in there.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member for Durham East, come to order.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to continue at this time with the presentation that was made on August 22 by the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation. They represent the interests of over 100,000 employers in this province. They represent people from all sectors of the economy and they include large and small business.
They indicate in here that Bill 165 does not address the serious problems facing the system. It doesn't tackle the critical financial issues and it doesn't deal with the agreement that was reached between business and labour. They go on to say that the depth of problems facing the WCB will now be put off to another government and to another day:
"At a time when leadership is needed, when courageous political action is essential, the government has chosen to tinker and fiddle while the system faces insolvency and workers' benefits and Ontario businesses are put at certain risk."
They indicate at the end of their presentation that this government, rather than admit it made an error and that it was proceeding too quickly, introduced this Bill 165 and really the only thing that we're going to see happen is that it will "provide direct government control over WCB policy development, rendering the new board of directors powerless;" it will "increase worker benefits, adding $1.5 billion to the unfunded liability at a time when the board is broke and is experiencing negative cash flow;" it will "force the WCB to expand benefits, having no regard for the competitive implications for Ontario businesses;" it will "scuttle the experience rating system, the last opportunity remaining for business to reduce costs through positive, performance-based initiatives;" it will "increase WCB regulatory powers, adding more red tape for business."
As I said before, that bill clearing the path does very little to assist the business community. Everything that has been done has now been added to the red tape involved in the WCB and much, much more.
1630
I also have a presentation here from the Employers' Advocacy Council. They have 1,700 members across Ontario. They represent a very broad cross-section of Ontario's diverse economy. They have many public sector employers, employers from schedule 2 and they have both large and small employers. They have since 1985 been calling for constructive reform of Ontario's workers' compensation system. They played a key role in supporting the PLMAC process. They spent countless hours and they now feel as well that the government failed to respond to their recommendations.
Their concerns with Bill 165 include the unfunded liability. They want to see an elimination of that unfunded liability. They indicate it is 2.5 times greater than all of the other provinces combined, and since 1989 the amount of assessments earmarked for the unfunded liability has increased by a whopping 57%. New employers opening up business pay an average of 28% of their premiums towards a debt they had no part in creating.
I hope the government listens to that figure, because you can well understand how that can be a deterrent to someone who is planning to set up a business in this province. If you know that you need to pay an average of 28% of your premiums towards a debt that you had no part in creating, obviously you would look elsewhere.
They indicate that since 1980 assessment rates have increased by almost 200%. They indicate that Ontario has the second-highest assessment rate in Canada, yet our accident frequency has declined by 31%.
They say: "The unfunded liability is very real and must one day be retired. Not addressing the issue today only perpetuates the problem and unduly burdens employers of tomorrow and jeopardizes future benefits to workers."
They talk about the purpose clause, which of course was the cornerstone of the accord between business and labour. They indicate that: "The proposed purpose clause will not restore financial accountability or security of the system. It will not balance the inputs and outputs. Cost implications will not necessarily be a consideration when determining future benefit levels or entitlements....It does not put ultimate accountability for the system on government. All of which were elements contained in the accord."
They talk about "Report re return to work," section 8. "Very simply this will add yet one more encumbrance on employers who are trying to return workers in the workplace.
"There is no penalty on workers who fail to provide the return-to-work information, and use the consent issue as a shield to extend the period of absence from work....
"This will become a further issue over which conflicts and disagreements will arise, to the benefit of no one.
"In order for employers to effectively return workers to safe and meaningful employment employers need the tools. Return-to-work information is fundamental to that process."
Vocational rehabilitation, section 9. "Employers are concerned that rehabilitation from the WCB is not effective, and in many instances spend large amounts on internal rehabilitation programs. In 1993, the WCB spent $753 million on rehabilitation for about 26,000 workers, an increase of about 34% over 1992.
"...there is a definite lack of focus and the WCB does not have a clear mission statement for vocational rehabilitation....
"Bill 165 has done nothing to address the problems.
"The proposed penalties on employers will be one more issue over which conflicts and disputes are likely to arise.
"Penalties are not the solution -- education and proactive cooperative measures are the key to effective rehabilitation and return to work."
They take a look at the re-employment, section 10. "The proposed changes to the re-employment provisions are arbitrary and provide the WCB with an authority which we believe is unnecessary.
"As proposed the WCB will have the authority to make a determination whether the employer has breached the re-employment obligation even where the worker may not be interested in returning to the employment, and in many cases where entitlement is still in question.
"The resources of the WCB would be far better utilized if they were used to assist employers in developing return-to-work programs."
They highlight in italics and bold type, "We view these penalties to be regressive."
Board of directors, section 11: They say, "Any confidence that we held for an effective bipartite model of governance has evaporated with developments over the past four months."
Policy directions, section 16: They indicate that the change "jeopardizes the success of a 'truly arm's-length relationship' between government and the WCB."
Experience rating, section 28: They say: "Very simply experience rating must continue in its current form.
"It has proven to be an unqualified success as evidenced by the more than 30% reduction in accident frequency since 1988."
They conclude by saying, "We believe there is no alternative but to withdraw Bill 165, and return to the proposals presented by the business community to the Premier last November," proposals which, "if followed, would have virtually eliminated the unfunded liability, secured future benefit payments for injured workers, improved vocational rehabilitation and placed the system on a secure footing while improving the climate for business investment in Ontario."
Of course, if we improve the climate for business investment in Ontario, it also means that we will create new jobs.
We've recently received many letters from school boards. Most of them have come to us in the last two months. They indicate their concern "with the financial stability of the WCB and the lack of action being taken to control the unfunded liability." They have concerns in the area of the purpose clause: "The purpose clause needs to be expanded to reflect WCB financial accountability." They ask for changes. They have concerns with the "changes to vocational rehabilitation which give the WCB the power to go to a business at any time to investigate its employment practices." They are concerned with "the proposal that the government will direct policy for a year" and that "a bipartite board of directors will govern the WCB."
They say, "It should be noted by the standing committee that school board experience with bipartite governance has not been either effective or successful, if you review the experiences with the Workplace Health and Safety Agency."
I have copies here of letters from the Prescott and Russell County Board of Education, the Board of Education for the Borough of East York, Kirkland Lake Board of Education and Essex County Board of Education. These are just a few of the many letters we received from school boards. You can see that boards across the entire province, all corners, are very concerned, very unhappy with the government legislation, and I can assure you that they see this government as being totally unresponsive to the concerns they have expressed by now invoking closure on the amendment process.
I have here another brief. Again, this one indicates that the most serious objection they have to Bill 165 "is to the two new punitive aspects of vocational rehabilitation and reinstatement, namely, sections 10 and 27 of the bill," and they would ask the government "to reject the amendments in sections 10 and 27."
