Hansard Transcripts 1982-Dec-16 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can you report to the House the disposition of the disruptions we experienced during last night's vote?

Mr. Speaker: I am not really sure what the honourable member is expecting or looking for. The information I have is that everything was handled quite well. There were no untoward incidents, as I understand it, and security seemed to be carried out quite well.

Mr. Nixon: I would suggest if it ever happens again that instead of ordering the galleries cleared, you might order the doors locked and force them to listen to some NDP speeches. That might be cruel and unusual, but it is just a suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: That sounds like a rather provocative suggestion.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sure they would appeal that kind of decision and it would be found to be unfair and too harsh justice.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers yesterday.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 179. An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province;

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Chatham;

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr35, An Act to incorporate the City of Sarnia Foundation;

Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Town of Strathroy;

Bill Pr40, An Act to revive Ceephil Investments Ltd;

Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the Township of Tiny;

Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Burlington;

Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the Toronto Baptist Seminary;

Bill Pr45, An Act respecting Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary;

Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the City of Orillia;

Bill Pr47, An Act respecting the Ukrainian Cultural Centre.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the eighth annual report of the Ontario Status of Women Council. This report covers the period April 1, 1981, to March 31, 1982, at which time it was under the able chairmanship of Lynne Gordon. The status of women council now is under the direction of Sally Barnes of Kingston.

Lynne Gordon, who led the excellent work of the council for the past six years, is present in the gallery today. I ask all honourable members to join me in showing appreciation for the hard work of Lynne Gordon and of those members who make up the advisory council on the status of women.

REGINA V. VALENTE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief statement. I believe copies have been delivered, but perhaps I can proceed.

I have been informed by the crown attorney in Milton that today Judge Sharpe, in the case of Regina versus Valente on a sentence appeal by the crown on a charge of careless driving, declined to exercise jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

He did so on the basis that it could not be said that he was independent by virtue of the fact that all provincial judges are dependent upon the provincial government, and more particularly the cabinet, on a number of financial matters, including salary.

I have been informed that he accordingly concluded that the accused's rights under section 11(d) of the charter to a hearing by "an independent and impartial tribunal" had been infringed.

I have not yet had an opportunity to read the reasons for the judgement in question. But, in the light of the information I have been given, I can say that I will take immediate steps to have the matter reviewed by a higher court.

In the meantime, it is my opinion that his judgement is not binding on any other judge of the provincial court, and I expect that all such judicial officers will continue to hear cases until a judgement on this matter has been provided by a superior court. Indeed, I am informed that Judge Sharpe subsequently returned to court to deal with other cases before him on their merits, having earlier noted that this matter would be decided by a superior court.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have not had time to review the Attorney General's (Mr. McMurtry) statement and I am just looking at it. I really do not want to ask a question on it, but --

Some hon. members: Then don't.

Mr. Peterson: Well, it seems extraordinary to me that the Attorney General's opinion would be binding on a judge when another judge's opinion is not. I am not sure of the authority by which the Attorney General makes the statement and now would issue instructions to judges to disregard this particular case.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Don't be silly.

Mr. Peterson: Well, that is what you are doing.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Is that a question?

Mr. Peterson: It is not a question, because --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is absurd and irresponsible to suggest that I am attempting to issue instructions to any judge. I am restating a principle that is well founded in law on a matter of substantial public importance. In my view, to suggest or attempt to infer that I am attempting to issue instructions is quite improper.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, to respond to that point of personal privilege: I just saw this, and he is a much more talented lawyer than I and I will willing defer --

Mr. Nixon: No way.

Mr. Roy: The evidence does not bear that out.

Mr. Peterson: My privileges have been impugned, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to refer you to the wording of the statement --

Mr. Speaker: I think not. I have not had an opportunity to see the statement; I have no way of judging. I ask you to ask your first question. We are in oral question period.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Many of us who would like to discuss this matter -- I am sure you would -- would like to see the statement; unfortunately, we have not had an opportunity to see the statement. Once you and some of us have had a chance to review the statement, would you allow us to have a brief discussion? It is a very important principle. We are talking about the whole administration of justice, where provincial judges are refusing to take on provincial cases.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I suggest that the appropriate way is to ask questions of the minister in the normal manner.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MORTGAGE PRACTICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It relates to a series of transactions in Barrie, dealing with about 100 housing units. We have examined these transactions in detail, and I want to ask the minister about the pattern that has emerged there.

He will be aware, I am sure, that in December 1980 more than 100 housing units were purchased from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. by a numbered company, the president of which is Mr. William Player, for approximately $25,000 to $28,000 per unit. Shortly thereafter, mortgages were advanced by Greymac Mortgage Co. for $23,000 per unit and by Seaway Trust for an additional $12,000 per unit, bringing the total financing on those units up to $35,000, even though they paid some $25,000 for the buildings. The deal is more complicated than that, but that is the essence of the transactions.

Was the minister informed through the registrar, who has a responsibility to look into the conduct of loan and trust and mortgage corporations in this province, of the untoward nature of this transaction when units purchased for approximately $25,000 apiece are mortgaged for approximately $35,000 per unit? It looks on the face of it like a clear violation of the terms of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act of this province.

This happened some two years ago. Did the minister have a report from the registrar about this set of transactions?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is once again pointing out a series of transactions involving the particular trust companies and some of the parties to the transaction that was brought to our attention a month or so ago related to the Cadillac Fairview sale and the subsequent resales.

He is well aware of the fact that at present an investigation is going on into those trust companies and in general into the conduct of their business. He can repeat day after day examples that he finds, but it does not alter the fact that this government already has an examination taking place of the business practices of those corporations.

Mr. Peterson: Given the circumstances surrounding these three units as part of the 100 or so units that were involved in the transactions, and given the fact that this took place some two years ago, long before the so-called Cadillac Fairview/Greymac deal that prompted the current Morrison inquiry, does this not raise some concern in the minister's mind? Is he telling me now that Mr. Morrison will be looking into all these past transactions? If that is the case, when is he expecting Mr. Morrison to bring forward his report to the minister, which I understand the minister is going to make public?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have indicated the terms of reference of the Morrison inquiry and that they will be looking into the general conduct of the affairs of the business. I have also made it very clear to Mr. Morrison and to this House that if any further steps are necessary they will be considered, and if they are appropriate they will be taken.

I have also indicated to the House very clearly that when Mr. Morrison files his report with me, if there are no elements in it related to confidentiality or other matters that prevent me from doing so, I will table it.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can answer the question directly that I posed to him during the debate on our no-confidence motion; that is. given the fact that the inquiry has so broadened now into the conduct of all the businesses of these named trust companies, can the minister give us a day, a month and a year in which he expects to receive the report of Mr. Morrison? What kind of time frame are we talking about? When are we going to get the report?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let us dispel the notion that there has been any broadening of the inquiry. The terms of reference have not changed from the day I signed them.

Mr. Rae: I don't know what they are.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: But I have answered that before. It is nice to hear it again. I always relish the thought of hearing the honourable member's eloquent voice and his oratorical splurges now and then, but the fact of life is --

Mr. Rae: That's why I do it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is true; we really do enjoy the member. Even last night there was a certain boyish charm about him that will entice some people into thinking that some day he may have a great role to play somewhere.

The fact of life is that the terms of reference have not been expanded. It is nice to give the impression that new powers are being granted every day, but the terms of reference remain the same.

I have not put a time limit on Mr. Morrison, nor have I indicated that he should report tomorrow or next week. He will report when he has completed his job.

Mr. Peterson: The minister's boyish charm is starting to pale a little bit, given the consequences of these kinds of actions.

I am asking him about a set of transactions that took place about two years ago. I am asking him about subsections 150(1) and 150(4) of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, which demand that the registrar prepare a report for the ministry with respect to the quality of the assets of these loan and trust companies, and particularly about subsection 150(4), which empowers him to look at the value of real estate owned by and mortgaged by those companies.

I am asking him whether he heard from the registrar with respect to this transaction and/or other transactions that took place before the Cadillac Fairview Greymac deal.

He cannot put this on to Mr. Morrison. Was the minister made aware some two years or a year ago, and did he take any action? That is the question. The question is not what Mr. Morrison is doing today.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Obviously I am not aware of whether any report was filed two years ago or of the particular event that the member talks about, but I want to make it clear to him and to this House that there is no doubt the Morrison inquiry does have the power to look at all the conduct of the business.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF BRAMPTON FARM LAND

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It concerns the city of Brampton proposed official plan, which designates some 7,150 acres of prime farm land for urban development. I know the local member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) is not interested in this question, but I want to remind the minister about his own food land guidelines, which state:

"Official plans also require approval of the Ministry of Housing, and in the course of obtaining this approval the plan is reviewed by other ministries to ensure that it is consistent with provincial policies or objectives. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is one of the review agencies and will ensure that local plans conform with food land guidelines."

Can the minister explain why his ministry has not commented on this designation? The plan was proposed in 1978, and he was asked for his comments in 1980 and 1982. There has been a total absence of response from his ministry with respect to the food land guidelines. Why is he not fulfilling his responsibilities to the food land guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the Leader of the Opposition that whoever wrote that question for him is misinformed. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has been involved in a variety of meetings that have been held over the years. What he refers to is a series of draft plans that have been discussed from time to time by the council of the city of Brampton. The actual plan, the final version, was only submitted in 1982.

We are working on reviewing the plan within the ministry at this time, and we will be submitting our final comments on the final official plan as proposed by the city of Brampton. We will be doing that within the food land guidelines, looking carefully at the projections of growth and need in that municipality.

I point out to the honourable member that not all of the 7,000 acres to which he referred is proposed for residential development; some of it is proposed for industrial development, which is also a component of that thriving municipality.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: I am very much aware that 4,000 of the 7,100 acres involved are owned by Ronto Development Corp., which has been represented by the law firm of Goodman and Goodman. The Sandringham Group has been represented by Mr. Webb of the law firm of Davis, Webb, Hollinrake in Brampton. The minister will be aware also that these lands were designated rural by the city of Brampton in resolutions in 1977 and 1978 and were only included in the urban boundary on the basis of a presentation by Mr. Webb acting for Ronto-Sandringham.

Throughout all of this, throughout all of the draft plans, the minister was asked for his ministry's response, but to date there has been no response over the past four years. Other ministers have responded. Why has he not?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We get involved when the plan finally has been submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), and we then contribute our portion of the many comments that are gathered to make a decision on it.

I can only say there has been any number of meetings held over the years at which officials of my ministry have been in attendance to give advice to the planning officials and the elected officials of the city of Brampton. This highlights the fact that any official plan, whatever one might think of it, ultimately has to be passed by the responsible local planning authority and the municipal council before it gets here. It highlights the fact that this is a joint exercise between the province and any municipality in developing an official plan or amendments to it for any municipality in the province.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the minister knows very well his ministry has delayed replying on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I would rather hear you ask a question.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize his agricultural guidelines are extremely ambivalent? Recognizing that there is a new Planning Act, which probably will be passed by the end of this session and which provides that statements may be made by ministers relative to their portfolios, will he issue a statement and forward it to the Ontario Municipal Board relative to the Brampton hearing, saying that prime agricultural land shall be reserved for agricultural use and that this shall be the prior use of that land?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows well from several hours of discussion on the subject at our estimates on Tuesday evening that the food land guidelines already make it clear that the preservation of farm land has priority per alternative uses. They go on to say, as his own private member's bill from 1980 says, that alternative uses must be justified.

I want to point out to the member that, however long it takes us to make our comments, that plan has no basis in law whatsoever until and unless it is approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We are being very careful in formulating our opinions so that we take into account all the arguments made by the municipality in formulating that official plan. We will then comment on it in accordance with the food land guidelines.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the minister's response to my leader that his ministry only comments on the official plan, which came out in 1982, why did his ministry write to the regional municipality of Peel in January 1980 indicating that he had no concerns regarding the inclusion of that 4,000-acre parcel of land, and yet he wrote to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in November 1981 inquiring as to the rationale for the inclusion of those lands?

Furthermore, the minister no doubt is aware that the city of Brampton planning staff's response to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the question of the destruction of prime agricultural land was, "The basic responsibility for preserving the agricultural industry and planning effectively for the agricultural resource lies at the provincial and federal levels. The Ontario government has not outlined an active participatory role for itself in researching and planning for agriculture, nor is there an overall provincial land use scheme for preserving agricultural land."

In view of these comments and in view of the minister's silence in this matter, will he admit that the food land guidelines are more or less meaningless in preserving farm land, and why does he not go firmly on record as firmly opposing this proposal, which would destroy 7,150 acres of prime agricultural land?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the honour able member knows full well from some of the decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board that the food land guidelines have a significant status in local planning. I do not know who signed that, but obviously the individual is not aware of the food land guidelines and he needs to be brought up to date, because it has been acknowledged that the food land guidelines have been very helpful in local planning matters.

I want to point out that the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) at least has put on the record in the form of his private member's bill what he would do, which is really no different from what we do. We have never seen a proposal from the member for Huron-Middlesex or from his party, and it would be very interesting to see specifically what he would do with respect to this matter.

Mr. Riddell: Are you asking me to run your ministry?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Good Lord, no. I want it run properly. I do not want it running off the rails.

With respect, the member has never put on the record what he would do. We know what the member for Welland-Thorold would do; we have seen his bill. When it comes right down to it, this bill would not do a darned thing different from what we are doing. Every single case is a matter of judgement.

The member may disagree with our judgment, but it still involves a co-operative relationship between municipalities and the province, among the ministries and the application of good judgement. It says right in the guidelines that the preservation of these lands for agricultural purposes has priority and that alternative uses, where considered, must be justified.

We sat in estimates all that time and the member still did not tell me how he would have looked after certain examples I gave. He evaded it completely. All he wants to do is take pot-shots. He does not ever want to say what he would do specifically.

[Later]

Mr. Riddell: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In responding to my question, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food did not deliberately intend to mislead the House when he stated that I had never commented on the food land guidelines or sent proposals to him as to how they might be improved. On December 11, 1978, I definitely did submit proposals to the minister. I have a copy of them here and I will send them over. I hope the minister will acknowledge that he has made a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: I will accept that as clarification of the record,

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to apologize and to receive this ancient document. My only point is that in the time I have been minister I have certainly never before seen any proposals. I will be happy to review these.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION GUIDELINES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and it concerns rent review. In considering the guidelines that would extend the three-year pass-through of financing costs to five years, we did a survey of four particular applications that were considered in the past year under the old guidelines and tried to apply the new guidelines to those increases. We came up with the following figures, which I will ask the minister to comment upon.

A 49.4 per cent increase at 304 Kingston Road would have been reduced to 37.9 per cent; a 63.5 per cent increase at 172 Queens Avenue would have been reduced to 55 per cent; a 23.3 per cent increase at 40 Earl Street -- that is last year's hearing, not this year's hearing -- would have been reduced to 18.3 per cent, and a 30.3 per cent increase at 34 Gulliver Road would have been reduced to 22.3 per cent.

I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on the fact that even with the five-year pass-through, tenants are still going to be paying 38 per cent, 55 per cent, 18.3 per cent and 22.3 per cent. Does he think that is fair?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I probably feel as we all do when we get our tax bill each year and when we have to renew our mortgages: we regret that costs go up.

