Hansard Transcripts 1984-Nov-06 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have heard with some alarm there is a secret cabal of the cabinet and a cabinet directive not to discuss issues of great import to the future of this province. Indeed, there has been a conspiracy by this government to gag the various players who are aspiring to the sacred responsibility of being the leader of that party and thereby the Premier of this province.

We have seen occasions before in this country when there have been these secret kinds of agreements, as admitted, for example, by the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, one Pat Carney, who agreed before the last federal election to a secret agreement with various Conservative energy ministers not to discuss the pricing of energy during that campaign. We have some reason to believe we will be betrayed in the not-too-distant future by that secret agreement.

Now we have evidence, admitted, I gather, by no less a person than the present Premier (Mr. Davis) that there has been a conspiracy not to discuss in the leadership campaign the issues of bilingualism, rent control, separate school funding and the government's investment in Suncor. All those are contentious issues that have a great impact on the future of this country.

What I am saying is that our privileges in the opposition have been abused by this secret agreement. It effectively mugs us, prevents us from asking questions as well as gags the people in your own party and denies them free and full debate. They are asking their party to buy a pig in a poke, to buy the great unknown. They are thereby asking the people of this province, who are deprived of that same kind of full public discussion, to buy some unknown commodity.

Mr. Speaker, I would assume you would find this whole secret agreement offensive in the extreme and that you would use your good offices to try to persuade the government to make sure the people of the Conservative Party and the people of this province understand what they are buying when they buy the next leader of that party.

I believe this kind of secret agreement by cabinet is the most offensive display of the practice of democracy that is possible, when they are aspiring to elect the next Premier of this province, and I believe you have a responsibility in that regard, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would have to say I do not know anything about any secret agreement and, even if I did, it would be beyond my authority and jurisdiction to do anything about it anyway.

I would just like to point out to you that the points you made, good as they may be, nevertheless hardly form a point of privilege.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Council of Regents is continuing to seek a negotiated settlement with the union representing teaching staff at the province's 22 colleges of applied arts and technology, who went on strike on October 17, 1984.

Since that time, staff from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and from the 22 colleges have been working together to address issues of concern to students. These will continue to be assessed on an ongoing basis until the strike ends. However, I should like members of the House and certainly students in this province to be aware of the situation at this time.

Information provided by the colleges indicates that currently all full-time programs can be rescheduled and completed this year. To accomplish this, it will be necessary to extend classes beyond previously scheduled completion dates, but financial assistance programs will be modified and extended as necessary for students in such programs.

Students will be notified as soon as possible if future developments result in the need for a significant extension to complete programs of instruction or if it is necessary to cancel programs. If this occurs, full tuition-fee refunds will be provided on request to students who cannot accommodate the modified schedules and to students in cancelled programs. No academic penalty will be recorded on transcripts. Similar provisions will be made for part-time students.

Federally sponsored students should contact their local Canada Employment Centre counsellor for information concerning training allowances, but I would like to say we have received the most unusual and overwhelming support from the staff of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission in trying to meet the concerns of the federally sponsored students within the college system. It is my understanding that they will be pleased to deal on an individual basis with each of those students, but that they are doing their very best to ensure their continuing maintenance during the dispute.

I would urge all students not to become discouraged and I would urge them to make every effort to continue their studies once this strike is settled.

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SUNCOR

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Minister of Industry and Trade, as the one who is responsible for industrial policy in this province as well as one who aspires to be the Premier of this province.

What is the minister's position today on Suncor? Has he changed his position? What will he do with Suncor, that $650-million oil company of which we now proudly own 25 per cent? What will his position be if he becomes the leader of that party? Is he going to keep it? Is he going to sell it? Or is he going to stand up then and admit it was a horrible mistake? What is his position now and what will it be then?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would think that was not a question directed at my ministry and I will not comment on it.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is so chatty and charming when it suits his purpose. Here is a man who aspires to lead.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: We have spent $650 million on 25 per cent of that oil company. He is aware the taxpayers of this province are out of pocket, after some two and a half or almost three years of ownership, close to $225 million in interest paid. I ask the minister, as one who is going to try to lead this province and one who wants to make all the important decisions, what is he going to do with it? Is he going to keep it? Is he going to sell it? Is he going to be the honourable person I know he is and stand up and say it was a terrible mistake? Is he going to say he was against it at the time? Is he is going to fudge his position now because he aspires to the leadership but get rid of it later? Which is it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not know how the supplementary leads from my response, except to say I have, and I am much luckier than the Leader of the Opposition, an opportunity to sit in the cabinet of this province. I have an opportunity to offer my point of view on any policy coming before the government of this province.

I have learned one thing, and I hope the member's party may learn it one day too, and that is that once a policy position is taken, we on this side defend it. We have done that for years. It has been one of the reasons for our success. Our disagreements are private, not public, like those of the member opposite.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, apparently there are a lot of things about the Tory party that are private that should be public.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Is it true there is some kind of understanding among the various leadership hopefuls, if I may use that term in its loosest sense, with respect to issues that are controversial, for example, Suncor, official bilingualism, rent control, just to mention some? Has there been any agreement of any kind among the hopefuls? Does that offer an explanation as to why the minister is remaining silent on the questions we are putting to him today?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I said this morning at a press conference that there were certain policy matters of this province that were to be maintained because they were the policies of this province. We have an understanding, as I see it, that they will be maintained, and I am proud to maintain them. I think that question will have to be asked of others.

Mr. Peterson: This is an extremely important question, not just for now but for the future.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister saying that, assuming he will be the next leader of that party, the next Premier, he would be bound by previous decisions? Would he change his mind? Does he not feel, as the honourable gentleman that I know he is, that he has an obligation to make his feelings, his thoughts and his policy options known, not only to Progressive Conservatives who will vote for him or his colleagues in that race, but also to the people of this province? Surely there is a fundamental question of honour and integrity of the process at stake here. I would like to know the minister's opinion on those matters as one who aspires to that high trust.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would. The fact is that, where policies are in place and are policies of this government, they are the policies of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the ministers of cabinet and I do defend those policies.

As for the second part of his question, would those policies be carried on by me or any of my other candidates for that office, I have every right, as any other potential new leader would have, to review any policy, to change any policy, when I have the authority to do so.

Mr. Peterson: So the Tories are going to buy a surprise package. They will take the nicest person and will get what they find afterwards. That is a strange way to run a party and a democracy.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: It is not just a party, it is the government, and it has certain other responsibilities or it will not be the government for very much longer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education on this critical matter she addressed in vague generalities today. Frankly, her remarks take us not very much closer to any real understanding of her contingency plans.

What particular offer was put forward by the Council of Regents? What are the specifics of this new offer? What is the state of the negotiations now? Is the minister expecting a quick resolution?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot present to the honourable member the precise terms of the offer. It is my understanding the offer specifically dealt with finding mechanisms to ensure work load is not intolerable for any member of faculty within any of the colleges.

I cannot recall the precise details because I have not seen them on paper; I am simply aware of the framework of the offer. It is there, it has been presented and, I think, it is being responded to by the union. I believe those negotiations are going on this afternoon. I am always optimistic and I am hopeful, but I do not know whether I can suggest there will be an immediate and positive response.

Mr. Peterson: How can the minister say the offer is a reasonable and innovative way of dealing with the dispute if she does not even know what it is? She stands up again supporting an offer, the specifics of which she does not understand.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Yet, she says it is reasonable, implying that anybody who does not take it is unreasonable. Surely she has just fouled up the negotiations again. Surely she is becoming the issue in this situation.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That needs a little more rehearsal. It did not look very natural.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If the Leader of the Opposition injured his finger, I would be pleased to look after it for nothing. I will not even ask for his Ontario health insurance plan number.

The member asked for details. I cannot provide those details because I do not have a copy of the offer. I do know it developed a mechanism for ensuring there would not be an intolerable work load for any member of faculty. The mechanism for dealing with concerns will not be as long and cumbersome as going directly to a grievance procedure. It appeared to be a very reasonable kind of framework for finding a solution. I do believe it is reasonable and I hope it will be seen to be such by the members of the union who are negotiating.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the least the minister could do is send the leader of the Liberal Party an extra bill.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No bill at all.

Mr. Rae: You are all heart.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: The minister will know that a couple of days ago a news blackout with respect to the negotiations was agreed to by all the parties. In today's newspapers, in particular I think in the Toronto Star, we read a full account by the minister that an offer has been put and the nature of the offer. Now she is discussing that offer on the floor of the Legislature.

I ask the minister, is there or is there not a news blackout? Does she not think that as a minister of the crown the least she could do at this stage of the game, having done all that she has done so far, would be to observe a period of silence for a couple of days in order to let the parties reach a settlement? Does she not think that would be wise?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting suggestion and I would be delighted to accommodate the leader of the third party. Will he please suggest that the same kind of procedure might be directed to the Leader of the Opposition?

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Has the minister instructed the Council of Regents to address the work load issue? Has she given any signs of her own good faith by saying, "We will put some of the money accumulated through the strike on the table to address that question"? Has she made any conciliatory gestures in the so-called reasonable and innovative offer that has been made? What leadership has she taken in trying to solve that impasse at the table with money?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I sincerely hope the position that has been taken is conciliatory. However, I remind the member that there has not been and will not be a windfall. The money that, as he says, is saved on a daily basis will be expended within the system to ensure the students do not lose their academic year. It is certainly not a windfall and it is not additional money that could be dedicated to the kind of activity he is talking about.

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier, the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. I have a letter dated October 29 that was written to my colleague the House leader, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), by the president of the Ontario Status of Women Council. The letter is interesting in the sense that it has in big print, "Office of the Deputy Premier," and then in little print, "Ontario Advisory Council on the Status of Women." It is on his letterhead. It comes from his office. It says, "Office of the Deputy Premier," so it comes from his office.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Why does this letter say, "Bill 141 also includes positive changes for live-in domestic workers"? Why does the letter say that when as long ago as October 12, 1984, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) had to stand in his place and apologize to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) for making the same fundamental mistake?

Surely the minister knows and surely the people in his office know that Bill 141 has nothing at all to do with the problems of domestic workers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the letter to which reference is made relates to the office of the advisory council. It looks after its own mail. The reporting relationship is to the Office of the Deputy Premier. That letter would not have been prepared in my office, but obviously would have been prepared by the author of the letter. I do not have that letter. Therefore, I am at some disadvantage in discussing it.

One thing is quite sure: Bill 141 does take some very positive steps with respect to equal pay because it brings in amendments to the Employment Standards Act and will bring in equal pay for work of equal value for substantially similar work. I hope the member can be persuaded to get on and pass that legislation on behalf of the women of Ontario.

Mr. Rae: The minister refers to equal pay. The Deputy Premier should know, and I hope he does realize, that the recent study by Mr. Gunderson shows that what he has proposed is even less than a 10 per cent solution; it is something like a five per cent solution to the problem.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister aware that in 1980 there was a very real press statement by the then chairman of the Ontario Status of Women Council, and that it is interesting the statement nowhere mentions the Office of the Deputy Premier or any other cabinet minister? At that time, it was an independent advisory council.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It still is.

Mr. Rae: It does not look like it. The minister says it is independent. It certainly does not seem that way.

At that time the then chairman, Lynne Gordon, said equal pay legislation was absolutely necessary to deal with the inequalities between men and women in the workplace. Does the minister not feel it is nothing less than the decline and fall of a good idea that in 1980 the council was stating an independent position and pushing the government to move, while today we have a status of women council that is nothing more or less than an apologist for the government of the day?

Hon. Mr. Welch: This government has been committed to the concept of equal pay since 1951 when the first legislation was brought in. The member, in his fairness, will understand that has been there. There have been amendments to the legislation over the years. Another one is now before the House in the form of Bill 141.

We have made substantial progress in this whole business of equal pay. This House has embraced the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. The member knows very well that Gunderson and other authorities to whom he makes reference understand that it requires some further consideration with respect to how one effects the implementation.

The member will have to agree the same Gunderson report talks about the gap that will be closed and the percentage that will be the result of taking this step. There are further steps to be taken. Gunderson goes on to point out that substantial strides will be taken when we can eliminate the whole question of occupational segregation and work towards the time when we have a work place where gender is not relevant any more, when we have jobs without gender in this province. This is all part of the evolution and the stages that have to take place to ensure full equality for women in the work place.

Bill 141 is just one of those steps. I urge members to get on and pass it and let us continue to take the further steps that are necessary to ensure there is economic equality for women in this province. Surely the member must be convinced of that.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the fundamental issue of the independence of the advisory council on the status of women. Surely the minister can understand the problem and the perception that is created when a letter such as this is sent out, whether it is to my friend the House leader of the third party or to any other member of this Legislature or to a member of the public, on this kind of an issue with the minister's office as part of the letterhead.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: Does the minister agree that the Touche Ross report he tabled in the Legislature and gave to the opposition critics contains a rather unfortunate lack of recognition of the independence of the advisory council by suggesting that the role of the council president remain part time and that the council not get the kinds of funds necessary to be a truly independent body?