Again, there is a long, long list of employers from southwestern Ontario: Wallaceburg Bookbinding, Jacob Farm Equipment Ltd, Hiram Walker and Sons Ltd, Kent County Board of Education, Chatham and District Association for Community Living, Southwest Tractor, Windsor Elevator Service Inc. Again, all of these people have voiced their objections to the standing committee regarding Bill 165.
1640
I have the submission from the Ontario Restaurant Association. Again, they take exception with the purpose clause, the lack of financial accountability within the system, the authority of the government to issue policy direction to the board of directors for up to one year after the bill comes into effect and also the governance model that has been proposed, the bipartite structure.
They also know, of course, and they give the example of: "The dismal failure at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency has clearly demonstrated that bipartism...has severe functioning deficiencies at the governing and policy-setting levels. The WHSA has been racked with internal fighting, massive board of directors resignations, an inability to solve problems and a complete ignoring of small business concerns."
They talk about their concerns around vocational rehabilitation. They ask the government to take a look at improving the quality and the impact of rehabilitation. They question and are opposed to the additional administrative burdens and fines for employers, an unnecessary intervention. Again, they indicate that experience rating has been one of the WCB's unqualified successes, and they support it wholeheartedly.
They conclude by saying, "The ORA strongly urges members of the standing committee on resources development to think of the long-term ramifications on injured workers, job creation and the Ontario economy if this legislation proceeds forward and the financial viability of the Workers' Compensation system is not adequately addressed."
I have a presentation from Novacor as well in Sarnia. They indicated they would not invest further in this province if we were to introduce a uniform standard rate, since it could add $1 million to their WCB rate.
So that is the reality: This bill, this legislation, will increase red tape, it will increase regulation, it could increase the cost of WCB payments in this province. I can tell you, employers just will not expand here. They will simply choose to move elsewhere, as people have suggested to us that they will.
This bill also did not address the concerns of the construction industry. Our PC caucus amendments have asked for a separate committee to take a look at this unique industry, the construction industry. It is the second-largest employer in the province of Ontario. They were not invited to participate in the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee, and that is totally unacceptable. So the least the government can do is to respond to the request to set up a separate committee to take a look at the issues that affect construction, and again we heard from both employer and employee groups. They would all agree.
You can see that no one in this province is terribly happy. I could go on and on, but I see that my time is running out.
After hearing the representation from people across this province, I introduced a resolution on September 27 that called for the withdrawal of this bill because I recognized that many groups believe that the bill was seriously flawed. They expressed concern to us that there was also the possibility that Bill 165 could compromise the work of the proposed royal commission. It didn't address the unfunded liability crisis. It was going to impose significant new administrative burdens on employers and diminish the competitive position of Ontario employers, and although I introduced this resolution, it of course was defeated by the government.
The government, after the hearings, did introduce a number of amendments. However, none of them was substantive and they did not respond to the advice from the business community to amend the purpose clause in order to ensure that the financial accountability framework was part of the purpose clause, and that all decisions would be made within the context of being financially responsible and accountable. It didn't reflect the interests of both workers and business.
The amendments did not amount to all that much and as a result we introduced amendments. We introduced 34 amendments; the Liberals introduced 12. We have tried to debate, to discuss all of the amendments because we felt it was necessary to listen to the concerns of the people in this province and unfortunately today, this will end any effective debate on the bill. I need to remind people that the government has not responded. They have continued to introduce amendments that are very one-sided, that tend to respond only to the labour agenda.
Our 34 amendments included a recommendation that we take into consideration the new social structure, and we reduced the benefits from 90% to 85% of net average earnings. This would still maintain the benefit levels in this province higher than in neighbouring jurisdictions and would address some overcompensation issues. We tried to entrench the concept of financial responsibility in the purpose clause. We asked for a mandatory five-year public review of the WCB by the Provincial Auditor, assisted by an advisory committee of relevant stakeholders.
We wanted to ensure that the anticipated royal commission review the WCB governance structure because there has been tremendous concern expressed about the bipartite board structure. We asked to replace the word "physician" with "health care practitioner" to bring the wording into line with the recently proclaimed Regulated Health Professions Act, and certainly we would be amenable to any other wording which would accurately reflect that.
We voted against section 10 of the bill which would give the WCB, on its own initiative and without even a triggering mechanism, the sweeping power to investigate whether an employer has fulfilled his or her obligations to a worker for vocational rehabilitation. We asked for the addition of a construction advisory committee to the board of directors to deal with the unique problems of that industry. We asked that the interests of unorganized workers be represented on the board of directors as well as injured workers. We wanted to maintain the experience rating as it is presently.
We introduced these 34 motions. We have tried to debate them fairly. We have tried to reflect the concerns of people in this province. However, today we have a motion of closure that has now been introduced 19 times by this government. It's obvious they're not interested in listening to the genuine concerns of people in this province on this issue, or on the issue of long-term care, and they will simply move this legislation through.
We can only hope that they will never have a chance to implement this bill or the long-term-care legislation, because both of them will have a very negative impact on the lives of people in this province, and unfortunately, in the case of Bill 165, it does not deal with the genuine issues of concern to people in this province. What they have simply selected to do is to put off to another day and to another government the need to look at the bill and make sure that it does respond to the changing needs in the workplace and does ensure that benefits will continue to be available for the injured workers.
I ask the government to consider, in the time that's left, at least agreeing to a few of our amendments. Don't make a farce of the standing committee process, where we go out and listen to individuals and groups and then we don't respond, after the public hearings, to the viewpoints that have been expressed. I urge you to start to listen to people in this province.
1650
Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I will speak just for a few moments with respect to the general essence of the motion before us today, that being time allocation and the history of time allocation with this particular government.
I guess it's almost become routine for the government of the day to say, "We are going to invoke time allocation," and blame it on the opposition. "We are going to blame the fact that people have concerns on the opposition and say that they are trying to frustrate democracy or frustrate government."
I think back to shortly after the 1990 election, when the new government was sworn in. Waste management was an issue that was critical. It was in a "crisis situation." I recall the then Minister of the Environment saying to me, "Mr McClelland, if you don't allow this legislation" -- Bill 143, in that instance -- "to pass, garbage is going to pile up on the streets and it'll be your responsibility." That was the justification for time allocation at that point in time.
Well, here we are and the current minister is here and the Interim Waste Authority continues to do its thing, and garbage is not, in point of fact, piling up on the streets. It seems to me that what happens often is that we get so caught up in trying to justify what we're doing, we come up with these almost absurd rationalizations.
I guess what's most frustrating for me, if I start with that first experience of Bill 143 and move through to the current situation with long-term care, as speaker after speaker has said in this House, legislation that is going to dramatically impact peoples' lives -- there isn't one of my colleagues of the 129 other members in this House who doesn't on a weekly basis, usually daily, hear from people with respect to workers' comp. These are everyday issues affecting ordinary women and men in the province of Ontario and they want to have an opportunity to participate in this process that we call democracy.