I am not going to comment on figures that the honourable member has worked out on his own. I am simply going to tell him that the guidelines that have been imposed are the most stringent that I am aware of anywhere. They certainly serve the purpose they were intended for, and that is to make certain this province does not feel hat speculation to be paid for out of the pockets of tenants is something we can tolerate.

Mr. Rae: The only difference in the policy is that the speculation is paid for over five years.

On the question of the ownership of rental properties: Now that Liechtenstein has been added to Mecca, Zurich, Mississauga and Elmvale in the trail of the elusive owners of the Cadillac Fairview properties, will the minister undertake to bring in an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act today, via Bill 198, that would require quite simply that all applicants for rental increases declare who the beneficial owners are of the properties concerned?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, let me correct the member. He said a moment ago that the guidelines really did nothing in terms of speculation. Speculation of the kind we have been talking about here is the flipping of properties. He knows very well, the message is out there very clearly and I believe we have seen some examples of it, that it is now looked upon as unprofitable to try to speculate and flip properties in the way we have been hearing about in the past. As a result of those guidelines and as a result of the proposed bill that is before the House. I cannot agree with the member that it has not had an effect.

As to who are the beneficial owners of those properties, let me just say that the commission this week, through one of its commissioners, made it very clear that where it is deemed necessary for it to understand who the beneficial owner was, it will take very strong positions, and in that case the member knows specifically it refused to accept any financing charges that had been applied for in relation to that transaction.

Secondly, although the member was at estimates for a short period of time, had he stayed there longer he would have heard the chairman of the Residential Tenancy Commission say they were in the process of preparing a document they would require to be filed with relation to beneficial ownership and that would be prior to the commencement of a hearing.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree with me that the security of tenure, indeed, many of the rights associated with tenancy, of the tenants in the Cadillac Fairview buildings are only as good as the financial security of the owners; not so much Maysfield, the property management group, but only as good as the financial security of the owners? Apart from the Morrison inquiry, which is looking at some of the equity financing, how is the minister going to assure himself and those tenants that the owners have the financial responsibility to live up to their obligations to the tenants in those buildings?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows from the research he has done that at the moment those buildings have been leased to Kilderkin and I understand are being managed through a company called Maysfield Property Management, so that for practical purposes at the moment, the ownership for a period of 10 years is in the hands of Kilderkin and it is that company which will be managing the property.

Mr. Rae: If I can just comment briefly to the minister on his answer to the second question, the concern we have is that if the Residential Tenancy Commission tries to make beneficial ownership a condition or attach it to their form, it is going to he taken to divisional court faster than you can turn around and the minister knows that full well. Why does he not stop that process and simply put it in the act so there is no doubt as far as landlords are concerned as to where they stand?

With respect to the other question on which we have been pressing the minister. I appreciate the minister's answer a short time ago when he said he felt there did have to be a change in the act to deal with the question of illegal rents. I would like to ask him why he feels he has to wait for Mr. Thom to report on that question? Why can he not move ahead quickly with respect to the rental registry and with respect to a fine for those people who charge illegal rents? Can he give us a firm date on introducing changes so that we can give some protection to people who are being hit by illegal rent

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I like to think, and I believed the member understood, that one of the reasons I asked Mr. Thom to provide me with interim reports along the way was so that we could deal with problems in an appropriate way as this House was in session. I am sure the member can appreciate that many of us may have had many things they wished to introduce this session but, for some reason that I do not seem to understand, there seemed to be some delay in the process during the fall. We seem to have been tied up with a certain other matter that tended to make many of us a little doubtful about whether anything would get through this House.

Mr. Rae: If the minister has legislation in the form of an amendment to Bill 198, we can consider it this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: He is hiding, Mr. Speaker,

HOUSING PROGRAMS

Mr. Rae: My second question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Yesterday I had occasion to ask the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) about a program which the government announced with much fanfare and which still had not been funded. Today I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about two programs under his ministry which were announced on May 14, 1982, with great fanfare.

The first program is InnoRent, a $48-million program to boost construction of innovative rental accommodation in areas with rental vacancy rates of two per cent or less. To date, we understand no funds have been secured under this program at all. The second program is Renthab, a $10-million program to create new rental units in existing residential buildings. To date, we understand no funds have been secured under this program.

Can the minister tell us why there has been no funding for these programs? Does he not think he is party to a hit of a fraud by announcing on May 14 programs which still have not been funded?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I went through the estimates on this very subject just a week ago and indicated clearly that we were still having discussions with some municipalities, and the private sector as well, on both programs. I met this morning with a substantial number of people representing municipalities and the private sector from a construction, a financing and an insurance point of view on other ways to implement programs of a similar nature.

We still have a fair period of time before the fiscal year runs out for this government and I trust that before that time we will have these programs in place and activated.

Mr. Rae: Another delay; we do not know when; no dates; nothing attached to the program. There are 18,000 families on the waiting list for Ontario Housing, 7,000 seniors on the waiting list for Ontario Housing, 4,000 families on the waiting list for Cityhome.

Given that the federal Canada rental supply program, which he takes such pride in, has produced 58 units under construction in Toronto, and given that his own budget for the construction of nonprofit units to municipalities has been cut in this year's budget, 1982-83, from $1.5 million to $920,000, how can he possibly say this government is responding to those people who need affordable housing and housing that is geared to income? Does he not realize he is really abandoning these people?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I made it very clear before that we are not abandoning these people at all. We have tried to implement programs within our capacity. I think if the member will go back and look at my comments --

Mr. .McClellan: Keep trying, one of these days you will get it right.

Mr. Rotenberg: Which is more than you will ever do.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I try to take a degree of seriousness in the program because we do understand the requirements, very much so. I trust the member will appreciate, having come from Ottawa, that a great deal of our ability to react to the area comes from the assignment of units from the federal government.

One of the things I have constantly asked both the former and the current minister reporting for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. is to increase the allocation for municipal non-profits in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: You have cut your own funding.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I want to suggest to the leader of the third party that while it is easy to say let the province take the whole responsibility it is not within the economics of this province to go the game alone.

We have agreed for a long period of time that the responsibility in delivering the rent subsidy program in Ontario and in Canada has been shared between the provinces and the federal government. I can tell the member in a forceful and direct manner that I do not intend to recommend to the Treasurer and the people of this province that the entire cost of underwriting rent subsidy in Ontario be met through the provincial Treasury, not at all.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the question asked by the leader of the third party that the minister's enthusiasm for nonprofit housing is questionable. Could the minister confirm that his lack of enthusiasm is due to the fact that often he does not believe the statistics indicating the low vacancy rate existing in a variety of cities?

Could the minister give us the evidence on which he relies? For instance, according to Statistics Canada, the city of Ottawa has the lowest vacancy rate in the whole country. Could he give us the evidence which leads him to say he does not believe those statistics? In those statistics, for instance, he does not include rental accommodation of six units or less. Could he give us the evidence on which he says the statistics are not accurate?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member has drawn his remarks from. It might be from a newspaper story that appeared in the city of Ottawa. I said very clearly that the low vacancy rate in Ottawa, Toronto and other places is bad. No one can deny that, it is below one per cent. I said to the press, and I repeat here in the House, bad is bad. I understand that very clearly.

What I did say, when they were asking about how vacancy rates are determined in this province and in Canada, was that these are Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. statistics, not this ministry's. We have accepted them, as the industry has accepted them, over the years. In explaining, I said that any apartment rental units in buildings of six or less are not included in that calculation.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member for Ottawa East would listen for a moment -- he is here for so few days he should just listen when he is here, please -- I have said very clearly the vacancy rate is bad and we accept that fact. We have never denied the position of CMHC and its vacancy rate, whether it be in Ontario or other jurisdictions across Canada.

Mr. Roy: That is what you said last week.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I did not.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have reason to believe that from where I am sitting I might b e in some danger. It is obvious to me that the member for Ottawa East has in his possession a dangerous weapon. It is not only a matter of concern to me personally, as a member of this Legislature, but it ought to be of equal concern to those who are sitting even closer to him. I wonder if you could ask one of the staff in the House to investigate what is under his desk.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am very offended. That member obviously does not have the spirit of Christmas. The members will recall that last night Santa made me the repository of a very important gift for our caucus chairman, the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer). He gave me the gift, and I thought I would bring the gift over here and, on behalf of Santa, give it to my caucus chairman.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was either a crowbar or else a spine transplant for some of the members of the Liberal Party, particularly the ones who were not here yesterday.

Mr. Kerrio: The leader of the third party got a calendar, and I think he should have been given a sundial because time does not mean a thing to him.

Mr. Rae: I know when the time of the Liberal Party is up.

I would like to address a final supplementary, if I might, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The minister is attempting, by a program of subterfuge, clouding, flim-flam and bamboozling, to avoid some very simple and basic facts.

First, Ontario's own contribution to co-op and nonprofit housing has been cut by $600,000 this year. That is Ontario's cut. That is not CMHC's cut. Second, the provincial contribution to Cityhome in the city of Toronto has been cut from 17.4 per cent to 14.6 per cent. The InnoRent program and the Renthab program do not exist except in the imagination of the minister, and the Ontario rental construction loan program has produced 10 units in Toronto and three units in Hamilton, 53 units in Kitchener and 31 units in Sudbury, geared to income.

I would like to ask the minister, given these facts, and given the fact that even the renter-buy program, of which he is so proud, has fallen short of its own projections and the, projections the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) announced when he introduced the program, how can he possibly expect us to take him seriously when he says this government is tackling the housing problem?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I suppose we can go over the same facts and figures time and time again, because they really do not appear to get through to the leader of the third party. He can knock the renter-buy program all he wants. That is his business, to tell him there are 11,157 people as of today who have taken part in the renter-buy program sponsored by the government of this province and the federal government through its $3,000 incentive grant. That is 11,157 families at this point who have been living in rental accommodation and will now move into the ownership market. That is in direct relationship to the moneys the Treasurer of this province has put up.

I went over this a dozen times in the House and again in estimates just a week or two ago. I realize very well there were only 41 units built in the downtown Toronto area. It was an incentive to the private sector to participate in the construction of rental accommodation. It was not this government that was going into the construction program at all. They found the economics were not viable in the downtown area. But if one looks over Scarborough, Etobicoke, North York and York, there are a substantial number of units under construction as a result of -- the leader of the third party should not shake his head, it might fall off.

A very substantial number are under construction in all the boroughs of Metropolitan Toronto. The rental construction loan program has worked very effectively in most jurisdictions across Ontario. I make no apology for the fact that I could not encourage the private sector to invest further in the downtown Metropolitan Toronto area.

MORTGAGE PRACTICES

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Early last week, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) asked me a question with regard to the paying off of a mortgage by a family in Sudbury called the Polankas.

A review of that transaction was commenced a week ago Tuesday and discussions are ongoing at the present time with senior officers of the bank. Following that, if they have not already commenced, discussions with the Polankas and their lawyer will commence. Documentation is being forwarded to us by the bank with respect to that transaction and it may well be that further discussions will ensue as a result of these steps.

I just want to report to the member that these steps are under way and I will report to him further as soon as I have a complete report. Staff have indicated to me today they hope to have a final position to present to the House before it rises.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, further to the banks in Sudbury, is the minister aware they are refusing to approve mortgages for laid-off workers in Sudbury unless they can provide proof they are going to be recalled in January? Most banks are not even taking applications for Inco and Falconbridge workers.

In particular, will the minister look into the case of a 12-year employee at Falconbridge whose mortgage with Guaranty Trust comes due on January 1? They will only renew at 14.5 per cent for three years closed, a full 1.5 to two per cent more than the going rate. Unless this employee gets a guarantee in writing from Falconbridge to the trust company that he is going to be back at work, they will not renew the mortgage and neither will the banks.

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary to the answer.

Mr. Martel: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to argue with the honourable member.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The matter that was being raised by my colleague last week dealt with bank mortgages in Sudbury.

Mr. Speaker: It dealt with a specific case, for which the minister supplied the information.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, it did not. It rested with the policy of the banks in Sudbury and I am asking that this be investigated. I have been dealing with a specific example --

Mr. Speaker: The member is abusing question period.

Mr. Martel: You are so consistent.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I think you should treat the member for Sudbury East with a little greater care. Use delicate gloves. We certainly would not want to hurt his feelings in any way.

2:50 p.m.

JOB-FINDING AGENCIES

Mr. Mancini: I have a question of the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Is he aware that in these very difficult economic times there are companies which are taking advantage of the unemployed in this province by cornering the market on the advertising of job opportunities and charging individuals to have a look at a list of jobs available without any guarantee that these desperate individuals will be able to secure those advertised jobs?

If he is, will he inform the House whether he is prepared to take the necessary action to prevent such companies from preying on the unemployed workers in our society? I would like to point out to the minister that these companies, particularly Job Mart and Aim, have operated in the Toronto, St. Catharines and Hamilton areas.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, clearly I am not aware of the specific cases the honourable member has referred to. I am aware, as all members are, of agencies and companies that endeavour to assist people in finding employment, either on behalf of an employer who is terminating an employee or on behalf of an employee himself who seeks assistance. To date, I have never heard of any unfair practices, but if the member has information indicating unfair practices going on in that industry. I think he should forward it to me and we will certainly have it looked into.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed with the minister's answer. Surely he should be a little --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Mancini: -- more sympathetic to the people who are unable to apply for jobs without paying $50.

Mr. Martel: I'll just go home early tonight.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, will you keep the member for Sudbury East subdued for just two minutes?

I would like to inform the minister that today there is a new and even more reprehensible aspect to this situation. Today one of these companies, Aim, went bankrupt and left a large number of people in the Hamilton and St. Catharines areas out in the cold, having already paid the $50 to see the job list.

Will the minister assure the House that he will investigate the financial collapse of this particular company, Aim, which apparently ran a similar operation in the Buffalo area that folded in July? These operations are being run by Charles and Catharine Barrone.

Is the minister going to allow this type of practice to continue in the province? Is he going to allow people to force the unemployed to pay to look at a list of job opportunities? For example, in the St. Catharines area there is an advertisement for an automotive job --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member has already placed his question.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member has any information about unfair business practices, particularly in respect to the company he has indicated, I wish he would forward the information and certainly we will be glad to look at it.

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment in reference to the chemical study of the Stouffville area that the ministry released a couple of weeks back. The study clearly indicates the presence of trace quantities of some chemicals that could have come from no other source than the York Sanitation landfill number 4, chemicals that I should point out are very typical of those found in the very polluted Detroit River.

Is he prepared as a result of this study to do extensive testing in wells to the west, north and east of the landfill site? Is he prepared to close wells where hazards are indicated in the study, specifically hazards related to napthylamine, which was found in the Coghlan and Ballantrae wells? And is he prepared to provide alternative water supplies for anybody who is affected by wells closing?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member is misinterpreting some of the information in that report. First, it is true that the chemical study applied primarily -- in fact, I believe exclusively -- to onsite wells in the landfill site and never did try to determine what chemicals may be present there.

At the same time, there was another study going on that related to private wells. That is not what is referred to in the chemical study. There are two reports. The member presumably has both of them. In fact, there were three if we include the air study. Let us not get the two studies mixed up in our minds.