It also suggests that the roles of the minister, the president of the council and the executive director of the women's directorate are far too closely aligned and denies independence by urging them to work together on policy issues rather than allowing the council to have its own measures of independence.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as my honourable friend knows, the estimates of the Deputy Premier are before the committee of supply and I am sure we will have ample opportunity in the remaining time to discuss what I think is a very important issue he raises. I am not here to apologize for the Touche Ross report. We asked for a report and that is the report. He is entitled to be critical of the report, as I am, and we will discuss that during the course of the estimates.

What my friend and the leader of the third party have not told the House, of course, is that when responsibility or accountability to this Legislature for the advisory council rested with another minister, that letterhead was used. It is simply a method of identifying the route of accountability to the Legislature. The Provincial Secretariat for Social Development had that responsibility, and I am sure if the member looks up the letterhead he will see the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development and then particular identification of the source of the correspondence, as the status of women council.

The status of women council in this province is an arm's-length body. I respect that and will continue to respect that, regardless of what conclusions are drawn on the basis of a letterhead.

Mr. Rae: The minister is really demonstrating himself to be pre-eminently one of Santa's prehistoric friends when it comes to the discussion of staged progress.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: He has scarcely reached the palaeolithic age in terms of recognizing equality for men and women in Ontario today. If it is an arm's-length relationship he has with the Ontario Status of Women Council, all I can say is it is a pretty short arm. The very wording is precisely the same as the arguments he has used in the House in terms of rights. The president of the council even makes the same mistake the Minister of Labour made with respect to domestic workers.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member please place his question.

Mr. Rae: I was just getting to it, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister sit down with the president of the council and go over with her the fact there are literally dozens of women's groups, ranging from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women to the Equal Pay Coalition, groups right across society, which reject the approach of the status of women council to Bill 141 and take the opposite view of Bill 141, regarding it as a fraud and as a barrier to real progress in terms of equal pay? Will he sit down and discuss that and then come back here and report what his plans are for legislation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I could just pick up on what seems to be the question: it would hardly be consistent with being at arm's length if I were to call on any president of an arm's-length organization and dictate what she should tell me. The fact that she happens to have some views in that letter that might correspond with ours might even be a rebuttal of the sweeping statement the member has made about critics of the bill.

2:30 p.m.

I would plead with him to take a look at this jurisdiction and compare it with this comment with respect to equal pay. I will sit in my place and wait for him to share those views with me during my estimates.

Second, let us get on with Bill 141 and provide another positive step towards equal pay for women. The women of this province deserve to have at least that indication of the member's support along with ours.

Mr. Rae: Now we have the ultimate fraud. The minister is responsible for calling the bill. The bill has been called once --

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Rae: -- since the House resumed sitting. He would rather debate the question of what is the official song or the official bird than introduce equal pay legislation in this province.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Has he had a chance to read the document put out by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto called Caring for Profit?

In a report dated March 27, 1984, from the office of the chief coroner of Ontario it is stated that in 1982 there were 138 accidental deaths in nursing homes while at the same time there were 47 accidental deaths in homes for the aged.

Can the minister explain why this is? Can he explain why, in 1983, there were 174 accidental deaths in nursing homes and 47 in homes for the aged? Can he explain why there are 3.5 to four times as many people dying in accidents in nursing homes, which are run on a for-profit basis, as die in homes for the aged, which are run on a not-for-profit basis?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report to which the member first referred. The answer to the second part of his question is no, I cannot give him any explanation for that now. However, I think it is absolutely preposterous that he would stand in this House and suggest there is any relationship between those two matters.

Mr. Rae: Let us be clear about what is preposterous. What is preposterous is the way the minister runs the health care system for old people in Ontario. The private deals the government has worked out with the nursing home industry leave them with a virtual monopoly in care for older people. That is what is absolutely preposterous.

What is the minister's explanation? Is he aware this number of accidental deaths has occurred in nursing homes? What is his explanation for the vast discrepancy with the number of accidental deaths in homes for the aged?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I already indicated to the member I cannot speculate now as to what the explanation might be for the relative difference in the number of deaths he has cited. I am not familiar with the report to which he has referred. However, it borders upon the scandalous that he should stand here and suggest there is some relationship between the fact care for the elderly in some instances is provided in the private sector and the number of deaths that might occur in those institutions. That is absolutely irresponsible garbage.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware there are some private for-profit nursing homes that are either unable or unwilling to provide the required level of service. The minister and his ministry have dealt with some of those. The difficulty lies in what one must do.

Has the ministry any plan to provide funding assistance, guaranteed or low-cost loans, or whatever, for private nonprofit groups to take over such homes? I refer to groups such as charitable institutions or service clubs. Has he any plans to have them take over such homes rather than to leave them in the hands they are in now, where obviously the changes required simply are not going to be made?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is true there may be some deficiencies. We have acknowledged that, and there are charges now before the courts in some of those cases. They must be in compliance and they know that. In the last six or eight months we have substantially toughened up the enforcement of regulations under our nursing home legislation. Recently I announced measures being taken to enforce compliance, even by those homes that were grandfathered, those that predate the inception of legislation in this province in the early 1970s. They will be in compliance within a two-year period.

The question as it relates to nonprofit involvement in the nursing home field is certainly open to any nonprofit organization that wishes to become involved. In fact, a number have become involved during the last several years, sometimes under the auspices of a hospital, at other times under the auspices of other nonprofit organizations. So it is not an exclusive domain of the private or of the profit-making sector, as seems to be the obsession of the leader of the third party.

Mr. Rae: There is no obsession. I am surprised the minister has not taken the time to get hold of this document put out by the social planning council.

I would like to refer the minister to page 94 of this document, where it quotes from the recent report of the task force of the Canadian Medical Association, which expressed concerns about the quality of care in private/profit nursing homes and urged a move towards a different way of managing those homes. This report says:

"According to information received from the coroner's office, there were 174 unnatural deaths in nursing homes in 1983 compared with only 47 in charitable and municipal homes for the aged. There are approximately the same number of residents in the two types of facilities. While it is obviously impossible to draw conclusions from these statistics without more information, these data, in combination with the recent inquests and numerous reports of violations of the Nursing Homes Act, do raise serious questions about the quality of care in some nursing homes."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Does the minister not agree that it does raise serious questions? Will he undertake to the House to investigate and come up with an explanation of why those figures would be so different?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not suggesting that any death in any institutional setting in this province is not a matter of concern. But I would suggest to the leader of the third party that one might view the documents of the social planning council with greater objectivity. It has also at times been known to be motivated more by ideological concerns than by objectivity, I suggest.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities about the college strike.

The minister is aware that among the wide range of programs offered in the colleges are the eight-week compulsory courses for apprentices. Is the minister also aware, however, that those eight-week slots are scheduled a year in advance and that any apprentice who is or was in the midst of the course during this strike will lose that program this time around? He has already lost three weeks and cannot be rescheduled for a whole year. The subsequent penalty attached to that is not only the loss of the credit but also the loss of a wage upscaling that goes with that credit.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister aware of this? Has she taken any steps to compensate such people for this unfair penalty, over which the students have had no control, particularly when we are trying to encourage more young people to go into the apprenticeship program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the particular hazard relating to the short-course students. It is my understanding that the colleges are making every attempt to work with the employers to reschedule in the most appropriate way either interrupted or postponed courses for the students in order to ensure they meet the requirements of the students as rapidly as they can and bend over backwards to try to accommodate an increased number of students in those situations in order to ensure more students will be able to achieve that finality of their apprenticeship activity and gain their journeyman status.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with a student at Loyalist College in Belleville who is quite worried about the present situation. I would like to ask the minister for some specifics.

Here we have a case of a lady who has left her present job to upgrade or improve herself. If this strike goes on, she will not have an income from the federal government to support herself and her family and pay for other expenses she has. Could the minister give us some specifics today on how this type of student will be assisted if the strike continues?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it abundantly clear at the end of my statement that the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission has been extremely helpful and very generous in dealing with the problems of this kind of student within the college system. I think I also made it very clear that individual students should contact their local employment centre counsellor who will be of assistance to them.

Mr. O'Neil: What are they going to do, though?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Today she can call the counsellor at the local employment centre.

Mr. O'Neil: What will they do for her?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is a matter that will be determined by the counsellor.

AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The studies done by the Quebec Sports Safety Board indicate one third of hockey accidents involving injury are the result of violence. Brent Ladds in his comments to the Globe and Mail on Friday and Saturday said the following:

"Brent Ladds, president of the Ontario Hockey Association, says amateur hockey officials 'feel shell-shocked. After all, they are just a group of volunteers. And we do not think violence is a major issue for hockey. If it were, we would address it."

He also said, "Secondly, the concern the government is expressing is probably an answer to the New Democratic Party's questions about safety in amateur hockey." It is obvious the hockey moguls still do not believe violence is a problem in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Martel: Why does the minister believe the safety board he is proposing does not need legislative authority in order to obtain all the appropriate information related to accidents to determine those that are caused by violence and those that are purely accidental? Why are they going to give him that information now on a voluntary basis?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure Mr. Ladds that my concern about hockey violence and injuries in hockey is not simply generated because of the interest expressed across the House. I am personally very much concerned, as is everybody on this side of the House, about the continued unacceptably high rate of injuries in hockey. When they brag and say 54 per cent of all injuries are not related to acts of violence or assault, I ask the other question: what about the 46 per cent that obviously are related to violence?

We have a very strong concern and interest in this field. I think the safety board we are working on right now, about which I hope to be able to say more in a few weeks time, is going to provide a solution for hockey in this province.

I know the member for Sudbury East paid a visit to Quebec and looked at the new board there. As I have indicated, I do not think that is particularly the route we would follow. It is a very large board with a $2.5-million expenditure and 45 full-time staff. I do not think we need to have that kind of expenditure to get the job done here.

In terms of legislation, I would first like to take the high road in working collaboratively with the hockey people to see whether through this safety board we can reduce the injuries. If it works better that way, that is the way we would like to go. If it does not, the other possible way is still open to us.

Mr. Martel: I draw the minister's attention to the fact that accidents in sports cost the Quebec government more than $60 million last year. I am not sure why he is worried about $2.2 million for a board that might resolve some of those problems.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister aware that in 1981 we introduced regulations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to lead and the minister had to intervene on more than one occasion to get people to accept those regulations and do assessments as late as 1983?

Is the minister further aware that Néron and his group in Quebec indicate they could not get the information on a voluntary basis that led to the studies they were doing? In fact, they have asked for legislation to impose time limits.

I want to know what makes this minister believe that those people, who do not even accept there is a hockey problem and who destroyed the Hockey Ontario Development Committee, are going to provide to him on a voluntary basis the type of accident statistics I presented in one case last week about five boys who were injured.

Why are they going to do it on a voluntary basis when we have had three studies and they refused to provide any information at all? Even where we have legislation, the minister has to intervene. Does he think for some reason they are going to provide the sports board with that information? Does the minister believe in the tooth fairy?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: No, I do not believe in the tooth fairy. What I do believe -- and I suppose this might be a slightly different philosophical approach to society -- is that before we coerce or enforce legislation, we should at least give the private sector, the voluntary hockey people, the opportunity to see whether they will collaborate with this new safety board. If they do not, then reluctantly we may have to take stronger steps. Before we legislate, let us assume there is a little good sense out there and that not all the wisdom in the world rests in this House.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, if the minister had a team over on that side with players such as the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), he would have to change lines during playing of the national anthem.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please.

Mr. Sargent: I think it is time the minister got up off it and supported the member for Sudbury East.

EMERGENCY VEHICLES

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I have a letter from the Thunder Bay Professional Firefighters' Association regarding traffic charges against firefighters in Ontario.

As the minister is probably aware, recently in the city of Thunder Bay firefighter Dave Grant was charged under the Highway Traffic Act for failing to stop for a red light. Mr. Grant was driving a fire department rescue truck and was involved in an accident while proceeding to a fire alarm. Under the Highway Traffic Act, a driver of an emergency vehicle must stop at a red light and only proceed when it is safe to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Hennessy: Unfortunately, Mr. Grant was charged under this regulation. Is there any step by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications more or less to forego the personal criticism or perhaps loss of demerit points by that person, who was working for the city of Thunder Bay and the general public and was driving a city truck, so that he is not penalized with respect to his personal insurance and driving habits? Is there any thought of some regulation so people are not penalized to that effect?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of the instance involved. I am sure the member will remember that about two years ago, in one of our annual or semi-annual reviews and amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, provisions were put in so that the driver of an emergency vehicle -- an ambulance or a fire engine -- could proceed through a red traffic light, providing he had stopped at the red light, had his siren sounding and red lights flashing, and saw that it was safe to do so.