In point of fact, members opposite in the government champion themselves in fighting for those principles of people being heard and people being part of the process in ownership in this precious commodity that we call democracy. Now, when ordinary citizens participate and come and say, "We have some ideas we want to share," and they do it through the vehicle of opposition members and through the vehicle of committee and bring substantive changes and amendments and suggestions to improving legislation that is going to impact their lives, the government says: "This is frustrating our agenda, so we're going to blame it on the opposition. We don't like what we're hearing, so let's contrive some sort of rationalization to cut off debate."
In point of fact, many people opposite and on this side of the House got involved in the political process because there were issues they felt passionately about and felt that the voice of women and men in this province ought to be heard and acted upon. It seems to me that what we have is a situation -- and I recall an incident of two young people playing together that I overheard recently. One of them said, "You know, if one of us would get off the rocking horse, I would have more room." Think about it -- out of the mouths of babes sometimes, young people about six or seven years of age. "If one of us would get off, I would have more room." I think about that and think of the seriousness, the truth that's being expressed in that. It seems to me that depends on which perspective and whose ox has been gored and how you look at this.
The fact remains that time allocation has almost become routine with the current government. It's a point of saying: "If you don't agree with us, there's something fundamentally wrong with the position that you take. If the people don't agree with us, then they're ill-advised or ill-informed."
If you're a person who delivers health care or is involved in long-term care in the community and you write a letter to the local paper, you get a patronizing response from the minister that says, "You're ignorant and you don't understand." The wisdom of women and men in this province, individuals, cannot be taken for granted and just dismissed out of hand in that fashion.
I recognize very, very clearly that the government is going to proceed. They've already got their notice of motion. I recognize as well that all of the interventions made by my colleagues on this side of the House -- and I suspect, quite frankly, in their hearts, that in point of fact some members opposite feel the same way -- that if you can't tough it out and sell it, then you shouldn't be doing time allocation.
The reason I know that is because some of them used to stand on this side of the House in some of these very seats and champion the opportunity to put their position forward and to fight for what they believed in.
It's the kind of thing that is so easy to do. Once you do it once, it becomes easy to justify it again and again and again and take the easy way out. It's a failing, I suppose, of human nature. I think we have seen yet again today the submissions that are being brought forward on behalf of not only the official opposition, but people who are affected by the member for Mississauga West are not going to be given full opportunity for discussion. There's been a lot of thought and a lot of effort put into it.
As we look at this particular notice of motion to once again stifle free and open and complete debate, all of the rationalization in the world and all of the justification can be put forward, but people know. The people opposite know, those members of the government know that what happened is that they can't take the heat and they want to dodge it.
That's not good enough and the people of Ontario, quite frankly, are going to remember that. People who have invested in good faith and brought forward some creative ideas and who feel they have something to offer will remember when it comes time to vote. They will speak to the kind of government that says it knows better than anybody else, that has all of the answers and all the solutions and is not prepared to listen to people who disagree with it.
Not just because of the time allocation motion that we're talking about today, but because of what it embodies and the way it's representative of an attitude of government that has become all too pervasive in these past few years in Ontario -- that's why the people of Ontario are desperate to have an election, to respond to that kind of attitude as embodied in this resolution.
I know what's going to happen. Government members will be ordered to stand in place and vote, and they'll rationalize it and say, "Oh yes, we've got to do this because we've got to get on with the legislative agenda." They know deep in their hearts that in point of fact the reason they want to get on is because they can't take the heat any more.
We'll be voting against this obviously, and I think it's time that the people of Ontario be heard and have an opportunity to put forward, through their elected members, some very, very substantive concerns that they have on this legislation, on Bill 165, and other legislation where debate has been shut off.
1700
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm going to take a few minutes today before the member for Mississauga West, who has worked very hard on this bill over the last period of time and has had a distinct interest in the Workers' Compensation Board, will have the opportunity to elaborate on some of the points I'm going to make. I'm going to address my remarks primarily to the use of the closure motion and why I believe that is not good for our system.
I have had the opportunity -- I haven't wanted the opportunity, but I've had the opportunity -- the last few times we've seen the introduction of a closure motion or a time allocation motion to describe why it is not for the good of democracy to continue to do this. I do, though, having sat as a government member, know that there are times when a debate will come to an end, and I think in fairness a government is going to find a time when it is going to apply a time allocation or closure. The question will be when it should be.
I think the reason the opposition is particularly perturbed at the introduction of this time allocation motion this time is because the House has not been sitting for some period of time. If the House had come back on September 28 or whenever it was supposed to come back, the third or the beginning of the fourth week of September, when it normally would come back, I think the government's case would be much stronger.
If there had been continuous debate in committee, perhaps it had come back to the House, I think the government's case would have been much stronger. Even though those of us in opposition disagree with the contents of the bill, the government's case for pressing forward with the final debate and the vote on it would be much stronger than it is at this time.
I think it's not strong this time because the government delayed, for whatever purpose. I guess I'm political enough to figure that the reason the government doesn't want to sit is quite simple: The government does not want to face opposition questions and the media scrutiny that takes place after question period in this House. There's more immediate access to members of the cabinet on that occasion.
Also, it's quite obvious the government's agenda wasn't very full and essentially what it has wanted to do over the last few years -- and normally we have elections after every four years. Some governments are unwise enough to call it after three years and some are unwise enough to wait the full five years; neither seems to work. About the four years seems to work quite well for governments.
But I believe, because of the rule changes that Premier Rae instituted a couple of years ago in June, that the role of members of this Legislature has diminished considerably.
I don't want to recanvass that argument now, except I think it's important for our democratic system to know that. There won't be anybody in any newspaper who will write about this. There won't be anybody on television who's going to show a clip tonight of anybody in here making a speech about time allocation. It's a boring subject to most people.
Procedures of the House aren't perceived to be of significance to the general public, and certainly not to the editors who make decisions on what gets on television, on radio or in the newspaper. That's why it's incumbent upon members of the Legislature to ensure that we, as a collective group, ensure that the elected members, the only people whom the people out there can get at and influence, have a significant role to play in dealing with legislation.
We have some real problems with many of the provisions of this legislation. Mr Mahoney, the member for Mississauga West, will outline some of those problems, and probably today he doesn't have the cold that I have, so he will do it in a much more vociferous and vibrant fashion, I'm sure.
But I do want to once again remind the government that we've sat only three weeks and we've had three closure motions or three time allocation motions brought before the House to severely limit debate. This is on top of the provisions that are already found in the rules of the House where Mr Rae has decided that members shall have only 30 minutes to speak on any one subject, with the exception being the lead person, who can speak for 90 minutes. This doesn't allow for a good canvass of a piece of legislation.