The other thing he should bear in mind is that the well at the Ballantrae Plaza and the Coghlan well were both selected by these scientists. It was agreed by these scientists involved that these were wells that were not in any way related to the landfill site. They were chosen as background wells for comparative purposes with the wells that were potentially affected by the landfill site.

Interestingly enough, it was in the background wells which are removed from the site, which it was agreed are not connected by way of aquifer, that very minute trace levels of naphthylamine were detected.

Subsequent tests were done very shortly thereafter. No levels of naphthylamine were detected and subsequent to that even further tests have been done on those same wells and no naphthylamine has been detected. So there has been extensive follow-up work on that.

I think it is also important to bear in mind that for any trace contaminants that have been found in the wells there has been no connection at all with what was found in the landfill site, so there would appear to be no connection whatsoever.

I would also point out that in the same background wells, there were subparts per billion of benzopyrene and benzofluorenthene, which are associated with combustion, for example. It was believed by the scientists that it probably resulted from the fact that someone in the vicinity was smoking at the time the first samples were being taken.

I would point out that when we have taken samples in the homes of individuals we have found contaminants in those samples that were not in their wells. In fact, it was because people in the household smoked.

Mr. Speaker: I think the minister has answered that question very well, thank you.

Mr. Charlton: I should start out by saying that we did not confuse the studies. We took the time to talk to the minister's staff about them. We took the time to consult several outside experts as well as some from the occupational health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Chariton: Naphthylamine, whether it came from the landfill or not -- and I will not get into an argument with the minister about that -- is a suspected carcinogen. The Ministry of Labour has refused to set any standards for it, but only recommends no contact whatsoever for humans.

When it was found in the two wells, why were they not closed for the safety of the people using them? This would apply especially to the Ballantrae well which is feeding a restaurant where a fairly large number of the people in the community could be affected.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not know who the member has been talking to. I do not deny he has probably been talking to a lot of people, but I think he has to understand first of all that when we talk about this chemical we are talking about something which is present in dye that is used in clothing. The reason retesting was done immediately was to try to determine whether there was something present in the water or whether it got in by virtue of some contamination of the sample from someone's clothing in the process.

Retesting was done almost immediately and a second retesting has been done since. We can find no evidence in the water since then of any naphthylamine. So it is possible it was a contaminant from a glove that somebody was wearing or any number of other things. The member should not suggest we have not responded to that; we have. In fact, including the initial tests, there have been three series of tests done on those wells. Only in the first was there a minute trace of naphthylamine. It did not appear -- we could not find it -- in subsequent tests.

3 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, is it not generally accepted that building on that land site adds to the hydrostatic pressure developed underground? Would it not force the water farther and farther afield so that it might contaminate more wells than are contaminated at present? Does it not also raise the question as to whether the ministry should continue monitoring that whole area to make certain that is not happening? Is there not the danger of sending those contaminants farther afield if weight is added on that site?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to monitor, as I am sure the honourable member knows. A hydrologist would be required to tell the member what would happen hydrostatically by increasing the --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes; except the aquifer does not get squeezed out like that. There is some distance between the bottom of this and the aquifer.

It also is important to bear in mind that if such a site is not appropriately filled and contoured at the time of its closure, more serious problems are encountered with the ponding of water. It filters down through the waste and could get into the aquifer. I would suggest that is a much worse prospect than what the member is suggesting.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOLS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, with the sudden disappearance of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), maybe I could ask a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Can the minister confirm that officials of the Ministry of Education contacted francophone education groups on Monday of this week to inform them of a change in the minister's announcement to her response on the secondary education review project? Her original announcement was that five English-language subjects and one subject in French would be compulsory for francophone students. It is now alleged she has changed that to three in English and three in French.

If that is so -- and officials of the ministry have informed us of that -- does the minister not recognize that nothing less than a majority of French-language courses for francophone students is the minimum that would be acceptable? With anything less than a majority of courses in that language, in my view and I hope in the minister's, it is not a French school.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I really think my friend should ask this question of the Minister of Education.

I am well aware of what he is talking about. I believe the change he referred to has been suggested to the French-language groups in this province.

It is obvious that on the SERP recommendations there is a degree of back-and-forth bargaining going on. I think he will have to ask the minister and put forward his position. I understand what the position is. I have been talking with some of the French groups too, and I know what their feelings are about it.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, certainly the question was properly asked to the minister who is supposed to be defending French-language services in Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Here she comes.

Mr. Roy: Now that we are getting the appearance of the -- I will not use any adjectives -- the Minister of Education, maybe she would want me to refer the question to her.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Roy: Pardon me?

Mr. Boudria: She just came in.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) requires some control, but not this member.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. Roy: I would like to ask the minister if he does not feel there is something of a contradiction in saying they are setting up French-language schools when in fact they ask for an equal number of credits in French and English? Is that not a contradiction?

What is the thought process of the Minister of Education? First, she makes an announcement that the credit distribution will be five and one and now it is three and three. Does the minister not understand this is a very important question for the Franco-Ontarian community? She is not playing poker or dice here: she is not flipping a coin. That is a very important situation.

Does the Franco-Ontarian community have to get into a fight again to determine whether a bilingual school or a French school is best for them? Do we have to go through that all over again?

Hon. Mr. Wells: All I would say is that in my capacity' as the minister responsible for French- language services I always have fought and always will fight for total equality for the French-language school system in this province. The Minister of Education agrees with that principle, and I think he should ask her about the details concerning courses.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister is aware that rodmen in Ontario are organized under the iron workers --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: If the minister would refrain.

The minister is aware that rodmen in Ontario are organized under the International Association of Bridge. Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers and have suffered the effects of acute injuries. Some 24 per cent of all injuries to the back occur with iron workers. A survey on the chronic effects of degenerative back disease indicates that 70 per cent of the 40 per cent who answered have acute back problems that are not compensable.

Is the minister aware the problem seems to be that they climb walls and hang from vertical walls on belts, which hold them there? Is he aware they must carry rods that are 30 or 40 feet long and which create a bounce that is detrimental to the back, and that they spend all day over rods tying them?

Is the minister further aware that his ministry in 1978 started a study at the special studies branch under Franz Schneider to do an initial investigation of the problem and design a questionnaire for the workers involved? Is he further aware that 5,000 men responded to the questionnaire, indicating a high number of chronic back problems?

Can the minister tell us now why a Dr. Wright, who replaced Franz Schneider, has indicated this study will not be completed and that the statistics gathered to this point are no longer valid?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe I know a little bit about iron workers in that I worked for several years with a company that made use of iron workers.

I am aware there was a study, but I was not aware that Dr. Wright has made any comments whatsoever with respect to it. That is news to me. I will be glad to look into it.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister aware there was a work stoppage at Ontario Hydro and that his inspector on June 2, 1982, wrote the following order: "At 11:45 a.m. I wrote an order to Gilbert Steel to provide work platforms," and this came under section 76 of the regulations.

Is the minister further aware that at precisely this moment, 40 workers, all of them rodmen, are working on the two towers of the Sun Life building on University Avenue and are hanging from the walls? Will the minister ensure that section 76 under the regulations is applied province-wide so that workers have something to stand on?

Further, could the minister indicate -- I think he has, but just for clarification -- that the first study I indicated would be completed and that we would get an assessment? It could lead to these workers getting benefits through the Workmen's Compensation Board, if there is a relationship.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into and follow up on all of the matters the honourable member has brought forward today.

3:10 p.m.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Eves from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry administration program, $34,570.600; policy planning and research program, $10,029,300; safety and regulations program, $61,036,800; provincial highways program, $516,418,100; provincial transit program, $99,416,000; provincial transportation program, $7,703,000; municipal roads program, $482,973,000; municipal transit program, $199,229,000; communications program, $2,492,700.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill 208, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to facilitate the obtaining of human organs for transplant purposes. An automated central register of consents and objections to the use of organs for transplant purposes after death is contemplated to allow physicians to ascertain deceased persons' wishes more readily.

Where no objection by a deceased person has been registered and there is no reason to believe the deceased had, or that the deceased's next of kin have, any objections, removal of organs for transplant is authorized without the specific consent that otherwise would he required.

Section 29 of the Coroners Act deals in a similar fashion with the removal of human pituitary glands used in the treatment of persons suffering from growth hormone deficiencies.

Finally, I would point out that although the mechanics of obtaining a person's consent are outside this proposed legislation, I feel the government could, for example, have all applicants for drivers licences in the future indicate that they consent, do not consent or choose to make no comment in the setting up of such a register.

INFLATION RESTRAINT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wrye moved, seconded by Mr. Mancini, first reading of Bill 209, An Act to amend the Inflation Restraint Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wrye: This bill will bring to the floor of this assembly the many changes we had proposed during consideration of Bill 179. These changes, which honourable members I am sure are very familiar with by now, will ease some of the wage restraint measures now enacted and will provide new strength in restraint of prices in Ontario.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ACT

Ms. Bryden moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, first reading of Bill 210, An Act respecting Affirmative Action.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Bryden: This bill is designed to end the economic inequality of women in the work place through mandatory affirmative action. The bill will require all employers with more than 20 employees to establish joint committees of workers and managers to prepare affirmative action programs tailored to their work place. When approved by a government affirmative action director, such programs will be binding on the employer. Their implementation will be monitored by an affirmative action office in the Ministry of Labour.

The act also ensures there will be full participation by employees in the development and monitoring of the affirmative action programs. In order to help women move up the ladder in their present occupations or enter nontraditional occupations, the bill calls for the government to develop a comprehensive skills training and apprenticeship program designed to increase the number of women in each occupation and occupational category to at least 50 per cent. In addition, the bill proposes that the provision of support services for women, such as child care, could be part of an affirmative action program to make possible the full participation of women in the work force.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COUNTY OF HALIBURTON ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 191, An Act to provide for the continuation of the Provisional County of Haliburton as the County of Haliburton.

Mr. Rotenberg: This bill will repeal the present Haliburton Act and make Haliburton a full county for municipal purposes. That has been requested by the council of the provisional county of Haliburton.

Haliburton has always been called a provisional county. It is the last provisional county in Ontario because it forms part of the county of Victoria for judicial purposes. Since the administration of justice is now a provincial responsibility and since Haliburton now has the same municipal responsibilities as any other county, it seems appropriate and desirable to give it full county status.

The proposed legislation also makes complementary amendments to the Territorial Division Act to provide that Haliburton and Victoria will continue to be united for judicial purposes and to recognize the new township of Sherborne, McClintock, Livingstone, Lawrence and Nightingale.

This bill represents an important step forward for Haliburton. I wish to extend my sincere thanks and the thanks of our ministry to the members and staff of all the councils in Haliburton, some of whom are with us here today, for their assistance and co-operation in the development of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr. Eakins: As the member of the Legislature representing the counties of Victoria and Haliburton, I am pleased and indeed honoured to express my full support and the support of my colleagues for Bill 191, An Act to provide for the continuation of the Provisional County of Haliburton as the County of Haliburton.

At the outset, I want to pay tribute to the people of Haliburton county and in particular to the wardens, past and present; the elected reeves and deputy reeves; the municipal councillors; the county clerk, Mrs. Wynn Lahay; the county engineer, Mr. Bill Obee, and other staff for their many months of work in preparing background information so that all might be well informed in making application to the Legislature for this bill.

3:20 p.m.

As mentioned, this legislation changes the status of Haliburton from a provisional county to a full county and repeals the present Haliburton Act which was originally enacted in 1874.

Over the years, many people have asked what was meant by the term "provisional county." In 1874, enthusiastic residents of the area wanted to have the railway extended into Haliburton to open up the country. There was no authority to float a debenture unless under county status. There was insufficient population to meet the usual criteria. As a result, the Haliburton Act was passed whereby the provisional county of Haliburton was established and affiliated with Victoria county for judicial purposes.

This is an important day in the history of Haliburton county. Perhaps we might call it unique for, after almost 109 years, this county, being the only one with a provisional title, will assume in name the status of county of Haliburton. To mark this event today, it is appropriate and much appreciated to have seated in the Speaker's gallery officials representing the great county of Haliburton.

I would like to introduce them and have them stand for the record of the House. I want to recognize the immediate past warden, now reeve of Lutterworth township, Mr. Ron Gambell; Mrs. Jane Franklin, deputy reeve of Glamorgan township; Mrs. Wynn Lahay, county clerk-treasurer, and Mr. Bill Obee, the county engineer.

Today we are debating the second reading of the County of Haliburton Act, known as Bill 191. It is interesting to note that, as reported in the Ontario newspaper Hansard, second reading took place in the Legislature to establish Haliburton as a provisional county on that approximate date of March 18, 1874. It is of further interest that the Haliburton motion was put at that time by the Honourable Oliver Mowat, later Sir Oliver Mowat, who was at that time the Premier and Attorney General.

Mr. Nixon: He was a Liberal, was he not?

Mr. Eakins: He was a Liberal Premier. It reads: "Provisional county: Hon. Mr. Mowat moved the second reading of the bill to incorporate the municipality of Haliburton and to provide for its becoming a provisional county. He explained that the reason for erecting the municipality into a separate district was its distance from a county town and the consequent difficulty in administering justice. The bill was read a second time."

Premier Mowat's interest in Haliburton county and its future development did not end with his legislative duty. On August 5, 1874, he attended the turning of the first sod at Lindsay to indicate officially that the building of the railway to Haliburton was under way.

It is also of interest to note today that the Toronto Globe of May 28. 1874, reported, "The vote to establish a provisional county and decide to which municipality they would be united for judicial purposes resulted in 396 people voting for a new county. There were four opposed and a unanimous vote was given to be united to Victoria for judicial purposes."

Today, the parliamentary assistant has outlined what this new act means in terms of change. The discussions leading to this day have been ongoing for some time. The initial credit for this move must go to Reeve Fearrey of Dysart et al. and a former warden. I want to read some of the background briefly.

Soon after Reeve Fearrey became warden of the provisional county of Haliburton in 1981, he promoted the proposal that the provisional status should be examined. In July a resolution was passed authorizing the warden and a committee of three, in conjunction with the ministry, to institute a study and then report to the county council. After a preliminary review, with staff from the ministry, of the implications of being a provisional county, the facts were reported to the 10 municipalities for discussion.

The challenge was continued under the 1982 wardenship of N. Ronald Gambell, reeve of Lutterworth township, and a formal resolution to county council at the February 17, 1982, meeting confirmed the desire to proceed with the removal of "provisional," subject to full information on all matters concerned.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) replied on March 5 that the ministry staff would undertake a study of all the consequences. Mr. Ted Foster, the senior policy adviser in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, was assigned to assist Haliburton county and he is to be congratulated on his thorough investigations.

On August 5, county council passed a resolution at a special meeting petitioning the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to introduce a County of Haliburton Act erecting Haliburton to full county status. One of the changes involved during the proposed change was the erection of the improvement district of Bicroft to township status, effective December 1, 1982. At the inaugural meeting of county council this past Tuesday evening, December 14, the township of Bicroft's first reeve, William G. Howe, was elected warden of the county of Haliburton for the year 1983.