2:50 p.m.

It is senseless to see a fire truck or an emergency vehicle waiting at a red light when there is no traffic in either direction, so we gave that right to the drivers of those emergency vehicles. However, that does not take away the responsibility to make a safe crossing at an intersection. It is the driver's responsibility to stop, to see that the crossing can be made safely and also to have his red light flashing and his siren sounding -- or whatever noise he has, a siren or one of those squawk machines.

When that is not the case and a charge is laid, that has to be dealt with by the courts. I would assume what the honourable member refers to is if the court finds the driver guilty of going through a red light then there would be demerit points against his driver's licence.

The member referred to the effect on private insurance rates. To my knowledge, that would only affect his private insurance rates if that particular driver had a considerable number of demerit points before that incident. Certainly, the insurance companies do rate insurance policies up if a driver has a high number of demerit points.

It is my understanding, and personal experience I might say -- not my self but a member of my family -- that when one has a number of demerit points one gets a higher insurance rate. But for one or two infractions, for instance if the driver lost two or three points, it is not my belief that would cause his insurance rate to change.

Mr. Hennessy: My question is not fully answered. What I am concerned about is if a person was doing his job and was to stop at every red light probably some people would die in a fire and then the fire department would be accused of neglect. I am just asking the minister whether there is any possibility of his ministry bringing in some regulations so that these people would be protected in doing a job that is beneficial to the public.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know you were getting very frustrated with the length of my last answer, Mr. Speaker, but I will try to see if I can do it all over again.

I understand what the member is saying, but I still have to tell him, and it was the opinion of this Legislature when those amendments were passed -- I might say they were recommended by the firefighters' association, by the police and by the ambulance drivers -- that it still must be the responsibility of the driver to stop and to see that he can make a safe crossing, regardless of how important it is for him to get to the destination.

He may endanger or take a number of lives, including his own, by going through an intersection without stopping. I think it is more important that he should stop rather than run a red light. That is the way the law is drafted and that is the way the members of this Legislature approved it.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not at least give the Legislature his commitment that he will consult with the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) to see whether regulations can be drafted which would protect individual firefighters, in this case when they proceed through an intersection fully believing it is safe and they are hit rather than their hitting another car, so that those infractions are not automatically charged, as they currently are by the police; and so that the individual driver will not suffer the demerit points and the increase in insurance rates which my colleague the member for Fort William brings to the minister's attention?

Does the minister not realize that if a fire truck is brought to a full stop at a red light, the acceleration time, because of the thousands of tons of water in the truck, means a delay on average in Thunder Bay of about 10 minutes in response time?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, if any fire truck on the road was carrying thousands of tons of water, I am sure it would be totally illegal. Secondly, I cannot believe, for the life of me, having driven trucks for a number of years, that it takes 10 minutes to slow down and decelerate a truck. I suggest to the honourable member he might do a little more research on this.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the concern expressed to me by many college students, how does the Minister of Colleges and Universities plan to accommodate those students enrolled in tourism and hospitality courses, students whose services are required by the industry in early spring and who cannot extend the time of their course if they wish to secure employment and if this great industry is to have its employees in place? How does the minister plan to deal with this situation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, each college is developing a program whereby it can meet the specific concerns and requirements of individual students within each of the courses. The pattern will not be precisely the same across Ontario. For the tourism students, it obviously means there will be a concentrated effort, perhaps through such mechanisms as extending the school day and utilizing days that might be available on weekends, to complete the academic program. This would allow the students to be ready for their co-operative educational activity, which is within the establishments in the industry in the medium to late spring rather than early spring.

I know each college is looking specifically at the ways in which it can accommodate specific programs because the patterns are going to be different across the province.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, in Fanshawe College in London we have a co-op travel-tourism program, part of which will be completed at the end of December. A new group comes in January. Is the minister suggesting the new group would have to be delayed or staggered in any way to accommodate the present group that will have to pick up that time?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that is going to be necessary. I suppose it is a possibility, but it is my understanding the very real concern being expressed at the present time is to try to accommodate particularly the co-operative educational programs. These have some special kinds of parameters that it is going to be necessary to meet. To my knowledge, there is not likely to be a significant delay of admission.

FUNDING OF THE ARTS

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture with respect to the recent evidence of a great Tory turnaround in Ottawa on arts funding. No doubt the minister has seen recent reports of cuts in the wind to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. budget amounting to $75 million, and of other less specific cutbacks for other federal institutions.

Is the minister aware of a recent Canadian Press report which notes this, but goes on to say: "More troubling to cultural organizations may be Mr. Masse's challenge of their traditional arm's-length relationship with government. Mr. Masse has met many of his provincial counterparts and heard that such groups as the CBC, the Canada Council and Telefilm Canada are insensitive to their needs"?

Can I ask the minister a series of questions in that respect?

Mr. Speaker: Just one, please.

Mr. Allen: First, will the minister respond to why and in what way those institutions are insensitive to provincial ministers of culture and, in particular, did she make that complaint? Has she informed the federal minister that the Macaulay study, for example, concluded that the arts in Ontario badly need more support, not less, and that cultural industries, the fourth-largest employer in this province, are --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I could not quite hear the last numbers and perhaps --

Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to all honourable members they are allowed to ask a question. You heard the question.

Hon. Ms. Fish: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were several questions there. Was I aware of some newspaper articles? I was. I have read them.

Did I specifically express concern about them? I wrote down at least two of those that were queried -- the CBC and/or Telefilm. The answer is no. The subjects did not come up in discussion.

3 p.m.

Did I raise with the minister in my meetings the importance of cultural industries in Ontario and the importance the Macaulay report attached to support for the arts? The answer to both of those questions is yes.

Let me indicate clearly that the meeting I had here in Toronto with my colleague the Honourable Marcel Masse was a preliminary meeting specifically at my request, to which he acceded. It was specifically designed to raise with him the many issues of mutual interest between the province and the federal government pointed out by the Macaulay committee. I did note, as did the minister, in a communiqué following our meeting, it was our intention to pursue these and many other matters further. We hope to do this at the beginning of December.

Mr. Breaugh: How many?

Mr. Allen: Yes, how many? Specifically with respect to local organizations which often do not get the attention of such high level meetings, I wonder if the minister has been acting as a defender of local arts organizations which undoubtedly will be impacted by this trend of federal policy.

For example, is she aware that in Hamilton the amount of money that goes from the Canada Council to institutions like the Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra, Opera Hamilton, Hamilton Artists Inc., Theatre Aquarius and the Art Gallery of Hamilton is every bit the size of that coming from the Ontario Arts Council? Is she aware that $500,000 goes into Hamilton from the Canada Council? Is she acting to protect those local arts organizations? Is she making specific representations before the federal minister as to the needs they have or is she, in this issue, going to roll over and play dead --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Allen: -- and will that become the pattern of the new world of Conservative Federal/Provincial co-operation?

Hon. Ms. Fish: I do not think I have ever, on any of these occasions, rolled over and played dead.

Mr. Rae: Go to work with a smile.

Hon. Ms. Fish: I think I may smile but that is a smile of support and encouragement to the arts, not a rictus.

The member asks if I am speaking out on these matters; I most certainly am. The minister is well aware of the importance of the Canada Council. He is well aware of the importance of the arts in Ontario. Ontario is the premier place, particularly in English-speaking Canada, of the arts in this country.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, the federal minister may well be aware of the problems that we have here with funding and the additional things we would like to get from the federal government, but may I ask what sort of commitment did this minister get from the federal minister about what he was going to do to improve the situation in Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I will indicate once again that the meeting was held at my request. It was the first of what we hope will be several meetings to raise a series of questions from the Macaulay committee report on matters of mutual interest. The minister is very sensitive to the importance of the arts in Ontario and to the particular importance of federal support to the arts. I know he is working very hard in this area to provide not only continued support but also expanded support. I look forward to having him speak for himself in the future.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have yet another question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who failed in her statement today to deal with another issue affecting students.

The minister is no doubt aware that when the parents are no longer in school or working, they lose the subsidized day care space for their children. Because of the community college strike, a number of municipalities are terminating these subsidies. We did some checking today and came up with five areas where a total of more than 200 children are affected.

These are Hamilton, where there are about 100, my own community of Windsor, where the number is nearing 50, Halton county, Brant county and Essex county. Because these centres all have waiting lists for subsidized day care, we were told by the administrators they cannot guarantee the spaces will exist for the parents after the strike ends.

What guarantees can the minister give to those parents who now face the possibility they will have no day care for their kids when this strike finally ends? What guarantees can she give them they will be able to continue with their schooling and will have a place to put their children?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do not have direct contact with the areas related to day care but I know the colleges that have a number of students whose families are being cared for within the subsidized day care centres have been in contact with those centres. I do not know this for a fact, but I believe there is some understanding there will be accommodation made for those children when the students return to the classroom.

I will certainly check that matter because it is not one that has been specifically related to me except in a general way.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, on a related matter, what can the minister tell a student such as Ken Parker, who is attending Loyalist College in Belleville? This student is attending an accelerated accounting course that, as I understand it, condenses two years into one.

The minister has already said the maximum a student can lose is six weeks. This student is really at a point, it seems to me, where the three weeks really equate to six. How can that person catch up and meet the deadlines he has for employment and so on during the coming summer? Can the minister tell us how that person is going to accommodate this situation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I suggested the maximum a student could lose is six weeks; I do not know where the honourable member got that position. All I did today was to try to provide factual information for the students within the college system concerning their programs and their courses as of this date within the college system and to encourage them to continue to consider seriously maintaining their education program, because we are going to be monitoring on a daily basis from now on in order to ensure no student is in real jeopardy.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary to the original question. I wrote to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) on this matter last week. Will the minister at least contact the Minister of Community and Social Services and suggest to him that municipalities like Windsor, Hamilton and others that are cutting off this day care subsidy should not be allowed to do so or should be encouraged not to do so? Perhaps the first thing they could do is try to educate welfare administrators in this province that day care is not just baby-sitting for when parents are away; it happens to be early childhood education and it is needed whether parents are at home or not.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications with respect to the Spadina expressway. I have an article from the Globe and Mail and the headline reads, "Miller Receives Support of Right-Wing Ministers." It states that the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) said it was premature to announce his position on such issues as the future of the Spadina expressway.

Admittedly that was before the cabal had reached its secret agreement, but I want to ask the minister quite seriously whether, notwithstanding the position of the candidate of his choice, he still supports the position of the government. Can he tell us the current status of the various promises that were made by the government and by the Premier (Mr. Davis)?

Specifically, has the survey of the Spadina lands been completed? Are the deeds ready in preparation for transfer of the property from Metro to the province and then back to the city of Toronto so the commitment for a three-foot strip can be honoured and upheld? What is the exact status of the promise, the commitment and the work with respect to the transfer of the ownership of the Spadina lands to the city of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I could not get my right wing up there.

The answer to the first part of the honourable member's question is yes, I certainly support the position of the government as it relates to the Spadina expressway.

Second, I have answered all those other questions in a letter to the member, which I am sure must be on his desk or in his files someplace.

Mr. McClellan: No; with respect, I never received the letter.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sorry. I got the message that in my absence one day the member had asked a question of my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I read the question in great detail and as it was somewhat detailed, I replied to the member opposite in writing. I am sorry if he does not have it yet.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would just make it clear that I asked the question about two and a half weeks ago and I have not had a written communication from the minister.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I heard the minister say he had replied. If he has not, I would expect him to be in touch with the member.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have been sitting here for about an hour now and I still do not know what stand the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) is taking on whether the students will get their year. I would like to know, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of order. I ask you to resume your seat.

Mr. Sargent: Let her tell the House. It is damned important.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: I want to know what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: Speak to her later.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 129, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the return of assessment rolls for municipal taxation at present levels of assessment, except where market-value-based reassessment is introduced. The bill will allow us to continue with the market-value-based reassessment program which has been successfully implemented in 434 municipalities to date.

Approximately 40 more municipalities have requested tax impact studies so they can consider the consequences of the implementation of the section 63 reassessment program in their municipalities for 1985 taxation.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Conway moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely:

In the light of the continuing community colleges teachers' strike, the provincial government's plans to ensure that community college students do not lose their academic credit as a result of the current disruption; the provincial government's plans with respect to providing equitable relief for students who have paid tuition fees but who currently are not receiving any instruction; the provincial government's plans with respect to financial aid for community college students affected by the strike; the provincial government's plans regarding increased grants to community colleges to ensure quality of education in our college system; the provincial government's plans regarding arrangements to be made for students forced to leave community college and to take up employment or, unhappily, to face unemployment; the provincial government's contingency plans made to date; the progress and results of numerous meetings of the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario and meetings of college presidents about the strike; the interim report or results of the task force of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities on the current disruption; the provincial government's plans regarding consequential losses to students on co-operative and/or work placement programs and what, if any, arrangements can possibly be substituted; and finally, the provincial government's plans regarding the problems of single-parent students and their day care provisions as certain municipalities move to withdraw such services from these students due to the continuation of the strike.