I listened to the government House leader make his case. He must make it. Obviously he gets into a discussion with his friends in cabinet who want to see things pushed through, the Premier's office certainly, maybe some of the members who are not in the cabinet, so he has to put forward the best case he can whether he believes it or not, and I fully understand that to be the case.
But I see a problem when the government brings in a parliamentary calendar which is shortened -- that is, it has fewer sitting days -- just by the new rules of the House brought in by Mr Rae. Second, I am concerned when you limit members on very important legislation to 30 minutes per speech. That, I think, does not bode well for future legislation as well or, frankly, for future governments.
I don't like the fact that the Speaker's power is diminished, because the Speaker, once reaching the chair, is a person who is neutral. My experience in this House has been generally that the Speaker has been perceived by government and opposition to be neutral. Therefore, when the Speaker makes a decision, there's much more validity to it and much more acceptance of it than when a minister makes that decision, and obviously in this case a minister is able to make the decision under the new rules.
So I lament the fact that the government has once again applied time allocation, once again diminished the role of the opposition and, I think, of the members of the government itself, because today there will be a division of time. It's not that government members wouldn't want to speak, but there was a division agreed to by the three parties where the opposition parties would have more time to speak than the government. There may be some government members who have some concerns about the bill, on either side of the bill. Perhaps they believe it doesn't help workers enough or perhaps they believe that it will hurt business too much.
There's no question we have to address this problem of the unfunded liability. Some will exaggerate its importance, others will diminish its importance. We have to address that; we have to address the competitiveness of the province of Ontario. It's not easy to do it. It's not easy for any government to do that, because we want to ensure, and I think this is the goal of everybody, that those who are genuinely injured on the job receive the benefits to which they're entitled. There is a fear out there that this isn't always the case.
We know it from our constituency offices. There are some people who come in and you really feel good about helping those people because they've been caught in the mess, they've been caught in the entanglement of what we call bureaucratic red tape. There are other people you feel a little bit reluctant to make a telephone call on behalf of because you know from experience in the past perhaps or from other information that's provided that the claim is not nearly so valid. Our desire, I think, as members is to ensure that those claims in fact are valid, that people are paid in an expeditious manner and that they're helped to get back into the workforce through rehabilitation.
I simply draw to the attention of members of the House again that this government is going to be sitting about 20 days this session. That's all that's scheduled that we are sitting. The government has had more time to sit if it would see fit and could, I think, in all validity make a case for time allocation had it been in session for part of the month of September, all of the month of October and of course November and into December.
I'm going to leave the floor, as I indicated, to the member for Mississauga West, Steve Mahoney, who has worked very hard on the issue of WCB matters. He has also produced a paper, because I think often the government will say, "What would your alternative be?" There may be some who disagree with it, but he has taken the time out and studied the system well and has produced a paper. So I will yield the floor to Mr Mahoney, with the viewpoint that I'm disappointed that the government has again applied a time allocation bill.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Thank you to my House leader for leaving me about 37 minutes or so to put some concerns on the record.
Let me just first of all, if I might, expand a little bit on what the member for St Catharines was talking about. I've just been delivered some statistics that are quite interesting. I've talked about this before, but I'd like to remind the member from Sudbury East particularly of the --
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Sudbury.
Mr Mahoney: Sudbury, straight. Thank you. She takes it straight. I'd like to remind the member for Sudbury, the parliamentary assistant on this, that the tactic they're using today, time allocation, closure, call it what you want, is one of the two I guess you'd call them modus operandi that this government will be clearly remembered for. The other is the process of lumping bills together; it's called an omnibus bill.
Let me just share with you some information: Since this government took office, there have been 19 bills passed through this place using time allocation and closure. Now, you know, I could see it if somebody was filibustering, but you've eliminated the art of filibustering. We all sat here and listened to the member for Welland-Thorold filibuster for, what, 17 days? That's gone.
Ms Murdock: Hours.
Mr Mahoney: Hours, days -- it seemed like days. It might as well have been days. That art is gone, so now we govern by the clock, and the people should understand that. They maybe don't care too much, as my House leader has said, about people arguing over time allocation. But the fact is, it is the very principle, it is at the root, at the heart of the very principle of the democratic process in a Legislature such as this, and if it is abused or if it is used too often by a government, there is the clear result that you stifle debate, that you say to those who may oppose you, "We're going to shut you down; we're going to cut you off." That in essence is what this government has done. It must be unprecedented.
1710
I can recall in the days of 1987 to 1990 when we had in the Liberal Party -- what did we have, Jim? -- 95, 94 members in this place. I can recall going to the caucus room when you could hardly get in, you certainly couldn't get a chair, and suggesting to the Premier and the cabinet that we should bring in some form of closure. "We've got this massive majority; why don't we use it? The people elected us to govern; why don't we bring it in?" And the argument put forward consistently by our government House leader and by members of cabinet to those of us in the back bench was that we must allow debate, that we cannot be seen to be shoving things down people's throats and we should allow the opposition the opportunity to put their viewpoints across.
It seemed at times that we were being too generous, but it was a principle that we believed in in government, which frustrated many of us, because we had to sit in the large majority on that side of the House and listen to people read the phone book or read messages or just use delay tactics, and we couldn't understand that.
If you want to take a look at the record, go ahead and compare. You guys, this government, have taken the art of time allocation motions to a new level in the province, probably in the country, probably in all of Confederation, I would suggest. That's the only way they can govern.
Let's look at this abbreviated sitting of the Legislature. We came back for a week, we had four days, and we were all so exhausted, we had to take a week off. We know why. It's because the Premier doesn't want to be in this place, because he doesn't want to be in the kitchen when the heat's turned up. So we come back for a week and then we go off for a week.
The fact is that in the abbreviated session of this place, we've had a very important bill on reforming the municipal Planning Act, architected by John Sewell, Bill 163. What do they do? Time allocation.
An extremely important bill, a huge issue for seniors and families in the health care system, is Bill 173 on long-term care. They've taken an idea, the idea of centralizing services, which frankly I think the Minister of Health found in her desk when she arrived on the job four or five years ago, because it was an idea that was actually piloted by the Liberal government, but the difference was we had no plans to shut down volunteer organizations like the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Red Cross and many others, unlike what this government is doing.
They get into a controversy, they take a curve in the road or a turn in the road, they get themselves into trouble and the only option they have is time allocation, the only way they can govern. It's really quite interesting.
And then WCB. I knew the day we were coming back here -- I heard the government House leader today talking about process, saying how patient he had been. I sit in those House leader meetings every Thursday. I'm not going to tell tales out of school, because those meetings are held in good conscience and relations between the three parties, but I would tell you that at no time did I express a desire to the government House leader to unduly delay this bill.