I want briefly to read into the record those municipal leaders who were involved in the decision-making leading to this stage: Murray G. Fearrey, 1981 warden; N. Ronald Gambell, 1982 warden; Anson, Hindon and Minden Reeve 11oyd Walker and Deputy Reeve Douglas Pritchard; improvement district of Bicroft Chairman William G. Howe; Cardiff Reeve Malcolm McGillivray and Deputy Reeve Mack Peters; Dysart et al. Deputy Reeve Harold Bannon; Glamorgan Reeve Kenneth Maguire and Deputy Reeve Robert McCausland; Lutterworth Deputy Reeve Major Glynne Lewis; Monmouth Reeve Keith Tallman and Deputy Reeve Carman Coumbs; Sherborne, McClintock and Livingstone Reeve Fred Baum and Deputy Reeve Dalton MacDonald; Snowdon Reeve Robert J. Vick and Deputy Reeve John Francis; Stanhope Reeve I ames Harrison and Deputy Reeve Elgin Stouffer.

The new members on the county council who are involved in this decision are: Anson, Hindon and Minden Reeve Lyle McKnight and Deputy Reeve Edward Pergolas; Cardiff Deputy Reeve Ross Duncan; Dysart et al. Deputy Reeve Gary McKnight; Glamorgan Deputy Reeve Jane Franklin; Monmouth Deputy Reeve Harry Clark; Sherborne, McClintock and Livingstone Deputy Reeve Donald Shortreed; Snowdon Deputy Reeve Dwain Wruth, and Stanhope Reeve Harry Davis. The county clerk is Wynn Lahay, and the county engineer is Bill Obee.

I want to express my appreciation to the minister and to the parliamentary assistant for their encouragement and support. Members of county council would want me to express in this House their appreciation for the excellent liaison shown by Ted Foster of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He is an excellent public servant and deserves much credit for the orderly transition. Finally, I thank the people of Haliburton for their spirit and determination that has made this county a great part of Ontario of which we are justly proud.

My colleagues and I wholeheartedly support this bill.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we are pleased to support Bill 191 and to welcome the new county of Haliburton into existence.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable members for their support, and I thank the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) for his kind words about the ministry and the ministry staff. We were most pleased to co-operate in this venture which has come to a successful conclusion today.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

3:30 p.m.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved second reading of Bill 205, An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 1982, I reaffirmed an earlier commitment to this House that I would undertake an interim increase in workmen's compensation benefits before the end of the year in the event that no decision or recommendation from the standing committee on resources development was forthcoming.

Originally I had hoped to have the benefit of the committee's deliberations on the Weiler proposals for reform of the compensation payment system before another round of increases was called for. Although this strategy was not an unreasonable one in view of the kind of fundamental changes urged by Professor Weiler, the unfortunate delay until the new year in the committee's hearings has made it imperative that consideration of a round of interim increases be delayed no longer.

The bill I introduced in the House last Friday meets my earlier commitment. It contains two main elements: (1) a standard ad hoc amendment of nine per cent retroactive to July 1, 1982, and (2) a change in the names of the board and of the act to the Workers' Compensation Board and the Workers' Compensation Act.

Before I go on to outline what the amendment means in terms of the revised levels of the various pensions and allowances, I want to take a few moments to discuss some of the considerations that had to be weighed in reaching the decision to implement a nine per cent increase at this time.

I am well aware from a number of statements made in this House in the past, and from a series of questions directed at me since the summer, that some members will be dissatisfied with the size of the proposed increase despite the fact that it is retroactive for almost six months. I am also aware that there appears to be a misunderstanding in some quarters regarding the extent to which past benefit adjustments have kept pace with the rate of inflation.

In the course of discussing the rationale for the 1982 benefit increases, I will be happy to attempt to set the record straight on this matter in addition. I have noted before that past announcements of benefit increases have followed no discernible pattern as regards timing. For example, the last change was announced in June 1981 and the one before that in December 1979. Nevertheless, it has become standard practice over the past few years to relate increases to the first day of July in each year with retroactive application of adjustments as necessary to achieve this objective. In effect, this has created a series of annual revisions in benefit levels. The announced increase for 1982 will be the eighth in this series.

The annual percentage adjustment in benefit levels during this time has been closely related to increases in the consumer price index in the last full calendar year prior to the amendment, although across-the-board percentage improvements and benefits usually have been rounded to the nearest whole number. As a result of this systematic approach to adjustments in workers' compensation payments, benefit levels have tended to increase roughly parallel to the rate of inflation since 1975.

The announced benefit adjustment of nine per cent for 1982 falls a little short of providing full protection against inflation for workers' compensation recipients, although it is true that the rate of increase in the consumer price index has moderated in each of the last five months. The year-over-year increase in the index from July 1981 to July 1982, the period between successive increases in workers' compensation benefits, was 10.8 per cent. The year-over-year increase for the most recent month available, October, was only 10 per cent.

I expect the members opposite will argue that the 1982 benefit increase should have been at least 10.8 per cent to reflect the July-to-July inflation rate. I admit that in arriving at its decision, the government on this occasion was required to attempt to strike a balance among a series of conflicting objectives.

On the one hand, there was a genuine desire to seek to protect the purchasing power of benefit levels to the closest degree possible. On the other hand, the government has a continuing obligation to adhere to the spirit of its restraint program, particularly since changes in workers' compensation benefits ultimately will have cost implications virtually throughout the economy.

While a nine per cent adjustment in benefits will not fully protect recipients against current inflation rates, I believe it represents a responsible attempt by the government to discharge its responsibilities in this area at a time when, quite frankly, economic conditions are not supportive of significant advances in the real value of benefits.

In my view, the proposed increase for 1982 reflects present economic circumstances. I do not believe it is out of line with recent wage increases in either the organized sector or the unorganized sector of the economy since both generally have been moderating and parallel with the rate of inflation in recent months.

I might add that workers' compensation benefit adjustments have compared quite favourably with general wage movements over a longer period of time, slightly outpacing increases in the provincial industrial composite over the last five years.

The application of a standard, across-the-board increase of nine per cent in workers' compensation pensions and allowances produces the following new benefit levels.

The ceiling on covered earnings rises to $24,200 per year from $22,200. The minimum permanent total disability pension rises to $748 per month from $686. The minimum temporary total disability allowance rises to $170 per week from $156. The dependent spouse's pension rises to $537 per month from $492. The dependent children's pension rises to $149 per month from $136. The orphan dependent child's pension rises to $167 from $153.

The annual allowance for the repair and replacement of clothing worn or damaged by a lower limb or back brace rises to $316 from $290 and by an upper limb to $158 from $145. Both the burial allowance and the lump sum payment to a widow or widower rise to $1,300 from $1,200.

As I have indicated, I believe the increases I have announced are both fair and reasonable in present economic circumstances. I do not believe it is either sensible or indeed possible to approach such an important question as a revision in workers' compensation benefits in isolation from the course of broader economic events.

In the meantime, I look forward to the report and recommendations of the standing committee on resources development early in the new year and to the possible implementation of more fundamental changes in the structure of the Ontario workers' compensation system.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I will be fairly brief in my remarks since, as the minister pointed out at the conclusion of his remarks, the standing committee on resources development will be resuming its hearings on the Weiler report and the white paper growing out of that report in January, and I hope that changes we will be making as a committee and recommending to the minister and to the Legislature as a whole will deal with some of the more fundamental matters.

What we have before us today, as the minister himself has said, is really an ad hoc arrangement, which will increase benefit levels to injured workers between now and the time when we can put in place perhaps a more permanent and better system than the one we have now. In this matter our party will support in principle the changes proposed by the government. We would always support an increase in benefits to injured workers.

That having been said, there is no doubt that we are extremely disappointed that the government has seen fit in a way -- and the minister has just repeated it -- to tie the benefits received by injured workers, as inadequate as they are, to his restraint program.

I noted that in his comments today and in a statement that was issued under his name last week, the minister said: "The nine per cent change reflects current inflation rates as evidenced by the consumer price index. It also closely tracks recent wage adjustments, which have moderated significantly in response to our present economic conditions."

The minister then went on to say: "The government has an obligation to comply with the spirit of the Inflation Restraint Board in establishing prices, incomes and benefits which have an impact on costs elsewhere in the economy, and at the same time to recognize the legitimate needs of workers. There is a responsibility to balance these two factors."

Quite frankly, given the rates of benefits for injured workers that are in front of us, we are not absolutely sure and, in fact, we do not believe that there was a need for the government to try to anticipate a reduction in the consumer price index.

3:40 p.m.

The minister rightly points out that the consumer price index back in July, which is when these changes are retroactive to on a year-to-year basis, was running at a rate of 10.8 per cent. It seems to me that it would have been more appropriate for the increases that the minister brought to this House to reflect that 10.8 per cent figure.

In spite of the fact that the standing committee on resources development was assured, as we held our meetings, that the increases given injured workers would not really come under the restraint program, I suspect what we have here before us today is something that tracks the inflation restraint program a lot more closely than it tracks the rate of inflation.

I regret that, and my party regrets that. It is our view that injured workers' needs are not and never could be wholly and adequately met through any kind of compensation program, but at least they should have been protected by tying them to the rate of inflation.

I understand the reluctance of the minister -- and I accept his word -- to move in the hope that in our committee we would be able to conclude our work so this kind of an ad hoc increase was not necessary. But I regret -- and I have not been here long, but it seems to me this is the way these things happen -- that increases in compensation rates to injured workers seem to find the light of day only towards the end of a session.

The last time we were in this position was in the dying days of June 1981, when we were in a hurry to get out of here. Instantly we saw a bill to increase the benefits of injured workers and were asked to debate it in a couple of short hours. We have the same problem today.

I note again from the minister's statement that the benefit increases will show up in the January cheques and that there is a further promise that the WCB will do everything in its power to make sure the retroactivity is taken care of as soon as possible but there are no guarantees. I say to the minister quite sincerely that it is a shame, given the fact we now are in the Christmas season, that we could not have moved forward some time ago, at least a month and a half ago, with this legislation.

I am reminded that my friend the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) and I raised this matter with the minister as early as late September. The minister indicated that if the resources development committee could conclude its work, there might not be need. It became very clear that we could not conclude our work, and we raised the matter again.

It seems to me it would not have taken much, having looked at this piece of legislation, for the minister to have brought this matter forward for our consideration in early or mid-October so that these nine per cent increases he proposes and others that may flow out of the debate and any amendments that may come up -- these benefits which belong to injured workers because they are retroactive -- would have been in the hands of the injured workers for Christmas.

I understand and accept that the minister gave his assurances the bill would come in, and it has come in. But his assurances will not buy toys for Christmas for the children of injured workers, and they will not buy a good Christmas dinner. What would have bought them would have been to have got this money, which belonged to the injured workers since it is retroactive, into their hands by now.

Again I will deviate from what I promised not to do and will talk a little bit about the white paper in one area. I refer to the fact that once again we have ad hoc increases showing up, not at definite periods of time, such as once a year or once every six months, but at the whim of the minister or at the whim of the cabinet.

The very point the minister has made for us here in our considerations on the white paper is the importance of not leaving in the hands of cabinet some opportunity to have an annual or biannual review: we must write into any changes in the workers' compensation legislation a mechanism for automatic increases. Whether those increases are tied to the consumer price index or the average industrial wage, I will leave for our discussions in committee; but it seems to me that these increases should not be brought to the House on the whim of the cabinet.

As the minister knows, because we had some discussion of this when we were discussing the annual report of the board, my colleagues and I are delighted to see that the government has moved even during this time to change the title of the act to Workers' Compensation Act and the name of the board to Workers' Compensation Board. We welcome that change; it is long overdue. We will support that as well as the increases in benefits.

Just to sum up: We are very happy that this bill has come forward at last. We are delighted that it is retroactive, and we hope this House will give speedy passage to it. If the minister in the Christmas spirit wishes in his final remarks to stand up and say, "I agree with the member for Windsor-Sandwich and raise the limits across the board from nine per cent to 10.8 per cent," we will welcome that as well.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to express regret and consternation that we are faced with a piece of legislation that has to be debated just before Christmas. We are in a situation where we have to rush in passing this bill to make sure injured workers are going to get the increase. I hope that when this bill is passed, the cheques are going to be sent out to injured workers across the province as soon as possible.

I realize there is a lot of material that must be debated in relation to injured workers in general in the province. But again, as a result of restraint, which we are in at this time, we are trying to make sure that we are going to debate the principle of this bill with its content, and we hope that next time the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), along with this government, will make sure that the passage of legislation in relation to the Workmen's Compensation Board will be debated thoroughly without any rush.

Injured workers across Ontario have been waiting for these increases for many years, and I am sure they are extremely anxious, particularly at Christmas time, to make sure they can buy gifts and toys for their children. So I hope we will get deeply involved in this process to make sure the bureaucratic process of the Workmen's Compensation Board will be speeded up to ensure that injured workers will receive the increase and the retroactive payments as soon as possible.

Having said that, I am pleased and delighted to rise to speak to a bill related to the Workmen's Compensation Act. The bill's passage is long overdue, and the injured workers have been demonstrating with good reason for several weeks in front of Queen's Park, requesting increases in the level of benefits and pensions as well as changes to the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Injured workers across the province deserve more than the nine per cent provided by Bill 205. Workers permanently or partially disabled have the legal right as citizens of this province to request concrete changes in the whole structure of the board, which is anachronistic, outdated and unable to meet the social and moral needs of injured workers.

Finally, it is time this government enacted legislation that included a specific clause to adjust pensions and the levels of benefits based on an objective measure such as the average industrial wage. Such a process should take place on a semi-annual basis and not be orchestrated at the whim of the government.

3:50 p.m.

Injured workers have been demanding these changes year after year through briefs and demonstrations, but they have been faced with an unwillingness on the part of this government to respond compassionately to the new reality with which injured workers are faced as a result of the hard economic conditions affecting all workers in the province.

In view of that, injured workers are hard hit, especially those who are temporarily partially disabled or permanently partially disabled but cannot find a job. They would like to have a job, but their efforts are vanishing because the opportunities to return to the work force are slim for them, not to say frustrating at the same time.

With the small pensions, most of which are unfair and unjust, this category of worker in particular is suffering the most, which leads to misery because of the unfairness of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

These are the same people who once were proud to make their contributions to the development of this province through their hard work. As a result of their accidents, they are permanently or temporarily impoverished because of the stinginess of the Workmen's Compensation Act and its administration.

These are the same people who had been forced against their will to collect family benefits or welfare allowances on which to sustain their families or to apply for Canada pension plan benefits.

These are the workers who are appealing and demanding reforms in the whole bureaucratic operation of the board, going through lengthy appeals and requesting increases in the assessment of their pensions based on the archaic "meat chart," because pensions are much too low and therefore losing ground every year because of the cost of living.

If we consider for a moment old injuries, going back to 1943, when the ceiling of maximum weekly earnings covered was $48.08 with the maximum weekly WCB payments of $36.06, injured workers affected by a temporary or permanent ability were receiving a small amount of pension, and on top of that, the "meat chart" by which injured workers were assessed made the pensions that were calculated extremely low indeed.

A nine per cent increase on injured workers' pensions means nothing, completely nothing, and I want to tell the minister that the nine per cent increase provided by Bill 205 is a slap in the face to the thousands and thousands of injured workers who will see their pension cheques increase by a few dollars or cents.

Is this the way the government is thanking all injured workers who once were proud to make their contribution to the development of this province? I think the nine per cent increase is offensive, unacceptable and cruel.