Mr. Speaker: I point out to all honourable members that this notice was received in my office by the time required by the standing orders. I would be prepared to listen for up to five minutes as to why the honourable member thinks the regular business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. At the outset, I want to indicate that my colleagues and I are very sensitive to the fact that a news blackout has been extended to the negotiations, which now must surely be entering a very critical stage. We will try to respect that news blackout, at least to a greater degree than the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), who in today's press appears to have strayed away from honouring that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, you may understand -- I am sure that as an honourable member of this House you do understand -- that this is for hundreds of thousands of people in the province a matter of urgent and pressing concern. There are 120,000 full-time students and more than 500,000 part-time students affected by this 19-day-old strike. Everywhere in this province young people and their parents, and older people or their spouses cry out in this disruption to all the members, "What can be done to deal with this grave situation?"

I was home in my own city of Pembroke on Saturday and I was invited to meet more than 100 of the students from the Pembroke campus of Algonquin College. Never in nine years have I seen such desperation as I saw everywhere on the faces of those young people. Not only is their education in jeopardy, but their employment in many cases is very seriously and immediately affected.

The minister has risen in her place today and offered a statement that she will probably refer to in her response in this first round. That statement does not advance our concern about the student situation materially. Her statement is not acceptable and is not adequate.

A lot is being said about the 15,000 people in the system who receive either training allowances or income support from the federal Department of Employment and Immigration. In her statement this afternoon, the minister says that they should contact their local Canada Employment Centre. My research associate did just that a few moments ago, using the Etobicoke centre as his point of reference.

Let me tell the members what our office found. This is what the young people and the others in this system who are caught in this terrible jeopardy are going to be told this day and afterwards. I quote from the source at the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission office in Etobicoke. "Training allowances and other payments will continue until November 9 and we have nothing further to add at this time." That is not good enough for the 15,000 people caught in this terrible jeopardy. This has to be a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

The minister's statement today also indicates that information provided by the colleges indicates that currently all full-time programs can be rescheduled and completed. I say, not so. I have talked to a number of people who have indicated that is very unrealistic. In today's Toronto Globe and Mail, Mr. Charles McNair, public affairs director at Mohawk College, would certainly have one believe that he no longer expects that is going to be a realistic option.

I ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities the fate of the tens of thousands of people who are in part-time programs. Nothing in the statement gives much hope or direction for those people.

There are altogether too many questions up in the air. I ask this House and this minister to clear the air, and to indicate specifically today what undertakings are going to be offered to the 750,000 students caught in this terrible jeopardy. Let me indicate what I am sure was the subject of great discussion everywhere in all caucuses in this building today. There is great jeopardy, not just for the education of these people but in all too many cases for their employment.

3:20 p.m.

In conclusion, for this day the matter of urgent and pressing concern to my colleagues is what this government, and more particularly this minister, are going to do to alleviate that great jeopardy for the nearly three quarters of a million students who are caught in this very terrible bind.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion for an emergency debate.

While we have risen twice before to discuss this issue, with each passing day the matter assumes a more grave and serious proportion for everybody concerned. Moreover, the nature of the crisis seems to be an expanding one.

On the one hand, it remains a primary crisis for the students involved in the system, but it also involves that other crisis to which I have referred on two previous occasions, namely the crisis of those who work in it attempting to maintain quality education at a time of expanding student enrolment, when the money devoted to the system does not meet the combination of increased enrolment and the attrition of inflation.

It has become a rippling kind of crisis that has caught up families and, in some respects, communities. It is a crisis that has become one of management and of governance in the system. It has also become a crisis that focuses upon the minister herself.

I could recite a great many instances of college students who have phoned me, students I have met at Mohawk College and others I have met in passing. They have conveyed to me that the circumstances under which they live at present are ones of grave distress that threaten not only their next week or month or two months of studies, but their prospects as far away as being able to work next summer, given the backup that will occur for full-time students.

There are those students who are locked into co-operative programs. Will they be able to secure the co-operative placement in time should this strike last any longer? There are students who are up against the institutions, who have scheduled examinations over which the college system and the minister have no control. She did not refer to that in her statement. There is the problem of lost income the students need, often as part-time workers. Of necessity, many students work through the holidays or during the summer. What is going to be done to maintain their capacity to carry on their education?

I want to suggest to the minister that during this debate it will be necessary to address what the college productivity study suggested is a rather alarming situation that has developed in this system in the course of the past five years. I read directly from the study, which says, "There have been significant reductions in real unit operating costs since 1985."

The study goes on to suggest this is a great paean to the productivity and efficiency of the system. Honourable members should look at the impact that has had upon those who have tried to operate under those circumstances. "If colleges had operated in 1982 as they did in 1978-79, their resource requirements in 1982-83 would have been about 25 per cent higher than was actually the case. Almost 21 per cent more faculty would have been used. Administrative staff numbers would have been 46 per cent higher. There would have been 21 per cent more support staff. The quantities of nonlabour items purchased in that year would have been 30 per cent higher."

In other words, across the whole system the workload problem is one that is backed up to an absence of support staff. The support staff is not there to maintain the laboratories so the teacher now has to do that. It has meant there has been growth in class sizes. A 30 per cent increase in enrolment over the past five years has meant many classes have doubled and more than doubled, even though some have not. It has meant the outside-of-class time has imposed alarming burdens upon many teachers.

One wrote to me, for example -- and this is not unusual, because I have talked with many on the phone: "Usually my weekends are spent marking papers or setting a test. In order to have a little time to myself, I have learned to set tests that are easier to mark. Multiple choice and true-or-false questions run a great favourite, as they can be marked by a computer. I have not yet found a way to set assignments, however, that are easier to mark."

The crisis goes on. The minister has been hand-in-glove in her backup of the administration position. The reason the colleges have not moved on the work load proposition is that they have known the minister was behind them. Why should they bother to move? How could they? She was not going to provide them the money.

There is a crisis. We have to debate it, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the efforts that have been expended in the last four weeks in order to ensure we would be au courant with the requirements of students have been very consistent and very major. As a result of these activities, it has been determined to this date that there is not a program that cannot be completed within this school year for any student within the system.

Mr. Bradley: That is not what people are telling us.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: This is the information that is developed by the colleges themselves. It is not material that is developed by the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. One must depend on the capacity of those institutions to carry out what they say they can accomplish. I have that kind of confidence in those institutions because they have done very well during the past 17 years in the development of education programs at a skills level and a technological level that is second to none, even within the past two years, when, according to the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), some faculty members have been experiencing a work load problem.

There is negotiation going on at the present time; there is, indeed, an offer that has been put; there is a possibility of a settlement of this strike. I really do not believe that anything my honourable friends across the floor could say would in any way add to the security of the students at this point, nor would it add to the quality of the negotiations being carried out, nor would it provide a solution to the current dispute.

I am, along with every single colleague on this side of the House, probably much more acutely concerned about the fate of those students than are any of the members opposite, in spite of their crocodile tears and all the protests of concern that have been suggested by all of them. We have been working diligently in support of those students. It is unfortunate that it has gone --

Mr. Conway: Is there any wonder we have a college strike? That kind of blather is why we have this terrible strike. You are the problem and not the solution.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Renfrew North please resume his seat.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It really worries me that the members opposite are very willing to dish it out but never willing to take any of it.

Mr. Conway: Oh, no; I will take anything but your Nazi attitude, which has given us this strike.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat, and I shall not caution him again.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have been attempting to ensure there will be modifications and adjustments of timetables and of the framework within which the teaching is carried out in order to ensure students will achieve their academic year.

The support that will be provided, financial and otherwise, is being worked out at the present time within the student affairs branch and, in conjunction, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is looking very carefully at the way in which it can be supportive. It has to this point been extremely supportive and I believe it will continue to be so if it can see some light at the end of the tunnel. I certainly hope that at the end of this day we will be able to perceive some light at the end of the tunnel and an end to this dispute so that within the next very short period the students will be back in the classroom.

It is my ambition, and I hope the ambition of every member in the House, to work diligently in support of that direction rather than to try to interfere with what is going on in labour-management relationships in this unfortunate dispute.

3:30 p.m.

I believe we have the capacity to solve this problem; I believe we have the means at our disposal to do so and I really do not believe anything that is going to be said in a partisan political way in this House this afternoon is going to provide a foundation for that kind of solution. I believe the things we are doing right now will provide the foundation for an agreement for the establishment of the appropriate learning experience. I believe they will ensure that those students have an opportunity to complete their educational programs this year.

I firmly believe it would be in the best interest of the students if we were permitted to get on with what we are supposed to be doing. I think this would be preferable to debating at some length hypothetical situations or potential solutions which may or may not be of any benefit to any student or in solving the strike.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the positions put forward by the representatives of the three parties. As has been mentioned, this is the third time this matter has come before the House.

Mr. Nixon: But never for debate.

Mr. Speaker: Nevertheless, at this time it is my opinion that this motion does not fall within the criteria of standing order 34(a). Therefore, I must rule against the motion as being out of order.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I must appeal your ruling and ask for a vote on it, not just on account of the ruling but on the basis of the Thatcherite confrontation of the minister.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, do not be silly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:52 p.m.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Bryden, Conway, Cooke, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 57; nays 37.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

On section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: Are we ready to vote on section 1? Shall section 1 be further considered? What clause were we on?

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw to your attention that I had the floor and should continue.

I am trying to be relatively brief in my remarks on this section of the bill, but I do not want to terminate my debate on it without bringing to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) the reason for which I have been engaged in a lengthy discussion of this section, which has to do with the formation of the industrial disease panel.

To give a synopsis of what I said before, I am raising this concern because we are embracing the concept of the formation of this panel. There is no problem with that. I think the principle should be respected and I emphasize the principle of the formation of the Workers' Compensation Board in 1913, a long time ago.

I think we are facing the same historical development. The minister is showing good intentions in dealing with industrial diseases and, therefore, we have the formation of this panel with limited power under subsection 1(5) of the bill. As politicians, I do not think we should endorse --

The Deputy Chairman: May I interrupt the honourable member? He can have the floor after my mild and short interruption.

Mr. Lupusella: By all means.

The Deputy Chairman: I question whether we are going to get into any substantive motions. We have a number of amendments before us. I would like to go through the sections. Just so the member knows, the clock is running. I would like to see us proceed to some of the amendments other members have to make.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any amendment to move at this time. I am speaking about my concerns on this section, as I did in the past.

The Deputy Chairman: That is fine.

Mr. Lupusella: As I stated, I am going to move extremely quickly on the issue, but I want the record to show this endorsement of an historical perspective which eventually will take place in Ontario in dealing with this very serious matter of industrial diseases, how they should be controlled and so on.

4 p.m.

I hope the Chairman will not perceive or get the impression I am wasting my time. I think it is a new development in dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board. The decisions in which eventually the board has to show leadership, along with the Minister of Labour and also with the new panel that is going to be formed as a result of the passage of this particular subsection are unknown.

In order to summarize my remarks I would like to bring to the attention of the minister that the problem of industrial disease is not a new phenomenon. Three hundred years ago there was a famous doctor whose name was Bernardino Ramazzini. There is no particular significance to his having been Italian. That is why I am going to bring to the attention of the minister the excellent work he did 300 years ago in relation to industrial diseases in the work place.

I would like to read a quote concerning the complexity of the problem when it was tackled for the first time and the kind of function the panel is going to have in the very complex world in which workers are engaged. I hope the minister recognizes this situation and will pay attention to the problem. This is why I have been a little bit critical of the subclauses that are incorporated in subsection 1(5). I do not think the mandate of this panel is clear enough for us politicians to undertake the task of endorsing fully the concept of industrial diseases without taking into consideration the complexity of the subject and how many workers are affected by it.

I will quote from this magazine, which I think was very informative:

"Occupational health and safety started 300 years ago with Bernardino Ramazzini, an Italian physician whose book, Diseases of Workers, provided the first comprehensive account on occupational diseases. Ramazzini outlined the health hazards of noise, chemicals, dust, metals and other abrasive agents encountered by workers in 52 occupations." I am talking about 300 years ago. "In the 270 years after Ramazzini's death remarkable improvements have been made in work place health and safety, although new hazards and fresh concerns continue to arise."