I said we would work through committee. In fact, the parliamentary assistant tells me that we almost made it through the entire bill. She had to tell me because I had to leave. Of course, she may claim that's why they got it through. The point is --
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: There may be a point there. Notwithstanding that fact, we were substantially getting through the amendments even up until the point where I had to withdraw from the committee due to other commitments.
We've still got a few weeks left. Why could we not have had more opportunity? Why could we not come in here and have committee of the whole? Instead, what happens is that the government House leader decides that's enough. I presume that the Minister of Labour and the mandarins -- maybe it's the former minister, or the new minister, or maybe it's a collaborative agreement between the two of them. But maybe it's the Premier. I never thought of that. I wonder who is running the ship around here.
The Premier says, "We've got to get this Bill 165 through because this is one of the things we're going to pay back Gord Wilson at the OFL and all of the rest of our friends in the labour movement, whom we are gently coaxing back into the stable."
It's really fascinating to see what goes on at your conventions and the speeches, and all of a sudden I see you returning to the rhetoric of the left side of your party that you abandoned, apologizing for all the promises you broke, putting out documents saying really fascinating stuff, "Tommy Douglas Had Bad Press Too." Just take a look at this. This is the Ontario Star. I'm giving you some free publicity here. I just --
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: No, it's really quite -- "The Rae Government is Leading Ontario to New Prosperity." Whoa. Who wrote that? Who wrote that cockamamy headline? I mean, you can't believe that. The province doesn't believe it. The people out there in all of your ridings don't believe it. I'm sure you go home and answer the telephones in your constituency -- maybe you don't. It used to be that you didn't even open the offices. I'm not sure what's going on. But you've got to get the message.
The only way you could ever get a headline like that would be if you printed it yourself. You're going to hurt yourself trying to pat yourself on the back with this stuff. This is an absolute joke, but it's a good joke. I was looking for the funnies, actually, to see if there are any cartoons in here. It talks about all of the wonderful things that you've supposedly done. Here's one, "NDP Labour Law Works for Ontario." Who told you that? Gord Wilson, I guess.
The Acting Speaker: Address your remarks through the Chair, please.
Mr Mahoney: Madam Chair, I get a little excited.
Anyway, this is "must" reading because, honest to goodness, this belongs in everyone's library: "Auto Boom," "Good Health." Good Lord, God save me and the province.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): What's he speaking about?
Mr Mahoney: What I'm speaking about is his government's absolute incompetence, and as a result of its incompetence the only way, I say to Mr Mammoliti, the target of many these days, I understand, they can govern is through time allocations. In 1991 we had Bill 4 and Bill 143, rent control and the environment, two very contentious issues. "Time-allocate. Can't get it through." In 1992, Bill 40; we all remember that. That's the one you say is working in this so-called newspaper you've put out.
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: I'm sorry. Labour-sponsored venture capital, Bill 150; Bill 74, Bill 108, Bill 109, Bill 110, all in the advocacy package. How do you get it through? You time-allocate it because you're incapable of managing a process that will allow for free and open dialogue and democratic process to take place. Then you get into Bill 121. Interesting: Two of these bills are retroactive. You even have to time-allocate retroactive bills. Imagine that. Amazing. Bill 100, regulated health professions. Here's one, Bill 8, casinos. You found it necessary to time-allocate casinos. You are changing the entire nature of this province with a --
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: I'm sorry, but you are.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): We're leading the country in economic growth.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Oxford is out of order.
Mr Mahoney: Let's have some proper debate, some discussion on these things. Instead, you've got to time-allocate. The member from the Woodstock area has become the greatest apologist --
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum present in the House.
The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.
Mr Mahoney: Margaret, I was on a roll.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga West may resume his debate.
Mr Mahoney: I'm going to have to start over again, I guess.
1720
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I just wanted the opportunity to speak to Mrs Marland's, the member for Mississauga South, point of order. I've been here all day and I haven't seen her and she just walked in the door and called a quorum. That's amazing.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr Mahoney: Maybe we could get on with workers' compensation reform and deal with the bill and with the process that this government is using.
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: I'm going to talk about the bill; you can rest assured about that. In fact, I'm not going to take a lot more time other than to tell you, on this list, there are 19 bills that have been time allocated: the casinos; Bill 80 -- you'll remember that -- labour relations on construction; photo-radar, brought to you by Bob Rae's government, Big Brother lives; the social contract, that one I could understand, that one you had no chance of getting agreement from this side of the House, although you did have the third party in bed with you for a while, but then they got the itch and bailed out. We were never there.
Under no circumstances were you going to get that bill without time allocation. You had to do that one; I'll concede that. Auto insurance -- the member for Ottawa-Rideau will tell you about Bill 143 I think it was, the Ottawa-Carleton bill, again, had to be time allocated.
Then there is a long list of some 12 or 15 omnibus bills that seem to be the only way that this government can operate. Let me tell you one of the things that I've seen in this time allocation motion that I've not seen in others, that I find really quite interesting. We received this bill at committee yesterday while we were sitting dealing with amendments to Bill 165, the bill that this is all about, the workers' compensation package.
In here it says that the committee will meet on such and such a day and for such a length of time and here's what you will do and here's what you will say. But here -- this is interesting -- it also says, "The Chair" -- and the Chair just happens to be one of the Kitchener-area members in the NDP caucus, Mr Cooper; I'm not sure of his riding, but in any event, he happens to be in the Chair -- "may allow only one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a)." I looked up 128(a), and 128(a) says, "Immediately after the Chair of a standing or select committee has put the question on any motion, there shall be, if requested by a member of the committee" -- any member: Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat -- "a wait of up to 20 minutes before the vote is recorded."
The reason that was put in the standing orders was to allow for the caucus on the committee to have a meeting to discuss a particular amendment that they might need some additional information on. It's part of the standing orders of the Ontario Legislature. It's part of the democratic process and part of the right, I would submit, part of the responsibility of a caucus in committee dealing with an amendment to make sure they fully understand the implications of the amendment they might be voting on.
But the government House leader says, "We can't have these people taking 20 minutes out of the committee's time to ask questions of the staff or to get additional information." He not only shut down the opposition with this motion, he shut down the Chair of the resources committee. I don't think I've ever seen that, that I can recall.
If I was the Chair who was supposed to be neutral -- the parliamentary assistant would agree with me on that. In fact, I think Mr Cooper has shown neutrality in these hearings; he's gone to great pains not to make partisan comments from the Chair. I respect that. I was a committee Chair when we were in government. I also -- you might find it hard to believe, Mr Mills -- went to great pains to be non-partisan, to be neutral in sitting in the Chair.
Mr Perruzza: When? When?
Mr Mahoney: Here -- Mr Speaker, nice to see you -- we have a motion by the government House leader.
Mr Perruzza: When?