For a disabled worker injured as of July 1, 1973, the ceiling or maximum annual earnings covered was $10,000. As a result of this, the maximum weekly earnings covered was $192.31. The maximum WCB weekly payment was $144.23. At that time, injured workers who were temporarily totally disabled were receiving the maximum weekly benefits as long as the reports from specialists were confirming this fact. In the event that these doctors stated otherwise, especially that the disabled person was capable of performing light duties, then the weekly benefits were cut down to 50 per cent or less.

The board had been using this discretionary and unlimited power since the introduction of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which goes as far back as 1914, if I am not mistaken. During this period of time, from approximately 1914 to 1973, thousands and thousands of cases of injustice were committed by the board against its injured workers and their families.

I have heard of cases of people losing their homes, of family breakdowns and of immigrants returning to their homelands because of their inability to survive within such restrictions, becoming tired of fighting an endless battle against the adverse conditions under which the Workmen's Compensation Board placed them.

For all these people, the nine per cent increase provided by Bill 205 means very little and is quite insignificant and demoralizing, because the ceiling was low to begin with; the cost of living was skyrocketing and their level of pension was low.

This ordeal came to an end on July 1, 1975, when the maximum annual earnings covered by the board was $15,000 and the maximum weekly payment was $ 216.35, and, most important, injured workers with a temporary and partial disability, able to do light duties, could not be cut to 50 per cent as long as the job was available and they were co-operating with the rehabilitation department of the WCB.

These changes came along, not as a result of the free will of the Conservative government but as a result of organized injured workers who pressed for changes in the Workmen's Compensation Act, together with political pressure from the New Democratic Party which demanded then, and is still demanding, total reform for the benefit of all injured workers of this province.

It is time for the Workmen's Compensation Act to be phased out once and for all, to be replaced by a universal insurance scheme as has been demanded by this side of the House on several occasions, in order that all workers in this province will be covered on a 24-hour basis with decent pensions being given to injured workers who are justly entitled to them and ending the intolerable practices of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

It is cruel for public employees to be placed under the restraint program through Bill 179. It is even worse to limit injured workers' pensions within the nine per cent measure, because the level of pensions for totally permanently disabled workers is below the poverty line and far below that of certain public employees.

Why are injured workers receiving a nine per cent increase and not a 15 per cent increase, which would be the right percentage based on cost-of-living increases since July 1, 1981? Why is the government so stingy in delivering money to rightful recipients when we know for a fact that the board has billions of dollars invested in long-term bonds and short-term securities?

To enlighten the minister's mind, I want to read some figures I have in relation to investments made by the Workmen's Compensation Board between 1975 and 1982. Let us find out how much money the Workmen's Compensation Board has invested.

In 1979, the board had $1.35 billion invested, of which 65 per cent was in long-term bonds, 22.7 per cent in mortgages and 10.3 per cent in short-term securities. In December 1980, the board had $1.49 billion, of which 70 per cent was invested in long-term bonds, 24 per cent in mortgages and six per cent in short-term securities. In December 1981, the board had $1.569 billion, of which 68 per cent was in long-term bonds, 25 per cent in mortgages and seven per cent in short-term securities.

In December 1982, the board had a total investment of $1.6 billion, $1 billion of which was invested in long-term bonds, $400 million in mortgages guaranteed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. and $200 million in short-term securities. These figures do not refer to the total amount of money that is paid annually by all employers of this province.

4 p.m.

Just to enlighten and refresh the minister's mind, I want to draw his attention to the fact that employers well protected by the Workmen's Compensation Act and making contributions to the workers' compensation fund are treated differently from injured workers. Their increase in assessment rate per $100 of payroll in 1977 was nil. In 1978, it was increased by 3.7 per cent, but in 1979 there was a reduction of 9.6 per cent. For 1980 there was an additional reduction of 8.4 per cent. I do not have figures available for 1981 and 1982.

I will be moving several amendments to this bill when we are in committee. The essence of these amendments will be threefold: (1) to increase the level of pension benefits and to provide for a catch-up provision for the lost purchasing power; (2) to provide for the automatic adjustment of all pension benefits on a semi-annual basis, tied to changes in Ontario's average industrial wage; (3) to increase the ceiling on earnings and, therefore, the basis on which compensation rates are determined.

In general, the increases I will be putting forward provide for a 15 per cent adjustment rather than the nine per cent proposed by the minister. There will be an additional catch-up provision of six per cent on January 1, 1983. These measures are designed to deal in a very minimal way with the loss of the purchasing power of the pension dollar. This conservative estimate hardly begins to deal with the real needs of those who are recipients of the WCB pension.

I am putting these amendments forward in the hope that the present minister will not use the same excuses for inaction as the previous minister did in June 1981. The former Minister of Labour would not accept any of our amendments on the grounds that the white paper and the Weiler reports were to be dealt with by a committee of this Legislature. It is now 18 months since that promise of action was made.

I would like to emphasize briefly what the NDP position is in relation to the Weiler task force and the paper that was drafted as a result of that by Professor Weiler. The NDP made a presentation which enlightened in some way and stated very clearly the position of the New Democratic Party in relation to the general principle of the Workmen's Compensation Board. Members of the NDP caucus have been involved with the Workmen's Compensation Board, with its chairman, and with a succession of Ministers of Labour.

We and our staff have handled literally thousands of cases on behalf of our constituents and we are acutely aware of how the workers' compensation system operates in Ontario.

Unfortunately, we are witnesses to the daily frustration, anger and despair that surround many injured workers and their families. For many of them, the traumatic experience of an injury or illness coupled with the loss of income is compounded by having to deal with a huge bureaucracy, which forces them into adversarial confrontations. The struggle for what usually turns out to be an inadequate level of benefits often results in bitterness and hostile suspicion. The goals of adequate income replacement and rehabilitation are rarely achieved.

That has been our experience, and that is why we are profoundly disturbed about the present system. As long as compensation is solidly based on a work-related injury or illness, as long as compensation is viewed as assistance rather than insurance, and as long as compensation is viewed as a privilege rather than a right, our society will be less just and humane than it should be, and our compensation system will continue to generate frustration, anger and despair.

It defies logic to provide compensation to an injured worker when he breaks his leg at work, but to leave the worker and his family entirely on their own if the injury occurs at home, on the street or in his automobile. The physical incapacity is the same. The loss of earning capacity is the same. The anguish of the family is the same. The need for rehabilitation is the same. Everything is the same, except for compensation.

Only if the worker is one of those privileged few who happen to be covered by private disability income insurance will there be any compensation at all. We start from the basic premise that workers and their families should not be penalized when injury or illness occurs. Society must begin to accept the responsibility for the welfare of those who, because of injury or illness, are not able to sustain themselves.

We view this form of compensation as a basic right which should be seen not as a form of assistance, but as insurance against physical incapacity. The present system of workers' compensation is totally inadequate when viewed in this light. Its adversarial nature, coupled with its exclusive focus on work-related disability, makes the system incapable of responding to wider social concern.

We believe that only a universal sickness and accident insurance program will begin to provide the necessary protection against disability which workers and their families deserve. A just compensation system must provide for accident prevention, income maintenance and rehabilitation. The Workmen's Compensation Board, as currently administered, fails on all three counts. Only a universal social insurance program can begin to meet these needs.

We stated these principles, which have been presented before Professor Weiler, when we had other Ministers of Labour. The only answer given by the government at the time -- I am talking back to 1975, 1976 and 1977 -- is that the government was taking a close look at the universal insurance scheme in principle. I am sure that the Minister of Labour stated several times in the Legislature and also in committees and during the estimates, that he was taking a close look at the universal insurance scheme which is now implemented in New Zealand.

This story has been going on for several years, the government being particularly interested in this issue, but they never came out with an implemented legislated principle, which is the universal insurance scheme which the New Democratic Party has claimed in the past, is claiming now and will claim in the future.

In June 1981, the NDP moved several amendments in committee in relation to increases to the WCB level of benefits. I want to report, for the sake of the record, the position taken by the former Minister of Labour when my colleague from Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) introduced several amendments in the Legislature to amend the last bill, which was debated around June 1981.

4:10 p.m.

The same excuse has been carried through the full debate on this bill. The position of the government at the time was that they could not accept any amendments on the bill because Professor Weiler first had to draft the final report, the recommendations and long-range views on the Workmen's Compensation Board, the administration and so on.

When my friend from Nickel Belt introduced the first amendment, the minister replied at the time:

"Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment. It comes on the verge of a white paper for consideration by this House and by the public which proposes major reforms in the workmen's compensation system. Also, the government has put forward interim pension benefit awards that are in keeping with the inflationary changes over the period of two years.

"I think to introduce amendments like this is really a little strange when we are on the verge of considering significant reforms to the compensation system." My colleague from Nickel Belt was talking about increases in the level of benefits, level of pensions and so on. "What he is doing in this amendment, with respect, is to try to detract significantly from that process of consideration which I had hoped the white paper would receive. I have to oppose this amendment."

So the white paper was introduced to the public and this Legislature. Professor Weiler submitted his report in relation to all presentations and briefs which had been presented before him, and here we are close to 1983 and no action has been taken by the government except for this poor nine per cent increase for injured workers across Ontario.

Again, I want to quote from the comments the minister made at the time:

"Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept this amendment for the very reasons I gave you before. This government is in favour of a consideration of major reforms to the board. This particular amendment, which many of us have great sympathy with, constitutes" etc. My colleague from Nickel Belt was talking about increases in the lump sum payment to a widow or widower in the case of the death of a worker on the job or as the result of an accident on the job.

Going ahead again with the position taken by the minister at the time, on June 30, 1981, in relation to another amendment, he replied: "Mr. Chairman, once again I will not accept that amendment on behalf of the government, not because the government does not believe that reform is necessary, but because it has that process of reform now out for consideration. In the meantime, we are proposing interim benefits in keeping with inflation."

In relation to another amendment which dealt with increases when an injured worker was temporarily totally disabled, the minister replied: "There is a white paper before the House and before the public, indicating significant proposals for revision. These amendments are inappropriate and I cannot support them."

And last, in relation to the automatic cost-of- living increase put forward by my colleague from Nickel Belt, the minister replied: "Mr. Chairman, the government does not accept the amendment. As the member well knows, the ceiling has been increased in line with the cost of living and the new proposal put forward in the white paper with respect to the ceiling adjustment is there for discussion and consideration." The minister used the same tone and approach through the course of the debate on the bill which took place in June 1981.

Today, we are faced again with the other interim measures in relation to changes in the Workmen's Compensation Act and the increase of nine per cent in relation to benefits and pensions. The minister is introducing that bill before Christmas. We also stated very vividly in the Legislature that we would be appalled if this bill were debated now, before Christmas. I think this is an irrational way of dealing with long-range plans and important principles related to injured workers in Ontario.

Through the experience of the past, the information the minister has in front of him, the paper that has been drafted by Professor Weiler and the position of the New Democratic Party which has been consistently stated in the past and up to the present, the Minister of Labour will have an opportunity to take a close look at the total reform of the Workmen's Compensation Act in order that injured workers will not be suffering now and in the future in relation to benefits and increases in pensions.

Along with several members of my caucus, I am frustrated that we are supposed to debate this bill now. Injured workers are not receiving the total increase they are entitled to as a result of the cost-of-living increase clause. I hope the minister will introduce concrete changes in this forum to make sure we have ample opportunity to debate the restructuring of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on Bill 205, An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

My first comment will be to commend the minister, because I think this minister has taken a completely new approach to the injured worker, a far more humane approach than has been expressed by previous ministers. The only problem is he is still handicapped by the circle around him which prevents him from providing to the worker the benefits he should be entitled to under more humane circumstances.

This change in benefits to workers has been long overdue. The minister himself agrees with that. However, the fact that the bill is before us at least takes care of the situation for the time being. I regret very much it has been delayed so long in the introduction, because a lot of individuals who are receiving workmen's compensation benefits needed that money six months ago, even nine months ago.

It would have given them a little better quality of life or at least it would have provided them with a better existence than they have had to suffer through until this bill becomes law and they can receive the benefits of this legislation.

I could be repetitious by making some of the comments the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) has made, as well as the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), who led off for the party of which I happen to be a proud member.

4:20 p.m.

I would think a lot of these comments have already been made over the years, but they fell on deaf ears. Now that we have made a breakthrough with the minister, I hope the next improvements in workmen's compensation benefits for those individuals who in many instances cannot get employment because of a workmen's compensation claim will not take so long.

The benefits should be improved on a quarterly basis at the longest. One should not have to wait longer than that for improvements. The individual on workmen's compensation gets little enough, in most cases and maybe even in all cases, when one considers that in many cases he has had his complete livelihood taken away from him and he or she has to subsist on just the benefits being provided by the legislation as introduced by this government.

Sometimes an individual is said to have 25 or 35 per cent disability. The minister indicates a percentage of disability, but when it comes to getting employment, regardless of the amount of disability, once that individual has a workmen's compensation claim, in many instances the employer refuses, in the case of the individual changing jobs, to accept him for employment because he has a record with the Workmen's Compensation Board. It puts that individual at a real financial disadvantage, as well as limiting his opportunities when it comes to obtaining employment.

The individual with a 25 per cent disability is just as much in need of assistance as the one who has a 50 or 75 per cent disability. In economic conditions such as they are now, the one with the small disability cannot find employment because, in my estimation, he is quite often put at a disadvantage and discriminated against by the employer to whom he applies for employment.

Workmen's compensation problems are probably the greatest work producers in my constituency office. The pleading, begging and comments by the individuals on workmen's compensation are very heart-rending in most instances. In the ensuing period of time, I certainly hope the minister will not wait before asking his colleagues for additional funding to take care of those who unfortunately have to accept workmen's compensation because of some job- related injury.

Sometimes that job-related injury is not necessarily physical. It can also be mental, in some instances abuse the worker may receive from his immediate boss or the individual for whom he works. One has to take into consideration that the physical part of the individual is readily visible, but the mental problems one goes through because of injury and the effect injury can have on the whole family life have to be taken into consideration.

The minister's increase is nine per cent. I certainly would have liked to see that at least balancing with the cost-of-living index. Unfortunately the minister decided, because of the nine and five approach his government is using, that it is what he is going to provide to the injured worker.

All I can say concerning this bill is that it is better late than never, but it should never have been late in the first instance. I could make more comments, but there are many others who wish to comment on this bill and who will add a lot of other perspectives to this workmen's compensation bill.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I rise to peak on this bill, because I think it is a bill that is long overdue. We in the New Democratic Party have been trying not for months but for years to have the system changed, and today we do not rejoice that the minister has introduced a bill that increases the benefits of the injured workers by nine per cent.

Last summer, when we were sitting on the resources development committee, and in fact on September 22 when we were faced with the possibility that the government would recall the House to impose the dictatorial Bill 179 on the civil servants of the province, the member for Nickel Belt and I introduced a resolution asking that the government in the interim, while waiting for the reform of the Workmen's Compensation Board that did not come, has not come and will never come with this government, would at least upgrade the benefits of the injured workers, compensating them for the inflation that intervened between 1981 and September 1982.