That is the work of the panel. It is going to get involved in this complex situation of dealing with health hazards in the work place. Its task is going to be important, but its mandate is not clearly enunciated in subsection 1(5) of the bill.

The general perception is that 100 years ago industrial diseases were killing workers in the work place in massive numbers. Work deaths in the United States after the turn of the century were estimated at anywhere from 15,000 to 27,000 per year, or a rate of as many as 100 deaths per 100,000 workers. Fatalities in railway construction were much worse, 280 deaths per 100,000 workers in 1904, and it goes on. It gives an illustration of different types of occupations and the industrial diseases related to them.

What this article is saying is that other factors are of even greater concern today compared with those of 100 or 300 years ago in the field of industrial diseases.

Many members have heard about toxic chemicals, asbestos, coal dust and other agents which workers have been exposed to on a daily basis. In this century alone, we have witnessed the grim litany of workers' lives wasted by silicosis, asbestosis, black lung, brown lung and other dust-related diseases. In North America, these work hazards are rising. To this list of naturally occurring substances, the rapid introduction of synthetic substances into our work places since the Second World War has added to the spectre of disease induced through new man-made chemicals.

With today's greater medical knowledge about these problems, we are more aware than ever before of work hazards. That awareness can cause worry to the workers and to politicians who are trying to enact legislation to prevent catastrophic situations in the work force.

With this background, I think the particular effect of this subsection is not clearly spelled out. The only subclause that gives some power to this panel is subclause 1(5)(n)(iii), which refers to "a medical condition that in the opinion of the board requires a worker to be removed either temporarily or permanently from exposure to a substance because the condition may be a precursor to an industrial disease."

I wish to go back to the principle of this subclause. We understand that the worker can be removed, but it does not make any reference that this panel is going to have a clear mandate to stop a company whose work process can be a hazard to workers on the employer's premises. When the panel is faced with an injured worker, it has the power, in co-operation with the Workers' Compensation Board, to remove the victim of environmental problems from the work place. I do not think this is enough.

Several times in this Legislature we have raised concerns about safety and industrial diseases underground. We know for a fact the number of Ontario mine workers who have been killed on the job. I take my figures from the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Ontario report which talks about the total number of workers who have died on the job since 1972. I am talking about miners underground.

4:10 p.m.

In 1972, 14 workers lost their lives; in 1973, 12; in 1974, 20; in 1975, 11; in 1976, 19; in 1977, 16; in 1978, 8; and in 1979, 5. In 1980, there was a jump to 19 workers who lost their lives as a result of occupational problems. In 1981 there were 9; in 1982, 7; in 1983, 7; and in 1984, 13. That brings the total from 1972 to 1984 to 160 people who lost their lives.

Why am I extremely concerned about this section? Members may recall there was a Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario, whose report was made public a few months ago. The message given by the royal commission inquiry was extremely clear, just to draft a few lines under subsection 5 to strike a mandate for this panel to deal with this complicated topic of industrial diseases.

The government will have the power to appoint these people, but there is no clear specification of how long they are to sit on this panel. As I stated previously, the people who develop the expertise in this particular field might eventually end their term and new people will sit on the panel. I do not think this process is a fair one.

I do not want to mention the asbestos victims in Ontario, but the commissioners' words were that asbestos is a world-class occupational health disaster. I am sure there was reference in Ontario to specific companies that did not take the lead in cleaning up their work places, even though at the provincial or legislative level we did not have a statute giving the power to the government to shut down an operation that was dangerous to the workers. When we have the commissioners saying the asbestos experience in Ontario is a world-class occupational health disaster, I think the message is very clear. The disaster exists in Ontario and workers have been badly affected by this problem.

We also had an opportunity to review the overall situation of injured workers when they fought their claims at the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the pensions they received and the training process in place in relation to the principle of removing the victims from occupational health problems such as asbestos. In certain instances, even their supplement pensions have been stopped as a result, because there were no jobs available in other premises. They have been faced with the cruel reality that their claims have not been recognized by the board as being compensable.

The commissioners stated that, tragically, this world-class occupational health disaster has yet to run its course. That indicates to me the worst is still to come. We were faced with a disaster in the past and we are faced with a disaster at present, but the worst will come in the future. I do not think the installation or formation of this industrial disease panel will address the problem that has been clearly emphasized by the commissioners who dealt with the asbestos experience in Ontario.

We can expect more compensation claims as the years go by. We can expect more men and women to die as a result of work place exposure to asbestos. The disease and the deaths may not yet have reached their peak and may continue into the next century, as the report says. These are not my words. I did not investigate asbestos. We are just dealing with one tangent or component of a very serious definition of industrial disease. It is not the only one. Maybe in other areas where there are industrial diseases related to asbestos the picture and the situation are worse than for asbestos victims in Ontario.

Mr. Chairman, if you are asking me to facilitate the principles of the amendment and to be concerned about the passage of the bill, I support the principle of this section, but I do not think we have particular clauses in it which will give power to this panel to deal with a world-class occupational and health disaster in this province, with just one occupational disease only, asbestos in this particular case.

One can name it and other chemicals affecting the health of workers across the province. I think the mandate given to this panel under subsection 1(5) is going to become futile in the years to come unless the minister is going to be clearer about what this panel has to do.

A world-class disaster demands an extraordinary response. That is why I am critical. I do not think this is the kind of reply, the installation or the passage of this particular subsection, to the victims of asbestos or workers in Ontario affected by industrial diseases in the work place.

Instead, what the commissioners have delivered is an understated account of the problem, coupled with an astonishingly limited number of concrete responses. Let me tell members the kind of responses. To begin with, the report concludes that existing knowledge strongly suggests that deaths which by law are compensable are going uncompensated. I do not think this section of Bill 101 as a whole is going to deal with this reference to the problem.

I understand the good faith of the minister and that phase 2, the reshaping of the so-called process, reshaping the Workers' Compensation Board in Ontario, will be introduced in the near future. When one is dealing with disaster in Ontario in relation to the field of industrial diseases, I do not think the workers are going to be pleased to get the kind of response which is incorporated in subsection 1(5) of the bill.

After the extensive work pursued by the commissioners on the issue of asbestos alone, a lot of people still are, and are going to become, the victims of a process which never worked in the province and which I do not think will ever work with the formation of this panel.

We are dealing with claims that are not properly compensated by the board because we are still faced with a new era of changes in that particular field. We are dealing with a percentage of substances which are in the air or particular chemicals which workers are in contact with. I thought the board was supposed to come out with clear indication of how to deal with industrial diseases and to give a clear mandate to these people dealing with industrial diseases. From the legislative point of view, I do not get a clear message about what these people are going to do in relation to the whole spectrum of industrial diseases in Ontario.

4:20 p.m.

Using a conservative methodology, the commission estimated that 75 to 145 asbestos-related cancer deaths occurred in Ontario in 1980. Are all these victims being compensated by the Workers' Compensation Board? The commissioners came out with a report stating they were not. Some of their claims were not even recognized. Of the 145 asbestos-related cancer deaths, the Workers' Compensation Board accepted only 20 claims. That is a clear message as to how the board approaches the problem.

According to the commissioners, there has been a failure by the WCB to use its discretion to determine compensation for industrial diseases. I can understand the process quite simply. If we expect this panel to get involved in the very complex area of industrial diseases, it is going to be faced with the situation that the Workers' Compensation Board does not yet have clear guidelines on dealing with industrial disease problems.

I think its mandate really does not give us, and the minister is not giving us, an indication of what this panel is going to do. Perhaps the panel is going to be just a smokescreen process on which the government can rely when members of this parliament raise concerns in the area of industrial diseases. People such as members of the media might raise a grave concern about industrial diseases and the Minister of Labour could stand up on the floor of this Legislature with the position that there is now an industrial diseases panel operating in Ontario and that panel will investigate the complaint.

With the greatest respect, I do not think the good intentions of the minister are a good way to deal with something that is very serious, something that has been classified by the commissioners who studied just asbestos -- I do not want to mention the thousands of problems this field will be affected by -- as a world-class occupational health disaster in Ontario.

If that is the kind of response we are looking for, I think the minister was wrong in drafting this legislation or he should come out with an amendment to this subsection to give a clear mandate to the panel to deal with occupational industrial disease problems in Ontario.

According to the commissioners, there has been a failure by the WCB to use the discretion it has to determine compensation for industrial disease. We are in 1984. I understand that employers across the province are overreacting to serious problems affecting workers in Ontario because of the sky-rocketing assessment on subsidizing or funding claims at the WCB and so on. I understand there are problems, but I do not see any social balance that the government has installed to deal with serious problems such as asbestos.

I have been trying to use discretion when I talk about asbestos. We can talk about silicosis. We can talk about lung cancer and how it develops as a result of other problems that workers across Ontario are in contact with. However, I am using asbestos as an example of how the government is reacting to a world-class occupational health disaster in Ontario.

The board's use of guidelines, according to the report, has been "informal, internal, unsystematic and piecemeal. It has done nothing to dispel perceptions of the board's arbitrariness."

Thus a royal commission inquiry comes out with a clear description of industrial diseases and how the board is reacting to the problem, yet the government reacts to the problem by introducing Bill 101. Those politicians are told on the floor of the Legislature there will be phase 2 of Professor Weiler's report which deals specifically with industrial diseases. I do not know when this will be, perhaps after the next provincial election, but the province already is facing a world-class occupational health disaster.

I wish to conclude by conveying to the Minister of Labour that I respect his good intentions but I think we have to deal with this world-class occupational health disaster. It is as simple as that and we cannot delay the process. We cannot incorporate just a few clauses under Bill 101 to deal with as complex a topic as industrial diseases.

The guidelines illustrate the board's shift away from a presumption in the act in favour of the claimants. In addition, there have been problems with the processing of compensation claims on behalf of diseased workers. "Our paramount impression," say the commissioners, "is that the board adjudicators do not appear, on balance, to have approached the claims of diseased asbestotics with a mindset attuned to the reality of the medical uncertainty."

I do not want to waste my time, but we have the typical case with Johns-Manville Co. Ltd. which over the years posted a death toll of 68 at its Scarborough plant. It receives special mention in the report. The commissioners recommended that the Workers' Compensation Board levy the maximum penalty assessment possible under the act in respect of the Scarborough plant which closed in 1980.

This indicates of what a plant can do when dealing with industrial diseases in Ontario. As a regular citizen, if I break the law I am going to be charged. I am going to be taken before the court where a judge will deliver his decision. I think we are using two different methods of justice in Ontario, one for employers and one for regular citizens.

Furthermore, from 1971 to 1981 compensation claims generated a deficit for the company's Scarborough plant of $5,826,000, according to the commissioners. Their report says: "The board apparently believes it is either impossible or inappropriate to levy a penalty assessment against a plant that is closed, but we find nothing to sustain this view ... In our view, failing to levy an assessment ... sends a perverse message to other employers in the province."

That is why, in my opening remarks about this subsection, I placed the emphasis on prevention. I placed emphasis on health. I emphasized that workers' health should be considered by this government ahead of the profit of a company which might endanger the health of a worker.

4:30 p.m.

The reality of the problem is so great -- we are talking about a world-class occupational health disaster in Ontario -- I do not think the formation of this panel is going to solve this particular situation. I asked why. My speech said thousands of new chemicals are manufactured by the private sector and eventually end up on the market. The workers come in contact with these chemicals during the manufacturing process and at some point the public comes in contact with them.

If there is so much at stake, we in Ontario need leadership from the Minister of Labour. We need a serious commitment from his government. I do not want to discourage the minister who is trying to do his best, but we are dealing with a world-class occupational health disaster. If yet another royal commission is put in place in Ontario to study other programs, then in the end we are going to be faced with still stronger comments from the commission. I do not know what kind of terminology the commission will use in dealing with the other problems. I repeat, we are dealing with a world-class occupational health disaster.

In conclusion, I am extremely concerned about this problem. The Minister of Labour is going to have a great task in dealing with this grave situation of industrial diseases. The formation of the panel may be the first step. I do think the function of this panel is going to be extremely complex on such a very complex subject as industrial diseases, unless there is a clear mandate that will be legislated under Bill 101. I do not think the efforts of the panel are going to solve the problem, a serious world-class problem, that has been in existence in Ontario for centuries.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to add a few comments on Bill 101, the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, and its proposed amendments. As are other honourable members, I am a little concerned about some of the wordings in clauses in the new bill.

I am looking at subsection 5(1), in which "industrial disease" is said to include: "a disease resulting from exposure to a substance relating to a particular process, a trade or an occupation in an industry."

That does not tell us anything about what protective measures are going to be applied under this section. There is no clause that says an employee has the right to know what he is working with, what potential hazards are in that work environment.