Mr Mahoney: I think someone has a hiccup over there. You might want to -- could you take some water to the member for Downsview, one of the View Brothers?
We have a motion by the government House leader actually muzzling the Chair of a committee. It must be a precedent; it must be. I don't think I've ever seen it. If I were in the Chair as a member of the government caucus, I can tell you that I would be letting the government House leader know that I don't appreciate it. He's not only stifled us; he's stifling members of his own committee.
On the issue that we're going to be debating -- and today, for members who constantly ask what I'm debating about, is a debate on time allocation on the bill -- we're going to have two and a half hours at third reading to debate the pros and cons of Bill 165. I would hope to have an opportunity during that period to deal with much of the substance around Bill 165, around workers' compensation reform, around issues like the worker health and safety agency, around issues like the industrial disease panels and many of the reports that we're starting to see come out. All of these have a great impact on the cost and the future operating of the Workers' Compensation Board. I will be dealing with those in greater detail when we get to third reading, but I want to touch on a couple of points about this process.
What has really become frustrating is that there was a package of amendments -- I don't have them all here; they're too heavy to carry around; they're about that thick. It's quite amazing. I'm getting a bad back lugging them around. The government put in more amendments than the opposition parties combined. That's absolutely bizarre. Why didn't you get it right the first time? Why didn't you withdraw the bill and rewrite the thing so you could bring it in with all of the amendments you wanted in it?
We put some amendments forward that I think were very reasonable, that were not even of a partisan nature. One of them I was asking the Minister of Labour about in the question period today. We put an amendment forward that -- I'm just looking for it here -- would have included an amendment to section 56(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act as set out in section 11 of the bill. The amendment would allow it to read as follows: "Four directors representative of workers, including one member of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers, to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
To the Minister of Labour, who gave us some hope today that she might even consider this in spite of the committee's defeating of this amendment, what that effectively would have done would have been to ensure, right in the act, that the Ontario Network of Injured Workers -- and you know them; Karl Crevar has dedicated his working life to trying to help injured workers, and I have a lot of respect for the work that Karl has done and his group has done in trying to bring about reform and trying to help injured workers -- Karl's group, would have been at the table.
The member for Mississauga North and I were both in committee when we put this amendment forward, and I was truly astounded to see --
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Yes, sure you were.
Mr Mahoney: I was. I wish that the Minister of -- what are you minister of now? Northern affairs or something? I don't know; it keeps changing. Has there been a shuffle this afternoon? What time is it? Are you still in cabinet? I wish he had been there because he too would have been somewhat surprised, probably appalled, certainly surprised to see the NDP members of his committee -- what were there, six of them plus the parliamentary assistant? -- all voting against --
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: No, that's right; the member from Oshawa or whatever, Mr Mills, absented himself and was not there for that vote. The rest of them voted to defeat this amendment. Quite shocking. Karl Crevar was in the audience; I think he was quite shocked as well and quite appalled.
Minister, you said in question period today -- if I can paraphrase you, and I'll try to be careful -- that you are prepared to consider a seat for injured workers on the board. I think that would be a fair analysis of your answer.
I hope you do more than just consider it, because I spent about six months travelling around the province and across Canada meeting with injured workers, meeting with workers' comp advocates, meeting with labour folks, meeting with management people, meeting with professionals who work within the various WCB systems in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, as well as eight communities in the province of Ontario, and we put out our report. It's right here. We'll be glad, Minister, to autograph it and send you a copy. It's nice bedtime reading.
1730
We listened to the injured workers because one message they gave to us was who better to ask how to fix the workers' compensation system than someone who has lived in it, been trapped in it, been dominated by it, had to go through all of the different aspects and the frustrations that go on with injured workers.
The service level to injured workers is absolutely shameful. I don't blame the government for that. In fact, I would tell you and say it quite clearly that I believe our party and the Conservative Party and your party should equally share the blame for the problems that exist at the workers' compensation system. We are all culpable. There is enough blame to go around. But you have the limos, you have the ministries, you have the responsibility to fix it and you have the opportunity. That's what's so amazing, for a New Democratic Party to stand up in this province and put a bill forward that is just lip-service, that just tinkers with the edges.
When I used to listen to the member from Sudbury East eloquently speak, who was right up here -- I think this seat right here in the corner -- when she would rant and rave about deeming and Bill 162, when she would lead charges of injured workers, it was quite passionate, quite entertaining. I actually believed her. I think injured workers believed her. But, I say to the member, maybe Bob Rae didn't believe you. I don't understand. What happened? You had a chance. Even I recommend that we stop the nonsense of deeming. I'm prepared to recognize when a mistake was made and to make the changes. Why aren't you?
I seem to recall that member and other members in this caucus standing up here and proudly saying that they would tear up Bill 162, that they would repeal the deeming provisions within Bill 162. Do you remember that? I remember that really clear. It's as if it was yesterday. I wish it was yesterday, then maybe we'd still be in government, but we probably will be again, maybe. Who knows? The people will decide that. But I can promise you one thing: You won't be. It'll be another party that'll have to clean up the mess you've created. It'll have to put in place some reforms in workers' compensation that will be meaningful, that will make sense.
We hear a lot of talk about the unfunded liability. We too have a plan. I'm very interested to hear the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party make -- I congratulate her for what I thought was a very thoughtful speech. I thought she was reading Back to the Future. I was quite amazed.
Do you know, Mr Speaker, when we were at committee, this document was talked about so much in committee dealing with Bill 165 that the member for Mississauga North put a motion wherein he said, "Shall the report carry?" We kept Mr What's-His-Name -- what's your riding? Randy Hope, he used to say -- I don't know what he was going on about, DeLoreans and all of this stuff, because the report is entitled Back to the Future. He was constantly gumming through this report, looking for things to quote to ask me questions about. That's quite flattering. I appreciate the fact that you read it. I just wish you'd listened. I wish you'd take some of the ideas in here which were not my ideas, they were ideas that we compiled from listening to people right around the province. I admit, there's not a lot of original thinking --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Well.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I admit that. I don't have a problem admitting that. What there is is a compilation of recommendations and ideas from injured workers, from small business owners, from trade labour people, from health providers. There's a lot of their ideas. They have the original ideas. Our job in government is to decipher those, to decide which ones we think are doable, which ones we think we can support and put them forward as alternatives. That's not what is happening.
I don't ask you to make the quantum leap from your current position to being a new thinker. I don't ask for that to happen. That's too much to ask. I simply ask you to listen to the people.
Mr Bob Mackenzie (Hamilton East): That's exactly what we've done.