The response of the members of the Conservative caucus was unanimous: they defeated our motion. We kept insisting, asking the minister to give a sign of generosity by giving the injured workers at least an increase that would signify to them that this government is not totally blind to their needs, and the minister has postponed and postponed until the dying days of this session, thus preventing us from staging a full debate, as this issue deserves. I want to say that until we reform the system of the Workmen's Compensation Board with bills like the one we are discussing at present, we will not solve any problems.

We in the New Democratic Party fully realize that the Conservative government is not in the least interested in solving the problems of the injured workers, probably because in political terms the Conservative Party thinks that injured workers are a marginal group, are not a pressure group and therefore can be left out in the cold.

I think they are making a very serious mistake, because the injured workers are first of all human beings, people who have contributed highly to the welfare of Ontario and of this country, and they should therefore he compensated if they are disabled because of an accident.

Three years ago the government appointed Dr. Weiler. After Dr. Weiler presented his first report to the government, they produced a white paper. Dr. Weiler has not presented his final report, incidentally, but in the meantime Dr. Weiler has been engaged in many other operations, and one of them was the mediation in the doctors' dispute. It is ironic that the government took the advice of Dr. Weiler when he proposed that doctors' salaries should be increased by 35 per cent in three years but did not take Dr. Weiler's advice when he suggested the benefits of the injured workers be upgraded.

4:30 p.m.

He spoke of adjusting it, not of increasing it. I want to read into the record, hoping the minister will listen, what Dr. Weiler's report said: "If the government or citizenry of Ontario is not prepared to justify an explicit reduction in the real entitlement of workers' compensation pensioners, to take such a step as a conscious policy, they must not tacitly permit the same result to come about by allowing supposedly impersonal economic forces to take their course. This is why I deliberately speak of an adjustment to, rather than an increase in, pension benefits to take account of intervening inflation."

The government, by proposing this bill, is not only accepting that what Dr. Weiler defines as "impersonal economic forces" should take their course but is contributing with this action to reducing the incomes and benefits of the injured workers. Using any yardstick at all -- the inflation intervening between July 1981 and today, the average industrial wage, the consumer price index or the purchasing power of pensions -- the minister will realize that nine per cent is totally inadequate.

The minister, I am sure, will not be able to justify rationally why nine per cent is adequate at this time. He knows very well that with this bill he does not solve any of the major problems the injured workers have because of the workmen's compensation system in Ontario.

This bill does not solve the problem of adjudication, and we know today how monstrous the system of adjudication is. It does not solve the problem of the right to return to jobs. I know the Conservatives are not interested in that, but there are literally thousands of injured workers who are defined as partially disabled who cannot return to any job at all because there is no provision in the legislation of Ontario.

This bill does not do anything to solve the crucial problem of the medical review panel of the individual cases, which are one of the most serious problems. The Workmen's Compensation Board has on staff a group of doctors who are totally insensitive to the problems of the injured workers. They will use any kind of excuse, any kind of mechanism, to keep the benefits of the injured workers low. Not only that, but doctors will throw them out of the system by using the present act.

The minister knows this bill does not do anything to solve the problem of the rating. The rating, I think, is disgusting. It has been called "the meat chart" by injured workers. It is one of the reasons thousands of human beings are suffering -- because they are treated like pieces of meat. This bill does not do anything to solve that problem.

For those reasons we support the increase, because injured workers have been waiting for an increase in their benefits. We have seen them demonstrating outside the Legislature in a very decent way, in a very honourable way, and we have seen them up there in the galleries, expressing their anger with such dignity. The government should have recognized, at least for a moment, that they are faced with a group of citizens who, after having worked hard for our society, are being penalized.

We favour the increase in benefits, but we cannot accept the measure. That is why I will support the amendments my colleague the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) will introduce, in the hope that the minister in a last moment of sanity will consider that what we are proposing is not preposterous, and is not out of line with the resources of the Workmen's Compensation Board. It is less than what any other group in our society has received until now. We hope he will accept our amendments.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go on very long for two reasons. The first one has been alluded to by all the previous speakers, and that is that a number of us have been, and expect to continue to be, working on much broader workmen's compensation issues through the select committee. That committee sat last summer and was supposed to sit well into the fall, but was short-circuited by the decision of the Premier (Mr. Davis) to bring us back in early September.

The other reason I do not want to go on too long is that the immediate need of injured workers is to get an increase in their pensions and various other compensable benefits. While I will concur with members of both my party and the New Democratic Party that the amounts listed here are not sufficient, I hope to see this legislation amended to get some changes through as quickly as possible. It certainly is not my intent to hold it up. I concur with comments made by members of both the opposition parties that there is a great deal to do with respect to meeting the needs of injured workers in this province, and much of that will be done in the coming months.

There are three issues here, two of which are dealt with in the bill and one that is not in the bill. The first issue, and I do not think there is going to be any disagreement with it, changes the name from "workmen's" to "workers'." That has long been advocated and I certainly concur with it. I cannot imagine anyone who would disagree with it. The second issue in the bill is the definition of the actual amounts that are going to be increased. Our party will go clearly on record as saying we do not believe the amounts included in the bill are sufficient. I do not pretend to have any magic number but I want to refer for a minute to some of the comments made by the minister himself.

He alluded to the fact that injured workers, like everyone else in the province, are going to have to recognize the economic situation in which we are all living today. I understand where that comment comes from. I think we all have to recognize, the minister particularly because of his responsibility in this area, that injured workers in Ontario, or for that matter in any jurisdiction, are not like the rest of us. Quite frankly, injured workers simply do not have the opportunities that other workers in the province have.

I need not recite chapter and verse -- every member of this Legislature could do so quite adequately -- about the number of injured workers who come to my constituency office, as they come to all of the others. I think particularly of those who have a permanent partial disability with which they are going to have to live for the rest of their lives. These people are told time and again they now must find light work or part-time work. The intention is that the whole compensation program is to be supplemented by this kind of work.

Yet the minister knows, as does every single member of this Legislature, that kind of work simply is not available. It is not available in numbers of jobs that would meet the needs of injured workers.

4:40 p.m.

I suspect there are not many communities in this province that have the diversity of employment opportunities of my community. We have a significant unemployment rate in my area, but we also have a diversified community -- with the manufacturing industry, the retail industry or the various service industries. It is very diversified and, if there were any places where part- time work and light work should be available my community would be one of them. It is not unique in that sense; there are many others. But injured workers, especially those who are receiving partial compensation, simply cannot find that.

The only point I am trying to make is we cannot consider the injured workers who are being affected by the legislation before us today like everyone else because they have a massive strike against them. Therefore I would argue strongly, and will support those amendments that are going to be brought forward, that the nine per cent limitation should not apply. If there is any way to maximize the increase of any group in our society, this is one we should take into consideration.

I know immediately what one of the counter- arguments is going to be. Some members will say this money has to come out of the pockets of the employers, the industries, the retailers and the manufacturers of this province, that this is not money that comes out of the pocket of the government. I understand that. I have been approached on numerous occasions, as I am sure every other member of this Legislature has been, by those people who have to pay that bill saying, "We cannot afford it."

There are a couple of factors we have to consider. The first is going right back to 1915 when a contract was made. In lieu of going to court, in lieu of the much higher settlements which might be made, in lieu of the fact that an injured worker might lose his case -- and I agree there is merit on both sides -- a contract was made. The Workmen's Compensation Board or, as it will now be called, the Workers' Compensation Board, would take the place of that. However, there has been an understanding all the way along that the agreement would result in fair compensation.

We have had a number of situations where we had to look at how fair and just that compensation has been. We are doing that again at the present time. It is my fervent hope, and we will only know whether it will be realized over the next months and perhaps years, that there will be a greater element of fairness brought into this.

The second point we have to make is that when we are dealing with the employees of a manufacturer, a retailer, a service or whatever the case may be, we are not dealing with machines, buildings, inventory, stock or utilities; we are dealing with human beings. That makes them uniquely different from any other element of an employer's operation.

That human being must be taken into consideration in a unique and different way. When people are injured on jobs, in most cases through no fault of their own, are injured assisting in the advancement of their employers' operations, they must be considered in a unique way.

We know that those who have to pay this bill are going to indicate to us: "We simply cannot afford this. We have to use that money for all of these other things." It is our job to bring to their attention that nothing can take priority over their workers. If there is one message we as members of this Legislature have to send out beyond the four walls of this room, it is that it is the people, the human beings, who are important. We must show we are going to do everything we can with whatever legislation we deal with to indicate that very strongly.

I indicated there was a third element that clearly has to be put into this, one that is not there now. That is the element of regular periodic changes. We have seen so many times the dilemma we face here today, a dilemma that has been expressed very clearly by the member for Dovercourt and my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman), that it seems to happen this way all the time. In the dying hours of these sessions this is the kind of bill we are faced with.

I do not know how many times we are going to have to say it. Surely we have learned by now there just does not seem to be any way to avoid it. The one element that simply must be introduced into this legislation -- and I would hope the minister himself would take it upon himself to do so -- is a clause that would simply say that at such-and-such a time over such-and-such a period, there will be automatic increases tied into a measuring stick on which all of us, or at least most of us, can agree. That is the one element that has been left out of this legislation.

I am certainly happy the legislation has been brought forward. I share the support of my colleagues and I compliment the minister that it is retroactive. I compliment him on the fact that the name has been changed. That might he perceived by some as simply cosmetic but it is obviously a change a lot of people desired and felt there was a need for, and we are doing it.

But the amounts in here do not meet the need. We have to consider these people with special needs as apart from the usual. Second, there is no provision in here for those automatic increases that simply must come. I would hope very strongly that the minister and government members would speak to that issue and would support it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief. It gave me a great deal of pleasure to hear the member for Dovercourt speaking. I do not know of anyone who knows more about injured workers and their problems than Tony Lupusella, and I know of no one who has devoted more of his life to helping injured workers than Tony Lupusella. I am very proud to be associated with him, not only in this caucus, but to count him as one of my friends as well.

Some of us have spent a lot of time over the years talking and working on workmen's compensation reform in Ontario. I am not talking about individual cases now. I recall being on a select committee which was looking at sickness and accident insurance and we got into the whole question of compensation -- how it is possible to have an adequate workers' compensation system separate from other forms of sickness and accident insurance.

I think if you took a poll among all three parties who sat on that committee they would tell you it is not possible to have a sane system that makes a distinction, where a person is injured, between whether a person is sick as a result of employment or whether he gets hurt on the job -- and regardless of fault as well. We live in a very complex society where it is no longer possible to make those distinctions.

There are three things we should be concerned about -- prevention of illness and accidents, income maintenance and rehabilitation. That is what should be foremost in any consideration of compensation. That is why we are all looking forward to Paul Weiler's next report and I hope the minister will indicate when we can expect that report, according to his latest information.

This bill, of course, does not deal with the broader scheme. It would be out of order to talk about it on second reading. I believe we have to overcome something that other members have hinted at as well; the member who just spoke from the Liberal Party hinted at it. If we are going to view work as something that is valued, something that gives someone a sense of worth and wellbeing in our society, we cannot then punish people for doing that. We cannot punish them because they happen to be working and get injured as a result of that work. We somehow have to get that out of our minds.

There is an obstacle in there now that says it is appropriate to penalize workers financially when they get injured on the job. This is not to be mean, but it is there, it is built into the system and nowhere is it more evident than when you get into the partial disability problem. I know it is a serious problem and I am not trying to minimize it. We worry a great deal about the level of total temporary benefits, for example, and so we should.

But the really serious problem that affects a lot more people over a longer period of time is the whole question of pensions for partial disabilities. That is something we still have not been able to come to grips with. This bill, while it raises the levels and so forth, does not deal with that at all.

4:50 p.m.

The more you look at it, the more you keep coming around full circle to the comprehensive system. It does not matter what arguments are used; it does not even matter what side you are on. If one carries the thought process through logically, one will come to the conclusion there is no other sensible solution. There are models available. The minister knows what they are. I think it is high time we moved away from this notching kind of system we have here at the whim of whoever the minister might be.

In the past it was every two years that there was a rise. This time it has been a year and a half. I will not question why it is a year and a half; it is better than two years. I will not question whether it is because it allows the government to give a nine per cent increase now, because beyond this date they would he hard-pressed to make it more than nine per cent. Then they would be going against their nine and five rule. I do not know whether that was part of the thought process or not. I will not debate that.

I believe that until the people running the compensation system in this province get it out of their heads that it is inevitable that injured workers will be financially penalized, we are going to have misery put there for injured workers. That really is not appropriate in this day and age.

I am glad to see the big honchos from the Workmen's Compensation Board under the gallery, taking this all in. I know if the minister were to turn them loose -- some if them, I wish he would turn loose, quite frankly -- and let them make some improvements, they would probably come up with some good suggestions.

This whole idea of a comprehensive system does not meet with as much disapproval at the compensation board as they might expect. I do not think it is because they see a bigger empire. I like to think it is because they know it would be more efficient and that they could do more justice to injured workers.

In conclusion, if there is one thing that would make life better for injured workers aside from this overall restructuring, it would be to live up to the motto of the Workmen's Compensation Board, "Justice humanely and speedily rendered." I believe that is still the motto at the board, and I hope the emphasis is not on rendering but on justice being humanely delivered to injured workers.

Finally, I am very pleased to see that the Liberal Party of Ontario is going to support us in our amendments to increase the level of benefits from nine per cent to 15 per cent. It is amazing what majority government will do. When there was minority government and we could have made some substantial increases, the Liberal Party, if my memory serves me correctly, voted against our amendment and in support of the government when they had an opportunity to make significant changes.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: Now, when they know it will not change, now when the government can outvote them, they join us in battle to improve the level of benefits. When they had the opportunity to make changes they chickened out. They all need a spine transplant.

Ms. Copps: The motto for that party should be tempus fugit. Time is flying while words are passing and still the injured workers have not received the increases to which they have been entitled.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by throwing a little bouquet the ministers was. Heaven knows, because of the absolutely disgusting behaviour on the part of some members he has been faced with at times in the last session of the Legislature. I think the minister deserves a couple of bouquets.

One bouquet is for the fact he has started to recognize there are workers and there are workers in Ontario which means there are men workers and there are women workers. It is not simply the Workmen's Compensation Act; it is the Workers' Compensation Act. I believe if the amendment as carried in this bill is carried in all of the legislation relating to the Workers Compensation Act -- and I hope it will be carried at some point in the future -- it is also incumbent upon the minister to translate that feeling into action at the level of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Notwithstanding the New Democratic Party's claim to fame in terms of the Workers' Compensation Act, one of the reasons I am standing in this Legislature now is because the working people of my riding were kind enough to support me. Another is that I would like to see changes I feel are critical for injured workers all over Ontario -- in Sault Ste. Marie, Hamilton or Toronto. I have been fighting, not only during my term as a legislator for the last two years, but for four years before that, so that working people in my riding can get a fair deal.

I am thinking of one issue that perhaps should be investigated at the compensation level. From time to time I have noticed some discrimination facing women, in particular, in their treatment under the Workers' Compensation Act. The minister may want to refer to an article that appeared some time last year in an Italian magazine published in Toronto. It deals with the whole subject of women and how they are treated by the board.

I cannot remember how many times I have been to a review board, or an appeals adjudicator, or appeal board hearing, with a worker who happened to be a woman. She will be asked: "Is your husband working? How much money does your husband make?" It seems to me when the compensation board is assessing the extent of a worker's injuries, whether that worker happens to be male or female, whether the spouse is working -- in particular whether the male spouse happens to be working -- should be immaterial and stricken from the record.