Other members have discussed the bill and said there should be preventive measures applied in the bill. There is nothing under the section that specifies the amount of time that should be spent in monitoring the working environment to find the level of hazardous material floating about in the ambient air and other areas around the work place. There is nothing about threshold amounts mentioned there. To me, the bill does not go far enough.

I draw that to the attention of the minister because I am concerned about the number of workers who have become ill from exposure to asbestos, who have worked in the asbestos area, which has caused some cases of lung cancer. There is really nothing in the bill that indicates any preventive measures.

It goes on to say, "any of the diseases mentioned in schedule 3 or 4." Schedule 3 under the existing act does not cover chronic bronchitis or emphysema, but it is still related to a disease of the respiratory organs. I would suggest that at some place along the line when we introduce a piece of legislation such as this, the members on this side and on the government side should have a clear understanding of the intent and the direction he is moving in this particular bill.

If one appears before the Workers' Compensation Board, for example, on a matter of emphysema, it is not in schedule 3. To my knowledge during the years I have been here I have not seen anybody who has been compensated for emphysema. I do not have to tell members about the chemicals that are present in the local work place that many workers were not aware were hazardous.

I have a document here just to add some background support to what I am saying. A worker who worked for Thompson Products, a division of TRW Canada Ltd. in St. Catharines, reported off sick and was put on accident insurance. Without knowing it at the time, he had worked in a hazardous environment and he developed a respiratory disease that has continued up until this time and has caused other problems with his health.

I suggest the company knew full well about the hazardous environment he worked in. He signed an agreement with that industry indicating, "Yes, we are going to give you $1,100 in full compensation for all outstanding claims for weekly sick benefits." But it was never mentioned to the Workers' Compensation Board that it should have come under the Workers' Compensation Act.

I thought I would just read this into the record. Perhaps other employees have signed a similar agreement in the past. It says here:

"The association, both for itself and on behalf of all present and former employees of the company covered by the collective agreement aforesaid and on behalf of the grievor" -- I will not mention his name -- "and the grievor on his own behalf, hereby agree that for and in consideration of the sum paid by the company to the said grievor pursuant to this agreement (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by the grievor), the association and the said grievor hereby remise, release and forever discharge the company, its officers, agents, employees, predecessors in interest, successors and assigns, of and from all actions and all manner of actions, cause and causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, grievances, claims" -- they cover the whole area -- "their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, or any of them have had, now have or may in future have, by reason of any matter, cause or things whatsoever existing up to the present time in any way arising out of or in connection with the employment of the grievor by the company and in particular, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, from the claims advanced in the grievance and arbitration proceedings aforesaid."

What the agreement really says is that if there are any further health problems related to the working environment in that company, the company is not going to be liable, nor are any of its supervisors or superintendents or any of the supervisory staff going to be held responsible.

This gentleman went through serious surgery just recently. He has worked 17 years for that company, and he has no recourse, I guess. I do not know, but I hope there may be a door open for an appeal to the Workers' Compensation Board.

It would be difficult to find out to what degree he was exposed to hazardous material. I have indicated that I am not very happy with the past monitoring by the Ministry of Labour or by the Ministry of Health at the time, which was responsible for the employees and industries working with hazardous materials.

I was interested in an article in the Financial Post of May 24, 1984. It is similar to the document I read previously. The title is, "Dow Chemical May Face Health Claims Here." It says: "The Dow Chemical Co., on the defensive in a US court over the safety of its 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T phenoxy herbicides, may soon find itself confronting a claim that the products left a legacy of intractable health problems for workers who used them in New Brunswick more than a quarter century ago." They used them to spray the forests of New Brunswick 25 years ago.

4:40 p.m.

It goes on to tell of the difficulties with health problems a number of employees now face and of those who died at a young age. It goes to show, if we go back 25 years and look at the work environment, the hazardous materials employees used then. I suggest employees should have the right to know what hazardous materials they used in the past. In this case, the grievor I mentioned worked with hazardous materials. Cyanide and acetone are two known toxic chemicals that can cause serious health problems.

There is nothing in the bill that outlines section 4. I would like to have some clarification from the minister responsible for this as to what we are going to include in section 4. It may be by regulations, I do not know, but I think the House should be aware of the intent of section 4.

I am also concerned about the right to know in the area of asbestos. My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has talked about the problems of asbestos and the other uses of toxic materials in the work place. I was a little bit shocked when he was talking about the advertisement on television that said, "If he only knew." I do not think he meant to say what he did and I hope he corrects it.

He said, "'If he only knew.' If that dumb, stupid slob of a workman had only known." I do not think that should be left on the record. I think there should be an apology. I do not think any of the workers should be held at fault for contracting an industrial disease. I think it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, the Workers' Compensation Board and the new Occupational Health and Safety Act. The ministry should be in there policing it.

I appeared before the WCB six or seven months ago about a problem of a person working on board a vessel on the Great Lakes. He came down with a respiratory problem in the bronchial tubes and also a nervous condition. I appealed it. I asked my colleague the former Minister of the Environment if he would take the samples the union had gathered from the vessel carrying grain. There were two components, the grain dust and the grain itself.

It was too bad the samples did not come from an American ship. Those persons working around the transport of grain some two years ago, when Americans had a surplus of grain, sprayed it with almost every chemical they could to keep the grain in good storage condition and in good saleable use.

In the laboratory tests done by the Ministry of the Environment, two chemicals were found. Both of them were of a toxic nature and one would cause a nervous condition and a respiratory problem. The board turned the claim down, even with the evidence supplied to me by the Ministry of the Environment.

Neither the federal government nor the Ministry of Labour was involved. No other studies were done in this area, to my knowledge. If there had been a complete follow-up, which should be done by the Ministry of Labour since it is responsible for occupational health, if there had been a complete monitoring at all times, we would not have the problems we have now.

We would not need the clause that says, "A medical condition that in the opinion of the board requires a worker to be removed either temporarily or permanently from exposure to a substance because the condition may be a precursor to an industrial disease, or any of the diseases mentioned in schedule 3 or 4." We would not need this clause because we would have a watchdog.

It reminds me of another document, the fall 1984 issue of Standards Forum Update, published by the Canadian Standards Association. It relates to occupational health. Headlines say, "Health and Safety at Work: Better, but not Good Enough," "Canada Not Well Organized to Regulate Work Hazards," and, "No National Reporting System Exists in this Country." It is interesting to compare this to what goes on in occupational health and safety in the United States.

It says: "One factor at last stands out clearly: the rapidly rising costs of work injuries, as measured by compensation payments.

"Payments made by Canada's workers' compensation boards to cover lost wages, medical costs and pensions for those permanently disabled and the dependants of those killed soared from $368 million in 1972 to more than $1.9 billion in 1982." That is not a very good record, is it? "Administration adds about another $300 million per year ($273 million in 1981). Total benefits payments and administration costs this year are expected to be in the order of $3 billion." That does not say much for our track record in occupational health.

It says: "While estimates of work injuries and illnesses are approximate, there are no available estimates on the amount of money spent on prevention, nor the number of people involved.

"In the United States, business firms spent $5 billion for employment health and safety in 1981, according to a national survey. Labour Canada, in a study last year, pointed to 'the difficulty, if not impossibility, of obtaining Canadian employers' accident prevention expenditures.' The US study suggests that, on a proportionate basis, business firms in Canada might spend in the order of half a billion dollars a year."

One may consider advising workers of their rights in the occupational health sector as a part of preventive measures. If $500 million could be spent in Canada alone, it could be spent in monitoring the hazardous areas so that we get a better understanding of what impact that will have on the person employed in industry. In what areas can we assist the worker so that he does not come down with some type of occupational disease?

It says: "The Economic Council of Canada, in its 1981 study, found that because the data 'is fragmentary at best, it is not possible to assess the extent to which the problems of occupational injury and disease have been controlled in recent years.' Much better data is now compiled in the United States as a result of that country's 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act which, for the first time, set out to provide uniform national standards for work place health and safety."

I hope our occupational health bill will provide measures to control lost time through industrial accidents or occupational diseases.

I am also concerned about the Report of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos. That is the Dupré report. Little of that is mentioned in the act except that the government will set up a panel. It is subsection 86p(1) "There is hereby constituted a panel to be known as the Industrial Disease Standards Panel."

If one were to appear before the Workers' Compensation Board on asbestos, due to the poor monitoring that has taken place in the occupational hygiene area of industry, there is not much to go by. I relate this to two cases before the board now. It will be bringing down a decision.

4:50 p.m.

I had a letter from the expert at the Workers' Compensation Board, Dr. Charles Stewart, in reply to my questions about the case and the conditions this person was employed in. He worked in a paint factory in Fort Erie for about 10 or 12 years. They were using asbestos as a filler in the paint. It could probably be called fireproof painting; I do not know. In that period of time they had only one application to have the place monitored to find out the degree of potential hazards in the working conditions of that industry.

When the tests were taken in 1972, asbestos levels were well above the safety level permitted for working in the industry. The Workers' Compensation Board would not accept the one particular test that was made there, yet had monitoring been taking place every six months or every year, they would have found a continued high count of asbestos fibres in the air, well beyond the threshold level.

I have now appealed this case and do not know what success I will have. There are survivors of the deceased worker. When I raised the matter of this document with Dr. Stewart, he almost shot that down. He came back quoting from other studies done throughout Europe. Anybody making an appeal to the Workers' Compensation Board is going to get different expert opinions.

What I find missing from this bill is the old adage that the benefit of the doubt should be given. I find that interesting, and thought there would be something in the new act, in schedule 3 or schedule 4.

It goes on to say in this report, at chapter 12.9:

"In line with the legislative exposure draft in the white paper on the Workers' Compensation Act, the provisions of schedule 3 should be applicable to workers who have engaged in a scheduled industrial process at any time in their employment history.

"Our final consideration with respect to subsection 122(9) concerns the nature of the presumption it generates in favour of a claimant whose disease is covered by schedule 3." Many are not covered by that.

"The wording of subsection 122(9) triggers the presumption if the claimant has the disease named in the disease column of schedule 3 and was employed in the process designated in the process column of this schedule. The presumption does not extend to the accuracy of the claimant's disease diagnosis or to whether the claimant's employer engaged in the designated process, but applies once these two matters of fact have been ascertained.

"It generates in favour of the claimant a presumption, the burden of whose refutation must be borne by the employer." In other words, it is saying we are going to give the benefit of the doubt to the worker because of his work environment.

It goes on to say in chapter 13, Processing Asbestos-Related Claims:

"The board's benefit of doubt policy was described in chapter 12 and has been referred to at a number of points in the present chapter. In our judgement, a policy of this kind is eminently desirable and justifiable on three grounds. First, benefit of doubt provides a fair and practical way of addressing the medical uncertainty that enshrouds a substantial volume of industrial disease claims.

"Second, benefit of doubt combats what, in any agency endowed with broad administrative discretion, is the danger -- particularly acute when guidelines or eligibility rules are in place -- that adjudicators might approach claims which do not satisfy the terms of the rule with a negative mindset. Third, benefit of doubt is fully in line with the historic tradeoff whereby workers' compensation was provided in lieu of the common law right of employees to sue their employers for damages.

"In civil liability cases, the plaintiff must prove his case on the balance of probabilities. This means that if the evidence is evenly balanced as between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff will not succeed. Benefit of doubt is consistent with the thrust of holding workers' compensation claimants to standards that enhance their chances of recovery from the chances they would have if their common law rights had not been taken away."

As I look at this section, I find it does not define the intent of the bill. I am deeply concerned about this matter. We have mentioned Dr. Charles Stewart, the expert on respiratory diseases at the Workers' Compensation Board. He seems to ignore the fact that one of the experts on asbestos is Dr. Selikoff. The work he has done in this area is very knowledgeable and backed up with hard-core evidence, yet the WCB totally ignores his findings. But it can go offshore and pick out somebody who is most suitable for the side of the board.

I am deeply concerned about these two areas. The lack of monitoring of hazardous areas in the passage is going to lead to more problems in this area. I want to make sure those persons are going to be considered in this act under any previous workers' compensation claims. I want to know specifically what is meant in schedule 4. Are we going to include emphysema, chronic bronchitis and other respiratory problems? Even cardiovascular problems are related to the occupational area these persons are working in.

I can think of another case where there was a lack of monitoring in a particular area and I appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board on behalf of a claimant. It was a matter of carbon monoxide poisoning. The conditions present in this operation of a blast furnace were such that members of the fire department were called in many times to remove a worker who had become ill or had passed out because of carbon monoxide.

In one case, a worker had passed out and was admitted to the Port Colborne hospital. I think if proper medical attention had been given at that time, if they had taken a blood test to find out what portion of carbon monoxide was in the blood system, perhaps the claim would have been allowed. But this person ended up with brain damage and died at a very young age. If there had been proper research, the survivors at least should have been provided with workers' compensation.