Mr Mahoney: I recognize the member thinks that's funny because the truth is often the funniest thing you can say. But I don't ask you to make that huge movement in your psyche. Just listen. It's nice to see the former Minister of Labour here, who at least, I would say, is one member of that caucus who has been true to his roots, and I respect him for that. I have very seldom agreed with him, but I respect him because he has been true to his roots. It's one of the things in this Ontario Star that was put out that might have a little ring of truth: "Mackenzie's record is a tribute to the working people of Ontario." I don't have a problem with that.
Applause.
Mr Mahoney: Absolutely. Maybe Bob paid for this, because I notice he's got an ad in here. What's the ad? "You can reach Bob Mackenzie at his constituency" -- I can't find it, but he's got a nice quarter-page section in here with an advertisement for Bob. But I congratulate him for being true to his principles and I don't have a problem with that. I happen to think he's dead wrong on a lot of the issues. So be it, that's what this great democracy is all about.
We think that there are a lot of things that could have been done, that should have been done, that still can be done, that must be done, that we intend to do if we're given the opportunity to do it, to make the workers' compensation system accountable to the people who pay the bills and accountable to the people who need the service. The people who need the service are the injured workers.
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: One of the big differences between our party and the party of the -- whatever you are, third party in the Legislature.
Hon Mr Pouliot: The no-name.
Mr Mahoney: The no-name. What are they? Are they progressive? They've eliminated those things. The generic party of the right. One of the differences with that party is -- oh my God, look, they're both there -- that party recommends reducing benefits to injured workers.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): And --
Mr Mahoney: You let me handle the "ands." They recommend reducing benefits. We do not. We believe that this system must be reformed and must not be reformed on the backs of injured workers.
In fact, when I travelled and went around the outreach tour that I did, I listened to CEOs of major corporations saying to me: "We do not want an injured worker to suffer financially or in any other way. We want to get them rehabilitated. We want them back to work. We want them off WCB. We want them to retain their dignity." They said this. They said this voluntarily in many meetings that I had with them.
I said to them, "If you really believe that, why would you want to reduce the benefit level?" It's 90% of your take-home pay. I would just point out that there has been a lot of talk about that percentage being tax-free. People get upset about that. You might recall there was a program on W5 saying they get 90% of their pay tax-free. It's 90% of their take-home pay. Take-home pay is after taxes. I really think that the rhetoric of the right has got to stop on this thing.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Oh, oh, oh.
Mr Mahoney: No, I think it does, I say to the minister, because the fact of the matter is, their mortgage payments don't go down; their car payments don't go down; the costs of raising families don't go down; the cost of food doesn't go down. Yet we should expect them to continue making all of their commitments in life. Due to an injury that was just an accident that happened, we should expect them to suffer. Frankly, I, my party and my leader, Lyn McLeod, reject that particular part of the platform of the no-name party. We think it's absolutely the wrong message that needs to be sent.
Having said that, we also think that there are a number of things that must be done in a holistic way to reform this system. We hear a lot of talk about the unfunded liability. Again, the no-name party says it has got to be funded 100% today. We hear the business lobby say, "You've got to fund it 100%." We hear organized labour say: "You don't even have to fund it. Don't worry about it. It's not a problem." Frankly, I think both those positions are wrong. I think it's a problem. It's growing at a rate between $1 million and $2 million a day, depending on who you want to believe.
1740
Mr Stockwell: What were you doing when you were in government?
Mr Mahoney: If the member for Etobicoke West wanted to speak, he should have made a deal with his critic to give him time. I'd be delighted, but I don't have much left.
The fact is, we've got to put the unfunded liability in a proper context. What it is is the difference between the long-term commitments of the board and the assets, about $17.2 billion in long-term commitments and about $6.8 billion in assets. What we want to do is try to balance that.
We've put in place a number of recommendations that would do that: better management of the investment of $6.8 billion. We think private sector investors should be given an opportunity to invest these funds. The minister can laugh, but the fact is that the WCB investment fund returned about 12% on average last year. The teachers' fund returned 22%. There's a 10% spread, and 10% of $6.8 billion is a lot of money to be left on the table. So we think those things can be done.
We've recommended, for example, that two weeks of voluntary self-insurance must be agreed to by the worker -- Minister, or former Minister, listen to this -- and agreed to by the employer. The worker will not lose a dime; the worker will continue to be paid. If neither side agrees, then open the file. But 72% of the claims are done, dealt with, finished in two weeks. Statistically that's there.
Why are we opening files for two weeks if there is concurrence with both parties? I would not ask an injured worker to take a risk of losing a paycheque. I'm not asking for the employers to suffer needlessly. Let's have an agreement of two weeks' self-insurance. You file the injury, you file the forms that have to be filed, and if in two weeks it's resolved, you never opened the file. To me, that's common sense.
I don't understand why a bureaucracy feels that it must under all circumstances say: "Oops, we've got an injury. Open a file. Let's go. Get the stamps out. Let's do this. Let's shuffle some paper. We're not giving out that. We're going to have an appeal. We're going to send him to WCAT. We're going to do all of these things." What is this nonsense? Let's give it a try. If it doesn't work, let's find out why. But I really believe it would work, and the people who talked to me when we compiled our report thought it would work too.
I want to just touch briefly on this insistence -- and I heard Gord Wilson came down to London apparently, in a hurry to dispute some of the things we were saying at the committee. We heard people come before that committee. I remember one group in particular. I believe it was Local 555 of the CAW that came before the committee in London, and they went through the bill.
I think the member for Mississauga North has pointed out that there are 36 sections to the bill, of which 11 are housekeeping. That leaves 25 that are substantive. This local of the CAW disagreed with 19 of them: 19 of the 25 they wanted amendments to. That was really interesting. They made their presentation on the 19 amendments to the different sections that they wanted, then they concluded by saying, "Having said that we disagree with 19 sections of the bill, we hope you're going to pass the bill." Just unbelievable.
You can only conclude one thing: that there is a tremendous amount of partisanship coming before the committee in the form of groups such as that local, and I'm not convinced that the people who presented clearly and properly and fairly represented the views of all the members of that local. As a matter of fact, I know from some past history that very often the views of the leadership in the trade labour movement do not reflect the views of the men and the women on the shop floor. I have to believe that indeed was the case here. How can you disagree with 19 out of 25 substantive sections to a bill and then insist that the government pass it? Clearly amazing.
Gord Wilson came in and said, "This bill mirrors the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee deal." Let me tell you, folks, if you've ever been to the Canadian National Exhibition and you've seen one of those funny mirrors that make me look like I'm six foot two and 160 pounds, that's about how close it mirrored the PLMAC agreement. It was not even not close to mirroring it; in many cases it was totally and utterly contrary, a betrayal by this Premier of the business community and of injured workers of this province.