I am glad to see the minister is starting to look towards neutralizing the Workers' Compensation Act in this legislation. I feel it is extremely important. If I had the resources of the minister and could do an analysis of the number of women and the number of men with, let us say lumbar spine injuries, and the percentage of pensions they receive, I am sure the men, almost without exception, would be seen to receive larger pensions than the women. This is despite the paltry pensions men often receive. I am having an analysis done in my own riding now to get a breakdown on how people are being treated -- also on the basis of gender. It is something that bears looking at.

The second bouquet I would like to throw the minister's way is that he has brought in the legislation, limited though it may be, before Christmas. Let's face it, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party cannot claim credit for these increases. The credit for these increases goes to those workers, who, every Tuesday and Thursday in bitterly cold weather in the city of Toronto, came out in force to make their point in a peaceable demonstration. In terms of political action their tactics had much greater success with the minister than the tactics we saw last night from some of the so-called members of labour organizations.

It is a credit to the workers that they were able to carry on in a peaceable fashion without throwing things over the balconies. What we saw last night from the people who did was a complete disregard for the democratic process, a complete disregard for the use of parliament as the tool to exercise the will of the majority. The injured workers of this province understood that process. They came here to plead their case and, in a limited way, the minister has responded.

We do not feel his response is sufficient. We feel there should be a regular co-ordinated increase so that injured workers are not forced to demonstrate in front of the Legislature every time they need money, simply to survive over a bleak winter period. That is something we must definitely take a look at, and I am looking forward to some changes in that area.

However, once I have thrown those bouquets, there are certain other issues I would like to see raised in terms of the skewed priorities of this government. I am sure the minister was privy to an article that appeared a few weeks ago in the Toronto Sun, in which there was a very elaborate discussion of the position of his cabinet. I know the minister agreed in this House that he was going to bring the issue of injured workers to cabinet, and he did. In a limited way he was successful -- limited under the restraint program.

5 p.m.

Let us compare that with the reaction of cabinet, or in particular the reaction of the Premier (Mr. Davis), to the remonstrances of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), notwithstanding a discussion in cabinet about having doctors, who are anticipating salaries in excess of $100,000 over the next three years, brought in as an example to the people out there that we in Ontario are concerned about restraint in all sectors. We are talking not simply about restraining injured workers to a nine per cent increase but about bringing doctors in under this umbrella. In fact, it is our understanding from this article that cabinet in general tended to agree with that.

What happened in the process between this period and the actual emergence of the program that somehow doctors were left out? Is it that the Minister of Health in his capacity as a future leadership candidate potentially has more clout with the Premier than the Minister of Labour, who is expected to represent injured workers across this province? Is it that the Premier or the government is more concerned with the beneficial wellbeing of medical doctors in this province than with that of injured workers?

Those are questions I cannot answer. Those are questions that can be answered only by members on the government side, having been privy to that cabinet meeting and having been privy to the decision by the Premier to deliberately exclude the single highest-paid category of workers in this province, the physicians.

It is with great distress that I read on the one hand that this government can leave doctors right out of our restraint program and give them a three-year increase that will bring specialists' salaries on average to more than $100,000, at the same time as, by our own amendment here, there would be, "where the widow or widower is the sole dependant, a monthly payment of $537 effective the first day of July 1982."

Let us compare the figures, and I know the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) will be particularly interested in this in his capacity as a member of the standing committee on social development. In one column is $100,000 plus and in the other is $537 a month for a spouse following the death of his wife or her husband on the job. That $537 a month is all that person will be getting when his or her spouse is killed on the job. If you are unhappy enough never to have sought the state of marital bliss, or if you have divested yourself of it --

Mr. Wildman: How does one divest oneself of bliss?

Ms. Copps: Well, it could be divesting or nondivesting. But if you happen not to have a spouse or dependant, the sum total paid out, even with the changes, will be $1,300.

I believe one of the members very accurately outlined the history of compensation. One of the reasons we brought workers' compensation into this province was so that workers would not have to become embroiled in lengthy lawsuits with companies if there were a question of company negligence. In this case, if a person dies on the job with no dependants, what he is entitled to will not even cover a full funeral in Ontario. I will hazard a guess that one will find very few funerals that will come in at less than $1,300 in Ontario.

We are looking at a question of priorities. I believe the minister is extremely sincere in the concern he has expressed for injured workers, and I laud the fact that he was able to get limited help for them in the pre-Christmas period. But I am also extremely concerned that when we come to the changes affecting the Workmen's Compensation Act over the next year. it is critical that we come to grips once and for all with that incredible bureaucracy, that nightmare that is currently the Workmen's Compensation Act.

I would have to say -- I am sure there are members on all sides of the House who have experienced this -- that a tremendous amount of my time and the time of my two assistants in Hamilton is taken up with workers' compensation cases.

Mr. Di Santo: How come?

Ms. Copps: Because they both work part-time.

Interjection.

Ms. Copps: No. They are dedicated to the cause of helping injured workers across this province.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some very serious changes needed. I think the minister is aware of the reservations that have been expressed with respect to the whole issue of job deeming in the context of the Weiler report, and I am sure we will have a chance to get into that in some detail in the future.

I have to say that if there is a single group in our society that has not been treated well by previous ministers and governments, it is the group of injured workers across this province. I, for one, was extremely happy to see them mobilize, to hear them say they were going to take stock and have some input into the system, because I believe it is only by improving the way in which we treat injured workers across this province that we will be able to justify the work we are doing in the Legislature.

Again, I am horrified by a government that chooses to exempt medical doctors from the wage restraint program at the same time as it says workers must be brought in under the legislation. I am not happy with the amount of the increase, and I am looking with great interest to the day when we will be able to say that workmen's compensation in Ontario is functioning in such a way as to be a model for other jurisdictions across Canada. I see that as a long time in the future.

I thank the minister for bringing this legislation forward. Although it is certainly not living up to our expectations and those of workers across this province, I think it shows his good intent and I am very happy to support it.

I might add only the small proviso that I hope the people who do work very hard at the Workmen's Compensation Board, and indeed we have had tremendous co-operation from a number of them, will be able to get these cheques out as soon as possible so that some of the workers may be able to enjoy the fruits of our labours here in the Legislature in the very near future.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address Bill 205, An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

As other members have indicated, the nine per cent increase is welcome. I just had to pay a wager to my colleague the member for Windsor- Sandwich. We had made a wager that the increase in the compensation in the act would be about five per cent. I was partially right, because I said it would be within the provincial guidelines. The minister has chosen the high figure of nine per cent; so it is within the guidelines of the provincial government of nine and five per cent.

As has been indicated by other speakers, it has been 18 months since the last increase was given to workmen on compensation. Even then it was below the level of other incomes generated in the general public. I suggest it is not large enough even now.

I regret that I missed the minister's opening statement today. I was appearing at an appeal to the Workmen's Compensation Board. I looked at some of the amendments that would be coming forward here and particularly those related to survivor's benefits.

My appeal to the Workmen's Compensation Board this afternoon related to a person who had been employed in the nickel industry and who had contracted an industrial disease. The medical facts were that he had carcinoma of the lung. Although he had retired from the industry at the age of about 65, because of the latency and the period of exposure it had come to pass that he had to have surgery. It was discovered that he had to have part of a lobe removed. Perhaps the surgeons could not get at the whole tumour, because they just removed part of the lung and referred him for chemotherapy or radiation treatments. By that time his whole system had started to fail and other organs were affected with some further diseases.

In the appeal this afternoon, although the death certificate did relate the death to three different body organs, it did say the second major cause was obstructive lung disease. The word "silicosis" was mentioned in some of the reports, and I brought this to the attention of the board this afternoon.

5:10 p.m.

My point is that the original award given to the person who was injured was 30 per cent. It should have been given at 100 per cent, because the prognosis was not that good; it was known that the treatment would be perhaps only two years of the lifespan of that injured worker, but it was given a 30 per cent rating.

The widow, if I interpret the act correctly, is not allowed survivor's benefit; so my appeal to the board this afternoon was that the award should have been much higher than that.

I suggest that through amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act, this area should be changed. Even at a 30 per cent award, for example, the pension would have amounted to about $240 a month. If I look at that as seven per cent, because that is what they generate on the investment of that particular assessment to the industry, that could have been a $35,000 or $40,000 award.

All of a sudden he passes on, and there is nothing for the survivor. I find this in a number of cases. There is that fund set aside that he is entitled to. If he had taken full commutation at the time after surgery, he would have had perhaps $30,000 that they might have lived comfortably on. Now she is stripped of the largest part of the Canada pension plan, she is stripped of the company pension plan and she is stripped of workmen's compensation benefits.

I say to the Minister of Labour, this is an unjust procedure to follow in workmen's compensation. That is not the way I interpret the act. When the new legislation is introduced after the Weiler report, the white paper on it and the committee report to the Legislature, I hope there will b e a preamble to each section of the act stating that there is a clear understanding by both parties who appear before the board of the intent of the legislation.

I believe the Ombudsman has made comments under clause 41(a) of the previous act and section 43 of the act now that there should be a clear interpretation. In fact, he suggested it should go to the Supreme Court of Ontario for the proper interpretation; but that is a lengthy process.

I suggest the minister has the authority now to bring in a clear interpretation under section 43 of the act. I think it is a must, because there are many persons who are affected by it. It surely reduces their source of income through an injury.

I bring these points to the attention of minister, because I make a number of appearances before the Workmen's Compensation Board and I think it is more of an adversary system today than it ever was before.

In my 15 years in the Ontario Legislature. I still think the best chairman of the board was Mr. Legge. He understood the problems of the system, and he had such a keen interest in it that he would be sitting at the appeal level, at the top level, whenever a person was making an appeal at that level.

The last two chairmen do not seem to have an interest in that part. I have written to the chairman about a truck driver who had six injuries. He is totally disabled. In fact, one doctor, a specialist in the area of rehabilitation, represented him on his behalf at the board with two and a half hours' testimony, and the board shot him right down.

I do not know what one has to do to get the message through to the board on some of these problem areas that exist. He went to a doctor down on Bay Street. I imagine if one talks of Bay Street, that is about the best there is in Ontario. The report that came back outlined the difficulties this person had with the six injuries, and I think the board even turned that down.

I do not know what a person has to do. It has become such an adversary system today that doctors do not even want to b e bothered filing reports to the Workmen's Compensation Board, because they are telling us that nobody wants to listen to them there. There is the time and delay in filing report after report. We have field officers going to doctors offices and taking up their time, when information had been passed on to the board and it will not accept the doctor's report.

It is getting to the stage now where workers almost have to have a specialist to go before the board to give evidence and knock down what the doctor says. It seems the doctors at the board are arguing too much about what the family physician or even the specialist says. They say: "No, that is not good enough. This is my opinion."

It is getting to the point where the poor injured worker is caught between the two medical opinions that go forward. I suggest the minister should be looking at that, because it is a problem and too many injured workers are caught in it. I can tell the minister about cases where one doctor says, "'You should have an operation," the next specialist says, "No, I do not think there is any benefit in that," and a third doctor gives an opinion, "You have nothing to lose." Yet there is no hope.

This is the nonsense that is going on down at the board. I wish, for God's sake, that somebody would get down there and go through the records or have the members go to the minister's office and explain some of these things in detail. We do not have the time today to do it, but it is a problem.

I brought this to the attention of the previous minister in 1978 through a resolution I put forward. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) was present at the committee meeting and endorsed the resolution to revamp workmen's compensation. I regret that after three or four years and the Weiler report, we still do not have any changes in workmen's compensation.

This party always has taken the position that, regardless of where the accident happens, a person should be treated fairly by compensation. I had a problem brought to my attention the other day, for example, involving a person who had a recurrence of problems caused by an accident. He has had major heart surgery and is totally disabled now. He has had to go to family benefits for some assistance. Last September he had to go back and have further operations on his hands to tie in the tendons. His hands are useless, and I do not know whether the operations are going to be successful.

He was awarded $1,500 in round figures. The minute the cheque was delivered to him in Fort Erie, someone from the Ministry of Community and Social Services was there and took that cheque. Here is a person on a fixed income -- Canada pension plan is about all he has -- and the ministry took that cheque for $1, 500 and said he was not entitled to it.

That is right. The regulations under the Family Benefits Act say workmen's compensation is considered to be income. Yet people receiving family benefits allowance can go out and generate an extra $125 a month on top of what they are getting. I see nothing wrong with this. I think it is good. It encourages them to go out to find a permanent job or to work themselves into a permanent job. But there is an area in the Family Benefits Act that says workmen's compensation is considered to b e income.

I believe there was a recent decision not too long ago related to the Ontario Housing Corp. One of the Supreme Court judges said workmen's compensation benefits should not be considered as income because they are for personal injury. I suggest the minister should be talking to his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) about removing this provision from the Family Benefits Act.

I believe each case warrants a different approach. In this case, the ministry went in, grabbed the cheque and said: "You do not deserve that. That is not yours." Under the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act, I suggest they be permitted to generate about $1,400 or $1,600 a year. The ministry could just as well have given that cheque back to him and said, "We are going to prorate that back over the last 12 months."

In fact, the Ministry of Community and Social Services people even came in after he got his Canada pension plan benefits, took about $2,000 out of the $5,000 cheque and said, "Here, $3,000 is yours." This is what goes on.

These people are in poverty at the beginning, and they are still at that level. Somewhere along the line the act should be changed, along with the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act, to make sure this does not happen.

5:20 p.m.

I could go on and on about problems that I have seen with workmen's compensation. In fact, I wanted to appear before the select committee but I was told by the clerk that I could not appear before it because I had the opportunity to speak in the House.

I can tell of areas that should be corrected. There are problems there. I think one of the main problems is that they should start looking for a new chairman down there, somebody who is going to show some interest in workmen's compensation.

I have never had to say this before, but I think they have a lame duck chairman there who cares little about the injured workmen. It was a political appointment from the beginning and I think it is time they went out and got somebody else to do the job that he should be doing.

I have written letters and I have got to the stage where I have been so disgusted and frustrated with the actions and the decisions of the board that I referred them to the chairman and have told him to get off his good intentions and do something. I do not think the approach taken in many cases is right. In many cases, the act should be amended.

I suggest that when a new act comes in, let us put a preamble before each clause in there that there is an understanding between the two parties involved that there are no ifs, buts, maybes or shalls. It should be in there that the directions that the board should follow are clearly understood. In many cases, the board has a different interpretation of the act from the intent when it was introduced in the House by previous Ministers of Labour.

I suggest it is a serious problem and I know they are as concerned about it as I am. I appreciate that, but it is too bad that as late in the session as this we get amendments to the act being cut off in a sense, they are almost being muzzled because the time does not permit us to get into the act in detail on amendments. We do support the amendments put forward by the New Democratic Party.

I raised that question a week or two ago. I was concerned about it. I think he was right when he said that, "Because of the filibuster that is going on in the Legislature, I do not know when I am going to introduce the bill." I know the minister was concerned about it. He said he was ready to introduce the bill in the House, and of course it is like other priorities to put forward here in the House.