That brings up another point: preventive measures. I would like to see an upgrading in the education required to become a medical doctor. There should be more emphasis placed on workers' environment, which involves occupational health diseases.

The worker has a right to know what the conditions are and what hazardous material he may be confronted with. The medical profession in a community should be aware of what materials are used in the industries there. Then when a workman comes in not feeling too well and wanting to be treated, the doctor's diagnosis could pinpoint right there that it is related to an industrial event.

There is nothing in the bill that says we are going to see this type of preventive program. We can set up the board to look at areas of industrial disease but I believe we must include the medical profession in this. They should have more knowledge of what is going on in local industries in the area.

These are my main concerns. I would hope there would be something in the bill to say the employee has the right to know about his work environment. He should know what chemicals he is working with and what health effects those may have on him five or 10 years down the road. There has to be something in here to indicate to the employee that he has that right. I would like to see the benefit of the doubt included in the bill in more detail.

5 p.m.

These are my main concerns about the legislation, but I want the minister again to give me in detail what he means in subclause 1(5)(n)(iv) about any of the diseases mentioned in schedule 3 or 4. I do not see schedule 4 in the act; at least it is not in the act I have. Schedule 3 is there.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, this might be an appropriate time for me, at the request of the member for Sudbury East, to respond to his comments. I appreciate he is not in the House at present; yet my response to him will cover some of the points the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) made and some of his concerns. It will also address in part some of the points raised by the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella).

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege: I am not trying to slow things down here. I have two or three points to make that deal with the same safety and health aspects. I am perfectly willing to make them after the minister has responded, if he wishes, but I just thought it might be useful if he could respond to them at the same time.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: At this point, my remarks would be about seven or eight minutes at the most. If the member wishes to go ahead, then I can cover it all when he has finished.

Mr. McClellan: There is no requirement for the minister to wind up. If it is more convenient for him to deal with the points while they are fresh, he should feel free.

The Deputy Chairman: As long as we are proceeding towards a successful conclusion.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am trying to be co-operative with the member for Hamilton East and I am bowing to his wishes.

Mr. Mackenzie: I think there is some use in putting this on the record.

My first concern is that I think the bill is not a good bill and does not meet enough of the problems we have been talking about for many years. I have some difficulty in the definitions we have for industrial diseases and toxic substances, whether or not we are going to be adequately able to handle them and whether or not we need some broader environmental work relationship with respect to industrial diseases as well.

I just want to use two examples that bother me a bit. I can recall the isocyanate situation at the Inglis plant in Stoney Creek. When we and the United Auto Workers first really started getting into it, we had four or five suspected cases that anybody would admit to. I am sure the minister has kept in touch with the situation. The information I have now -- and I am not sure it is all confirmed as yet -- is that we are up to something like 16 or 17 cases with respect to sensitization to the isocyanates.

That is in the respiratory area, but it has been such a battle to establish the environmental work and product connection to the illness of the employees. While some people try to downplay this exposure and sensitization, it is a very real problem for those who are sensitized. I am meeting with two or three of them almost weekly in my constituency office. I am not sure we are adequately dealing with that concern.

The other concern is the whole question of what constitutes a hazard and what is causing some of the problems in the work place. At one time or another, Hamilton has been called the cancer capital of Canada.

There were studies done and published by Dr. Cecilioni back in 1969. Initially, as the minister will well know, there were those who tried to downplay Dr. Cecilioni's studies. When the fact that the cancer rate was five times higher in the north end of Hamilton and around the industrial establishment than any other part of the city was finally starting to be accepted, the only real defence I saw was a claim by some of those trying to downplay his studies that the figure was really not accurate, that it was more like three or three and a half times higher.

When one takes a look at some of the more recent studies, it would appear that Dr. Cecilioni's study was more accurate than those of his detractors.

What concerned me was an article that came out just in the last couple weeks in the Hamilton Spectator. It reported on a survey done by the Department of National Health and Welfare which found the region's mortality rates from stomach, lung and bladder cancer among men, and breast and bladder cancer among women, to be higher than expected. It found that in males in Hamilton-Wentworth stomach cancer was 30 per cent higher than expected and lung cancer more than 20 per cent higher. In females breast cancer was 11 .5 per cent higher and bladder cancer almost 16 per cent above the average.

All of a sudden they are once again raising the question of what the real causes are. Some people said, "The death rate was not that much higher overall, just in certain areas, so really we should not be that concerned." This bothered me and at the time it obviously bothered Dr. Cecilioni because the day after this story came out in the Hamilton Spectator he called me about 11 o'clock at night and wanted to talk to me about this.

He raised his studies, and all the information did was to confirm the figures he had come up with a long time ago. He wondered what games people were playing. He also pointed out that this is not an accurate picture at all because, while it shows this very high rate for the entire region, his contention -- a contention I think has been backed up -- is that the closer you get to the industrial establishments in the north end of Hamilton the higher the rate is. He mentioned some of the startling finds they made on Beach Road, on Clinton and on some streets where it was a virtual epidemic.

He also mentioned to me that some testing they had done on the soil found the soil was contaminated. Once again, it was more contaminated the closer one got to the industrial plants in the north end.

Nobody has clearly decided exactly what is the cause of the cancer in that area; so there has to be a lot of room to give the benefit of the doubt to workers when they end up with lung cancer, stomach cancer, bowel cancer or something like that. Dr. Cecilioni's feeling is that the fluorides, arsenic, lead and iron are undoubtedly, or in some combination, the main reasons for them. Significant to this discussion, one finds these compounds to be more concentrated even in soil or garden tests one does as one gets farther into the north end of the city.

The point I am making is that we have an abnormal rate in the city as it is, but an even higher rate as we get close to the industrial establishments, yet we have not clearly established just which of these elements, whether in combination or whatever, are responsible for the higher cancer rates among workers.

We can get into a lot of other problems too. I mentioned the isocyanates in the Inglis plant, but I am not at all sure that we have adequately dealt with the question of toxic substances. Given enough leeway, where we have not been able to establish with absolute certainty what is causing cancer rates in workers in some of these establishments, they should still end up with the benefit of the doubt, because anybody who has dealt with the board knows darn well, whatever the argument he gives them, the benefit of the doubt is questionable at best. Even if I am not totally right, it is questionable.

I think the concerns that were raised by the member for Sudbury East and by some of the other members who raised questions -- the member for Erie and the member for Dovercourt -- are all valid. We have not really dealt adequately in this very first section of this bill with the definitions of toxic substances and industrial diseases. We certainly have not done so in respect of prevention or finding some easier, broader interpretation for workers so that we do not wait 15 or 20 years, as we did with asbestos or some of the other toxic substances, before we finally decide this really is compensable and really is why the worker is disabled and no longer able to work, or why he has come down with cancer or why it has finally cost him his life and we are fighting to establish a pension for his widow. We really have not been definitive enough in that particular area.

5:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, as the honourable members know, this is phase 1 of a phased approach to the restructuring of the Workers' Compensation Act. If we had waited and held public hearings, committee sessions and so on on part II of the Weiler report, which deals with industrial diseases, we would have held up many worthwhile amendments and changes to the present act. It was decided to proceed in the manner we have, but to continue to study the second Weiler report and come forward with further amendments as we go along.

I want to speak in particular about the comments of the member for Sudbury East, which the rest of the speakers have all touched on in one way or another. During the last debate on Bill 101, the member for Sudbury East spoke at some length on the subject of industrial diseases. He raised a number of issues to which I would like the opportunity to respond today.

The principal theme of the member's remarks had to do with the considerable difficulties inherent in the determination of causality in industrial disease claims and with the necessity for the adoption of adequate preventive measures in the work place. His position appeared to be that the provisions of Bill 101 would not be of assistance in either respect, a position with which I happen to differ.

In saying that, I have no illusions regarding the difficulties the member so articulately described. I recognize that the identification of industrial diseases and the tracing of causal connections with environmental factors in the work place and with particular substances or production processes presents a tremendous challenge to those charged with the task of adjudicating disease claims at the Workers' Compensation Board.

It is precisely because of these complexities that the government is seeking to strengthen those aspects of the present system that relate most closely to the determination of such questions. I am confident the roster of independent medical assessors and the creation for the first time of an industrial disease standards panel will be of considerable assistance in improving the overall quality of medical determinations in industrial disease cases.

They will permit the development of appropriate and up-to-date adjudication standards relating to medical questions, as well as ensuring that independent, expert judgement will be brought to bear on issues that -- and here I agree with the member -- are difficult ones on which to achieve any kind of consensus.

I believe there are very few persons who would seriously contest the need for improving our efforts in locating and identifying elements that appear to be causally associated with industrial disease and for developing standards to deal in the fairest manner possible with the compensation claims to which they give rise.

By way of illustration of the problems that can arise in identifying and adjudicating industrial disease claims, the member for Sudbury East made particular reference to cancer claims at Inco Ltd. sintering plant, at Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd., in the uranium mines at Elliot Lake and at Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Inc. In addition, he mentioned Wilco Canada Inc. in regard to lead poisoning.

In discussing these cases, the member suggested that the Workers' Compensation Board had somehow been remiss in dealing with these situations, leaving the clear impression that the board had failed to recognize the validity of many of the claims which had been made.

Following the debate, I asked the WCB to check into the particular situations that were raised. The board's records reveal a total of 275 claims in respect of the locations and diseases mentioned. This includes Inco sintering plants at two locations, Copper Cliff and Port Colborne. Of these 275 claims which span the whole period covered by the board's records, 213, or more than 77 per cent, were allowed by the board. A further four cases are pending.

In the circumstances, given the admitted difficulties involved in adjudicating this type of case, I do not believe it can be argued that the record indicates any general lack of acceptance by the board regarding the validity of the claims in question.

The member for Sudbury East and several of the other speakers in the debate also referred to the importance of preventive measures in reducing the potential incidence of industrial disease claims. I agree that this constitutes the key to improving the long-term physical wellbeing of the province's work force, although it does not preclude the need for developing appropriate procedures to handle those cases which occur despite our best efforts at prevention.

Contrary to the member's assertion, I have never suggested that I believe an appropriate definition of industrial disease or establishment of a medical panel are of themselves a sufficient response to the problem.

A recent editorial in the September 9 edition of the Toronto Star put the basic problem quite succinctly. It noted that about 1,000 new chemicals are introduced each year into work places across the world. In addition, it referred to the sometimes long latency periods of the diseases to which they may give rise. The editorial then posed the following question: "What can be done to protect workers' health without bringing industry to a grinding halt?"

The article noted the recent recommendations made by the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Safety regarding the testing of these new chemicals and supported their implementation. In reply, I confirmed that the advisory council's recommendations were under active study within the ministry. I also described the current measures being taken to protect against potential hazards arising in this situation.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act requires that the ministry be notified of new chemical or biological agents brought into commercial or industrial use. Established procedures require submission to the ministry of all known toxicological data, including data on the potential for causing cancer. The ministry may also require a report assessing potential hazards and including necessary protective measures to be prepared at the supplier's expense.

Onsite inspections by ministry staff are designed to ensure the adequacy of control measures. Section 14 of the act obliges employers to inform workers of work place hazards and to provide instruction and supervision to workers to protect their health and safety.

This very brief description of the measures taken under the act at present should suffice to indicate that control activities are not exclusively reliant on the designated substances list to which the member made reference. As he is well aware, the ministry's approach to prevention is not bounded by the relatively narrow confines of that list.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister is saying. I am aware he relies on the recommendations made by the advisory committee. But the point is that we have gone far beyond that in this field. I think the general consensus throughout this section is that the problem is there, but I do not think the panel is going to catch up with the widespread concern over it.

The minister referred to the advisory council. Is he aware that last week there was a spill from Ontario Hydro at Pickering of 20 litres? An unknown product was emitted into the lake. We do not have standards in Ontario for this substance. Is he aware of that? This is the kind of leadership initiatives that are needed. In this case, we do not even have a standard.

I hope the minister read the article in the paper. I do not know the name of the product, but I will send him the trademark of this chemical. I never heard of it previously. The article said we do not have a standard in Ontario for the amount of this product, which can be emitted. I do not know what the side-effects of this chemical are.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to my previous comments. I would like to have some clarification on subclause 1(5)(n)(iv), where it says, "any of the diseases mentioned in schedule 3 or 4." What are we talking about in schedule 4? I cannot recall it being in the present Workers' Compensation Act. Is there another section the minister is talking about introducing that will classify other industrial diseases?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will get that information to the honourable member.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 1 stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Haggerty: I have one other question relating to subsection 1(5) of the bill, amending clause 1(1)(o) of the act:

"'industry' includes an establishment, undertaking, trade, business or service and, where domestics are employed, includes a household."