Ms Murdock: This time allocation motion has been brought not, as the opposition would have those people who are watching out there, because of our need, or our seeming need, according to them, to call time allocation motions, but because we have spent three weeks of committee during the summer, into September, we have spent a total of four weeks in committee since the House has been in place trying to get the amendments on this bill passed. That, as our House leader has stated, is 120 hours total time of listening to hundreds of deputants tell us about what they wanted changed in the bill that was presented to them, in Bill 165, and also the changes that we found were necessary because of some technical errors that were made.
We have no difficulty with calling time allocation, because -- and I will be happy to explain to the opposition members -- when we came into this government, the people, we believe, sent us here to do work. They sent us here to do a job and represent them on their behalf. We have, in my view, not been able to do that a lot of the time for reasons that have been pretty evident, since 1991 especially, when it cost $220,000 a day to keep this place in operation.
It is reprehensible for anyone, and I don't care which party it is, to hold up work in this House. When we have to listen, as we did to the leader of the third party, listing alphabetically all the lakes, streams and rivers in this province, and then have it repeated by the Clerk at the table so that it took up hours and days of this House time, you're darn right, I have no difficulties calling time allocation.
Constantly we have listened to the opposition tell us about the member from --
Interjections.
Ms Murdock: -- just a moment -- Welland-Thorold, our own member from Welland-Thorold, who used 17 hours of this House's time on the auto insurance bill. They very well know, those of them that were here, that it was on special consideration by the House where they granted unanimous consent to go past 12 midnight of the clock, and only on that condition was the member allowed to continue. He did not use up the House time, a full 17 hours of House time.
So the implication that the waste that has gone on is a historical thing for us is not true. If we have to bring in time allocation motions, thousands of them, in order to do work in this House as the constituents in this province expect us to do, then we will do that.
There is no question that there is reform necessary in the Workers' Compensation Board. All three parties and everyone that appeared before our committee this summer told us that time and time again. The injured workers aren't happy, the employers aren't happy, the advocates aren't happy. There is a lot of reform needed. Never have we said that this bill is a panacea for all the ills of the board, never. Frankly, I don't think any government could come up with one that would cure all the ills of the board.
Hence, we have called upon a royal commission to look at that very issue, and its mandate, as the members of this House know, is very broad. It is going to look at the very issues of payment to the injured worker and how it should go. It's going to look at other kinds of income replacement and terms of comprehensive disability. It's going to look at all of those things.
1750
Now, if this bill was the panacea and the resolution of all of the problems at workers' compensation, we would have no need for a royal commission. It would be done. So I think the royal commission is extremely important in terms of looking at how the board needs to be changed.
The unfunded liability has been mentioned quite frequently. It is certainly a problem, and that's one of the reasons why we're bringing this bill in, for the very reason that you cannot continue to have growth of an unfunded liability to the degree it was happening. We are sitting looking at that now and are proud, actually, that just this week the report came out and it's $0.4 million less than it was in the same period last year. So the growth is going down, but that's still not good enough; hence the reason we're bringing forth this bill.
The other thing is the financial accountability and responsibility provisions. We've heard much of them. The original PLMAC agreement, as has been mentioned, wanted it and suggested that it be in the purpose clause. Our bill did not do that. We listened to the people in the public hearings who told us that's what they wanted, and we did finally, in our amendments, include it in the purpose clause.
That was the whole point of the three weeks of hearings. To be made fun of and laughed at by the opposition members for a government bringing in amendments to its own bill is, I think, really, really sadly misrepresenting the purpose of public hearings, because in the public hearings, people come forward and tell us what they would like to see changed from the bill that the government has brought forward. Therefore, if the government has been listening, then the government will make those changes. And we did in many instances make the changes that were requested by the people who made representations to us.
We did not make all of the changes that were requested of us, and I think that makes inordinate good sense. Obviously, to be a leader and to have any kind of management skills, you take a position and you proceed with that position and you make changes that make a good deal of sense, but you're not going to move from the basic plan. I would say that for the purposes of controlling the unfunded liability -- which is not a deficit, I might reinforce to those people who are listening -- to reduce the unfunded liability, eventually to reduce it so significantly that there will be money for injured workers' claims and for the kinds of injuries and diseases that future injured workers will suffer, that has to be done.
The other area that needs to be changed, and it has to be done legislatively, as we know, is the governance issue. Right now the board is being handled for us and managed by someone who the member of the third party says is one of our "political" appointments, and I put the word "political" in quotation marks because if Kenneth Copeland is one of our political appointments, then I think maybe the third party should relook at who our political appointments are. I mean, Ken Copeland is a very, very strong management person and he is handling the board while we are going through this bill and waiting before it gets third reading and passage.
So the governance is very important, because right now, under the act, we are not operating the way the act is telling us to. So the governance issue has to be changed so that the bipartite nature of labour-management relations in the 1990s and in the future is going to take place. If we don't have labour and management learning how to work together, then I would say the future of Ontario and the future of Canada is in serious, serious trouble. And they will do that. And while they are setting up their protocols in order to do that, the government of the day for the one year will have supervision of the board in that period of time.
Much has been made in committee, and I'm sure if anyone takes the Hansards they'll see it -- they're claiming that we want control of the Workers' Compensation Board and that we want to tell them what to do and set up policies. No government in their right mind wants to control the Workers' Compensation Board in the state it is in now.
As a consequence, we have to have a process in place that while the board members set up their protocols and how they're going to operate in situations where they cannot come to a consensual agreement, the minister would then be able to have some control of giving a direction to the board in the meantime. Once the board has figured out what those protocols are, that, at the end of a year, is rescinded and we move on.
Lastly -- well, second-lastly -- the adjudication aspect of the board automatically means controversy and confrontation. I think that with the whole aspect of return to work and the importance of return to work and getting your employees back on the job quickly, with no lost time if at all possible, then that is a benefit to the employers, the employees, society in general.
If you have a no-lost-time claim, then you don't have premiums raised. You, as the employer, are a lot happier because your assessment rates are reduced the following year based on your accident rate. It serves everybody's purpose. So return to work is imperative, and the mediation process that will result as a consequence of those return-to-work aspects will take away, I hope, from the adjudicative aspect of the Workers' Compensation Board.
I would like to say, and I'll end with this, that the need for this bill is absolute. It is going to be important to the injured worker, and it's going to be important to the Workers' Compensation Board. I look forward to the royal commission's results.
As I stated at the beginning, and I'll end with this, if time allocation is necessary to get the work of this House done, then so be it.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Further debate? Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 37, a resolution which stands in his name. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members: a 15-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1757 to 1812.
The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats. All those in favour of Mr Charlton's motion should please rise, one by one.
Ayes
Abel, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.
The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Charlton's motion should please rise, one by one.
Nays
Beer, Bradley, Carr, Conway, Crozier, Eddy, Eves, Grandmaître, Henderson, Hodgson, Kwinter, Mahoney, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, Morin, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Witmer.
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 60, the nays 26.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 1816.