There is another good bill here, Bill 178, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act. Hopefully, the government will be debating that in this session, because there are some good amendments in there that are going to protect the persons in receipt of pension benefits, particularly those in a number of industries that have gone down and are in receivership or bankruptcy. The act will provide some security to those persons who contribute to the plan.

There has been a filibuster that has been carried on by the NDP since September 21, but this surely does indicate that there is other important legislation that should be dealt with in this session. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to debate the bill in more detail.

I will tell the members that this late in this session we do not really have time to get into these bills in full detail and to debate some of the main issues that are facing the injured workers in particular.

Hopefully, the committee will be reporting, and the other white paper report on the Weiler report should be before the committee now so that next year we can come up with a new Workmen's Compensation Act that would consider Canada pension and other benefits that will provide sufficient income.

It is great to have the Premier (Mr. Davis) sitting over there. Maybe the message will get through to him too.

I suggest that we support the bill in principle. Again, though, it does not go quite far enough. I think that for these persons who are 18 months behind in income, it is not high enough. There are areas there that should be discussed in detail, and I just do not have the time to do it. I have been told I should not be talking too long.

We do support the bill and support the amendments put forward by the third party.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, speaking in favour of Bill 205, I think there is one issue that comes to the attention of individual members on a most frequent basis as they represent their constituencies. I think everyone would agree that it would probably be problems that are encountered with the Workmen's Compensation Board specifically, those who are unable to obtain payment in their specific cases. Looking at it in a broader context, the number of people who would come forward to indicate their concern to us about the level of compensation provided within the act is also rather great.

With some of the greatest hardship stories we hear as individuals, particularly when we have a circumstance where there is relatively high unemployment in the province and in special parts of the province, we have a situation where, because of inflation and the effects of inflation on this group of people. they are not going to be able to obtain additional assistance from other areas.

From time to time, they have the opportunity to apply for social services and the assistance that can be provided there, but in some cases, and I think probably in most cases, there is a requirement that they pay them back. They have the opportunity, and they do not enjoy this, to have the amount deducted on a monthly or weekly basis, or whenever they happen to be receiving their cheques. That makes it difficult for this group in society, which is most vulnerable.

There is also their dependence. With others, I suppose once in a while there is an opportunity to go out and gain some additional part-time employment because they are physically able to do so. It may not be their first choice by any means, but nevertheless it is a choice they would have to make.

However, those who encounter difficulties with injuries and are unable because of injuries to seek the additional funding which would come from a part-time job, find themselves completely dependent on the largess of the provincial government through the act which has been known as the Workmen's Compensation Act and is now to be known as the Workers' Compensation Act.

We certainly support the additional funding that is going to be made available to these people. It is desirable they have more money. It would be desirable that many people in our society would have more money available to them, particularly those who are most vulnerable, but this is a step in the right direction.

I think most members of the House regret, and I would anticipate many members on the government side regret, that this legislation was unable to come forward earlier. In my view, it should have taken precedence over certain other items because these people are in need if we look at the people we represent in our constituencies. It is as good as a Christmas present to see this bill being brought forward. It is good to see that it is not simply on the one amount, but is on a number of various items where the government is prepared to increase the amount that is allocated.

I think most particularly of people who have lost limbs. I notice that in section 10 it mentions the allowance for the repair and replacement of clothing worn or damaged by a lower limb prosthesis or a back brace is increased from $209 to $316, and by an upper limb prosthesis from $145 to $158. That does not affect a lot of people in Ontario, but for those it does affect it is very meaningful to them.

We in this party are prepared to support this change in the act the minister has brought forward. We commend him on bringing it forward. We will be supporting amendments that will attempt to improve the legislation. The people in our constituencies who have called us on many occasions about this will have at least a flicker of good news for the Christmas season in what is a difficult and hard winter.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments concerning the matter before the House at this time, specifically the bill to increase pensions for injured workers in Ontario. The minister has called for a nine per cent increase. Certainly none of the members of the Legislature, including myself, would in any way want to hinder the process or the speedy passage of this legislation, because we believe that the injured workers are more than deserving of this nine per cent increase.

5:30 p.m.

Possibly the legislation could have been introduced some time ago, but I was told that in my absence there was quite a bit of debate on another important bill. I do not want to open up a can of worms about whether the stalling tactics on that bill were appropriate or not. I would like to keep my comments strictly to the matter that appears before us today.

Like myself and all the other members of the Legislature, I am sure even the Premier has injured workers visit his constituency office to explain to him or his staff the difficulties they are encountering in the system; difficulties with the way appeals are handled, the way representation is made on behalf of injured workers and with the amount of time that appears to be necessary for appeals to be heard. I would like to zero in on some of those concerns.

I would like, first, to express my concern about the pension system itself that the board has established through legislation and, I guess, by precedent-setting decisions made by the appeals tribunal of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, after they have exhausted all other avenues, injured workers have the privilege of making a final appeal to the appeals tribunal where a three-person panel is appointed to hear the case as it has been reviewed for them and to hear any extenuating circumstances that the claims review branch or the adjudicator may not have taken into consideration.

I would like to say to the minister, I realize that when negative decisions are handed out and there is an appeal possible, the persons receiving such a decision will always avail themselves of any recourse to appeal that is left to them. So I understand the logistical problem the board faces. Thousands of workers have had negative decisions rendered against them and, of course, with the final appeal available to them, one would be foolish to think they would not use it. So the situation has reached a point such that even the applying and waiting for a hearing date has become extremely cumbersome.

I have had dozens of situations where it takes not weeks but months to get before the appeal tribunal. It is very disconcerting, not only to myself as the member, but particularly to the injured workers who have to go through the extremely long waiting period. This is so for several reasons. If the injured worker has been ruled against, it possibly means there is no money coming in from any source at all. Or it may be that surgery is necessary to correct an injury and the injured worker is not sure whether he should go ahead and allow surgery to take place or to wait out the final stages of the appeal process.

Frankly, the time frame that is now used to hear these final appeals is such that the evidence it is necessary to give at these hearings becomes blurred. People's memories become blurred; the witnesses to the injury may have moved to a different part of Ontario or out of the province; they may have moved on to a different job; they may have lost contact with the injured worker. Any number of things could have happened.

I know the minister has the authority to appoint people who sit on these tribunals, and I am sure there is no deliberate effort -- at least I hope not -- to slow the process down to the snail's pace at which it now moves. But surely something has to be done. It is just not right or proper any more to force injured workers to wait for months.

It is very difficult as a member to explain to an injured worker who finds himself in this situation that the application for appeal has been made and maybe we will hear the case in three to six months. It is just incredible from the injured workers' point of view. It gives them the impression that the system is deliberately working against them. It gives them the impression that people are concerned for workers when they are physically able to work, and that when they are no longer physically able, society is just not all that concerned for them.

I believe that in many instances it affects the personality, the nature and the general lifestyle of the injured worker. The system causes problems not only for the injured worker himself but also for the injured worker's family, for his relatives and for people he touches, and it has a far greater impact than some of us may acknowledge.

I have seen this happen. I have regretted it many times as I have watched these cases move along like this. But we all know that as members of the Legislature it is impossible to get these hearings any sooner. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if it is possible to get these hearings sooner; if, for some unknown reasons, it is the way members are going about it that is causing the slowdown, I would like him to tell us, because I want to ensure a speedy hearing for the injured workers I represent and for the injured workers collectively across Ontario.

The matter of pension decisions has troubled me since the first day I was elected to the Legislature, when I had the opportunity to sit through the Workmen's Compensation Board estimates. I found that most members were experiencing the same problems I was and still am, and they are the amount of pension award, the problems it causes and the things that possibly could be done but are done either in a halfhearted way or not at all as to the assistance that could be given to the injured workers.

I speak specifically of the partial disability award. It is just ridiculous for us to assume that by granting injured workers a 20 per cent award we have done our duty, and we can wash our hands of the situation and they will then be able to look after themselves. It is just ridiculous.

5:40 p.m.

An industrial worker is prone to injury when he is required to do heavy manual labour as part of his normal duties. When the injuries become a chronic problem, which they usually do, those workers cannot go back to their job no matter what the company, or how good the injured worker's record is or how determined the worker is. They cannot go back because they can no longer do the job.

I have gone to the workmen's compensation estimates. I have gone before the appeals tribunal. I have explained these problems, and I am sure other members of the Legislature have. But we insist on doing the same things today as we did seven years ago -- and I am sure many years before that.

We must come to grips with the problem of partially disabled workers. What are we going to do with injured workers who have been assigned a meagre disability payment, an amount of money that is almost laughable? We could not even expect a single person living in a rooming house to live on the amount of money granted to these injured workers. Yet the compensation board and the government that oversees the compensation board seems to feel not only that injured workers should be able to live on these pensions but that their families should be able to live on them too.

We are never going to solve the problem of injured workers in our province until we come to grips with that. So what options do we have in assisting injured workers who have been deemed to be partially disabled -- workers who have been given a 15 per cent, 20 per cent or even 30 per cent pension? What else can we do, and what else should we do, for these injured workers when they are unable to return to their jobs?

I am sure these cases have been brought to you directly by injured workers in your own riding, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the managements of companies are not under any obligation to rehire those injured workers. They use the workers when they are healthy and the moment they get injured they are under no further obligation. What are we going to do for these workers? Are we going to retrain them? If we do, what is the best way to retrain them? Many of them are first-generation immigrants. Many of them have a limited background in formal education.

Mr. Breaugh: The member seems to have run out of things to say here.

Mr. Cooke: It is a filibuster.

Mr. Mancini: I guess the member for Windsor-Riverside would know what a filibuster is.

I have a long list I wanted to bring to the attention of the Legislature today, but I am informed we are under a severe time constraint. We have been under severe time constraint ever since the New Democratic Party laid siege to the Legislature and, with their stalling tactics, prevented anything from being done. They have limited my ability to speak on behalf of injured workers and I resent that. The injured workers of my riding will resent it.

In winding up, I would like to say to the minister that in no way have we had a proper opportunity today to lay before the Legislature and bring to its attention the problems that affect workers in this province. We have not had a proper opportunity and we can thank the New Democratic Party for that. I hope at some time in the near future this matter concerning injured workers will appear before the House again and I will be able to finish my comments.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the various members who have participated in the debate today. They expressed some concerns that I believe are common to both sides of this House and are shared by all three parties. For that reason, I am looking forward to the report of the standing committee on resources development when it finishes its deliberations on the Weiler report. I am anxious that committee reconvene early in the new year and table its report as soon as possible.

I particularly want to pay tribute to the member for Dovercourt. I support what the member for Nickel Belt said about his dedication and the work he has done over the years in the field of injured workers, as have so many people on all sides of this Legislature.

I was disappointed in the comments made by the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) about the present chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board and I must respectfully disagree with what he said. In the time I have been Minister of Labour I have found the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board has been very aggressive, innovative and concerned. He has played a major role in bringing forward change within the Workmen's Compensation Board.

One area the chairman has excelled in is a matter that was brought to our attention today by the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman), the gainful employment of injured workers. That is one area where the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board has done a most commendable job. He travelled around this province and was making great strides in that respect until, regrettably, the economy worsened and made this more difficult to do. That is just one of the measures he feels strongly about, as do I , and one he is determined to do something about.

I have to make a couple of comments about the references to the size of the increase because there is some inconsistency here. A few days ago, the member for Erie asked me in the House if I would be bringing in benefit increases in keeping with the current restraint program. In other words, he gave the impression he felt those increases should be commensurate with the restraint philosophy in this province. This bill will do that.

I would also refer the members to Hansard. I do not have the date, but during one of the debates and questions about benefit increases, the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) indicated he felt 10.8 per cent was a reasonable figure. Perhaps I am quoting him out of context, but nevertheless it is there in Hansard that 10.8 per cent was suggested by the member for Downsview as a figure we should be looking at. So 10.8 per cent is a long way from 15 per cent though it is not a long way from nine per cent. It must be borne in mind that the increase was 10 per cent last time around and that these increases are tax free.

I would like to make the increases greater than they are. I say that most sincerely. I really wish they could be 15 per cent or 10.8 per cent, but nine per cent is the figure. As I explained in my opening remarks, that we felt was appropriate under these conditions.

The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) referred to the injured workers demonstrating outside this building and said it was through their efforts that this legislation was finally brought through. I feel the injured workers deserve all the credit in the world for demonstrating and for constantly bringing their concerns to my attention. They do that quite articulately and regularly. Certainly it was a peaceful type of demonstration each Tuesday and Thursday outside the House and in this Legislature the other day. On that day probably the only person who was unruly was the Minister of Labour, but the injured workers were quite peaceful.

However, the point I wanted to make is that it really was not necessary for them to demonstrate -- although I respect their right to demonstrate. I had assured them and their spokespersons on more than one occasion that the increases would be brought forward and certainly put in place before the Christmas recess.

Those are the only remarks I would like to make at this time. I am afraid I will be in estimates this evening and it will not be possible to --

Hon. Mr. Wells: The parliamentary assistant will be here.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have been told the parliamentary assistant will handle a portion of the legislation this evening.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 205, An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Mr. Chairman: What is the pleasure of the House? Are we going to continue?

Mr. Lupusella: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have a series of amendments I would like to send to you for your information.

Mr. Chairman: Please do.

Mr. Lupusella: I have sent another copy to the minister and to the official opposition.

Mr. Chairman: On what section is the first amendment?

Mr. Lupusella: We are dealing with section 4.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments prior to section 4?

Sections I to 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that section 36(1) of the act as set out in clause 4(1)(a) of the bill be amended by striking out "$1,300" and substituting "$2,000"; in clause 4(1)(c), striking out "$537" and substituting "$570"; in clause 4(1 )(d), striking out "$537," "$149" and "$167' and substituting respectively "$570," "$158" and "$177"; in clause 4(1)(e), striking out "$167" and substituting "$177"; in clause 4(1)(f), striking out "$537" and substituting "$570."

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks in relation to this motion. As I stated in my opening remarks, this motion was moved previously by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) on June 30, 1980. Of course, the amendments were defeated by the Conservatives. Generally speaking what I am trying to emphasize in this motion is that the amendment sets out a scale of compensation to be paid where an injury results in death.

This amendment increases the amount payable for burial allowance to $2,000, to a dependent widow or widower $507 per month, to children of a dependent widow or widower $158 per month, and to dependent children $177 per month. What we are doing in this motion is escalating the allowances already provided in the bill introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay). The only difference is that instead of nine per cent, we increase the percentage to 15 per cent as of July 1, 1982.

It is necessary to do so because dependent widows or widowers are really living in a state of poverty. Their total annual income is below the poverty line, and there is a great necessity to increase the monthly pension, based on the fact that the family breadwinner passed away in an accident and may have left dependent children who are in great need. We are trying to increase the monthly pension of a widow or widower, and also to give an opportunity to the children to be educated in the years to come. There is an urgent need to increase the annual income from pensions for survivors of people who passed away as a result of an injury. Their families should not suffer the consequences of that.

The other point I would like to raise is, if a person dies as a result of an automobile accident, I am sure the total amount of money the family will receive is far above the figure provided by the Workmen's Compensation Board. We do not want to see in Ontario, families suffering the consequences of an accidental death as a result of an injury that took place at work.

So I am urging members of the Legislature to support the motion.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

December 16, 1982