Can the minister indicate the projections of additional revenue that will come in to the Workers' Compensation fund and what would be going out in benefits paid to injured domestic employees?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I do not have that information and I have no idea. I will try to obtain it, although I am not sure it is readily available and it will be projections only.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, maybe we can set aside the vote and we can go to --

The Deputy Chairman: We will vote and then once it is agreed we can decide, assuming I know how it is going to go.

Mr. Lupusella: In the meantime, we can deal with the other sections of the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: If the member for Dovercourt does not mind, we will vote on section 1 and then decide when we are going to have it.

Mr. Lupusella: Are we going to deal with the section and the subsection or the whole section?

The Deputy Chairman: Section 1.

Mr. Lupusella: Okay.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

The Deputy Chairman: The minister has an amendment to section 3. Would he like to move it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make at the same time. You suggested, and I followed your counsel as I always do, that these things should be done at the appropriate time, rather than at the beginning of the debate.

The Deputy Chairman: As long as the minister is dealing particularly with his amendment.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Absolutely, sir.

The Deputy Chairman: Before we do that, let us just follow the book.

Shall subsection 3(1) and subsection 3(2) carry? Carried.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, you would not mind if I said a few complimentary words about the members of the committee in advance. I found the debate in the standing committee extremely useful in clarifying certain of the bill's concepts and potential difficulties.

As all honourable members are aware, the system is a very complex one and far-reaching changes such as those proposed require precise attention to detail. The hard work of committee members and the resulting helpful amendments have resulted in a bill I believe responds to most of the major concerns expressed.

At the end of the standing committee's deliberations, I undertook to review a number of outstanding issues. The first of them relates to the subsection that is now before us. As originally introduced, subsection 3(4) of Bill 101 provided that where a worker's serious and wilful misconduct results in injury, no benefit would be awarded unless the injury results in death or serious disability. The standing committee decided this section should be withdrawn on the basis that it appeared somewhat harsh.

The question has subsequently arisen, however, as to whether the repeal of this section may do more harm than good to affected workers, on the following reasoning: a basic premise of the act is that compensable accidents or injuries must arise out of and in the course of employment. Some employers have argued in the past that misconduct, if it is extreme enough, can be deemed to take the accident outside the scope of the employment relationship.

Subsection 3(4), as it originally stood, confirmed that even though serious and wilful misconduct occurs, any resulting injuries could still be considered to occur within the scope of employment.

I am therefore of the view the original wording of the bill, as contained in subsection 3(4), should be reinstated. The subsection as drafted may be used to counter the argument that some employees' misconduct is so grave that it cannot be construed as occurring in the context of an employment relationship.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ramsay moves that section 3 of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection: "Where an injury is attributable solely to the serious and wilful misconduct of the worker, no benefits or compensation are payable unless the injury results in death or serious disability."

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That would be subsection 7.

Mr. McClellan: My colleagues may understand this. The amendment the minister has moved to section 3 appears to be identical to the language of subsection 3(4) that reads, "Where an injury is attributable solely to the serious and wilful misconduct of the worker, no benefits or compensation are payable unless the injury results in death or serious disability." Am I missing something?

Mr. Lupusella: I recall the conversation in the debate.

The Deputy Chairman: Is the member for Dovercourt answering the question for the minister?

Mr. Lupusella: No. I do not have a copy of the amendment, unless it was delivered previously. However, because I was part of the committee dealing with this section, I remember the section very well. I can clarify our position as well if the minister will be kind enough to send us a copy of the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the member for Essex South wish to wait for a response from the minister?

Mr. Mancini: I guess the confusion now is that my friends do not have a copy of the amendment. Is that it?

Mr. McClellan: If I can clarify this, I am not trying to be difficult, but the minister proposed an amendment to section 3 of the bill. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is correct.

Mr. McClellan: The amendment he proposed seems to be word for word the same as subsection 3(4). I do not understand what the minister is proposing.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With respect, I believe the member is referring to an earlier printing. There was a later amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: What printing is the member dealing with?

Mr. McClellan: I have the printing that was in my book, which appears to be the wrong printing.

The Deputy Chairman: I am sure they have been duly circulated.

Mr. McClellan: Could the table make sure we have the most recent printing of the bill, because I do not have that?

Mr. Mancini: I have received a small package composed of the minister's new amendments. I was in the committee at the time we discussed this matter. The minister's amendment reads, "Where an injury is attributable solely to the serious and wilful misconduct of the worker, no benefits or compensation are payable unless the injury results in death or serious disability." Is this the amendment we are talking about?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes. It is the one I read into the record.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: I have some difficulty with this amendment. I am not exactly sure how wilful misconduct would be proved, whether it would ultimately be proved at the board or whether a court action would have to be taken to prove there was wilful misconduct. I want to know from the minister why a worker should be punished because of someone else's misconduct. If there is, for the lack of a better word, some horseplay on the job site and if it is wilful, why should the worker who has been injured, whether or not this injury is severe, be penalized and forced to stay off work? He may not have been involved in what was going on. He may have been an innocent bystander.

Finally, I want to mention this to the minister. Did we not remove from Bill 101 the privileges of suing executive officers of corporations for wilful negligence or for not taking all precautions to make things safe on the job site? If the government wants to have it for one, it will have to have it for both. At the same time, I am still concerned about the fact that people will be punished for events that may not have involved them at all.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, we had a lengthy discussion about the principle of section 3. I have two points to raise. The first is a clarification I would like to have from the minister. Then I would like to make a few comments about the principle of this amendment.

The minister is moving an amendment to section 3. I am concerned about what will happen to subsection 3(3) of the bill when this new subsection is incorporated in the bill. I would like clarification about that. Up to this moment, we have subsection 3(3), which talks about presumptions of accidents. I would not like to see this subsection disappear.

I would also like to mention the lengthy discussion that took place at the committee stage about this amendment to section 3. At the very beginning I was strongly convinced, and I am still convinced, it is a good section and it is an amendment that should stay in the bill. A point raised by other members is that the misconduct principle incorporated in that clause pinpoints the blame on the worker, and there is no other section within the bill that blames the employer. It is fair to say that the opposition to this section was not so much against the principle incorporated within it. If there is misconduct as a result of which the injured worker eventually dies, under the terms of Bill 101 the injury would not be compensable.

The other critique that should be enlarged is that the misconduct took place on the employer's premises. As we are all aware, there are foremen there and the employer is responsible for what is happening in the work place. I am strongly convinced that whenever misconduct results in death, the blame should be placed on the employer because he should be responsible for what is happening in the work place.

On the other hand, the misconduct principle without this particular section might let the Workers' Compensation Board not pay the dependent of an injured worker who died as a result of misconduct.

So I support the principle contained in the bill even though I understand the consequence that blame is placed on the injured worker as a result of misconduct that took place in the work place.

If the minister is dealing with that and with serious disability, I think the minister had an opportunity to review or rephrase this same clause without really getting into the principle of misconduct, which gives the impression that the blame should be placed on the worker.

There was ample opportunity. I am not sure if the minister really got into the task of eventually revamping this particular section without really giving the impression of blame in order to satisfy something that is extremely vital and under which injured workers should be covered because in our social life we eventually are all convinced that employers should be responsible for what is happening in the work place.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I do not have a copy of the amendment, but I am looking at the previous act. I suppose Bill 101 is included in the previous act. Am I correct in that? It says, "Where an injury is attributable solely to the serious and wilful misconduct of the worker, no benefits or compensation are payable unless the injury results in death or serious disability." That leaves the door open. Just how serious are we looking at? A person could be off work for six or seven weeks and it may not be considered that serious.

The question that comes to mind is that sometimes there may be some horseplay at work and sometimes an innocent bystander may become injured. I hope he is not going to be penalized because two other persons may have been involved in some prank or something of that nature. I suggest the minister should be careful with this legislation so this person is not going to be left out of the picture. He may end up with a serious injury and because there may have been some other misfortune in the work place, it could leave him, his job and everything else in jeopardy.

As my colleague has mentioned, there are provisions under the bill now, even under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, saying that foremen and supervisors are exempt from any civil liability. We could have something that says one side can be exempt but in the case of the other side, because there was a problem in the work place and a person has been injured through some misfortune that is perhaps not related to the occupation itself, if the injured employee wanted to take action, he could take civil action against the other person involved.

There should be some clarification in this area, because if you are exempting one part of the work force, the supervisors or the foremen, so they are not held responsible for some areas of occupational injury, you could come back and say to the worker, "We are going to set the record straight and you are going to be penalized." I hope that is not the intent of this amendment.

5:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, first of all in response to the member for Dovercourt, subsection 3(3) of the act as set out in section 3 of the bill will remain. I think he was a little concerned about that. It remains in the act.

I want to emphasize the point I attempted to make that there is no ulterior motive in putting this back in. We took it out because we listened to the arguments that were made in committee. Those were good arguments, and the same arguments have been made here now. But as I have said before in this Legislature, if I had my life to live over again and I knew I was going to be a member of the Legislature, I would be a lawyer first so I could understand.

I have been assured by legal counsel and by persons within my ministry for whom I have the greatest of respect that I could actually be doing more harm than good by taking this out. I am putting it back in only on that basis, that leaving it out would do more harm than good to the affected workers. There is no other motive than that. In my original statement, I attempted to explain the reasons.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I realize the minister has confidence in his staff and the legal advice he gets from them. I refer him to the problems the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) is having at present. He told me and other people he has received advice from lawyers in the office of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) that he could put quotas on fish and so on. He could do all these things because he has received this excellent advice. When he went to court, however, the judges sitting in the courtrooms and in chambers told him he could not do any of these things.

While I respect the fact that the minister believes in the quality of his staff, I have to say the subsection the minister wants to insert in section 3 plainly and clearly says no benefits or compensation are payable. There is no doubt about what the words "no benefits" mean. No benefits means no benefits. "No benefits are payable unless the injury results in death or serious disability."

We all understand it is going to be extremely difficult to assess what is a serious disability. If I am injured through no fault of my own because of something that would fall under this section and I am off work for a week and I am able to go back, and six months later I have recurring problems from the original injury and I am off work again, if this goes on for an extended period, is that considered a serious disability?

Am I going to have to lose my benefits and my wages, be injured and maybe lose my job, as my good friend the member for Erie says quite correctly? I may lose my job and have to appeal this whole thing to the WCB, go through all the appeal process and then I may be left out in the cold after I have done all that. This leaves the door wide open for abuses which, in my view, should not be suffered by injured workers.

We stated this case to the minister in committee. I respect the feelings he has towards his staff. I have pointed out to him that staff and lawyers representing different ministries are not entirely correct. As a matter of fact, some of the things we have seen prove that in many cases they are wrong.

I say to the minister as sincerely as I possibly can that the words "serious disability" will come back to haunt us. That subsection is going to punish some people unfairly through no fault of their own. We removed the wilful misconduct section as it affects management and it is only fair to have it removed as it affects workers.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, in response to the question the member raised, the board defines any injury as serious if it involves six weeks' lost time. I think the member said something about six months, but it is six weeks' lost time. That is the definition of a serious injury.

I have one final comment to make as confirmation of what I said on two occasions thus far. This amendment is needed so that a seriously or fatally injured worker will be assured of compensation. It does not have the opposite effect. It is so they will be assured of compensation.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I have other colleagues who wish to take the floor so I will try to be brief.

The minister mentioned the case where, through no fault of his own, a worker becomes injured because of someone else's wilful misconduct. That in itself is going to be difficult to prove, working one's way through the compensation board. Our amendment refers to where a worker is injured through no fault of his own and loses five weeks from work. He loses five weeks' pay and gets no coverage whatsoever, even though it was no fault of his own.

I think the minister misunderstood my reference to six months. The amendment refers to when one is off work for five weeks, having hurt his ankle, knee, shoulder or back -- whatever. Six months later, because of the type of work he has to do -- bending, lifting, twisting, etc. -- the injury is further aggravated and he is off work again. That means the original injury was noncompensable and the later injury is too. As the member for Erie pointed out, one may end up losing his job because he may not be able to do the original job. One might have to ask for light work and that type of job in many cases is not available.

With this amendment, we are opening the door for people who through no fault of their own are injured, who may lose not only the time from work but also may lose their job. They may even, over a long period of time, become permanently disabled. They will have absolutely no coverage whatsoever from the WCB.

In committee, when we raised the issue of not attaching wilful misconduct to the management end of it, the minister seemed to understand the point we were trying to make. I repeat that if he wants to pay people who have been seriously injured or the dependants of workers who have been killed because of wilful misconduct, he can pay them anyway. He does not need this section. If he is interested in those people, he does not really need this section. This section is putting a lot of other people in jeopardy, and I just hope the fine legal experts on his staff will come to this conclusion.

The legal staff must remember that once this is passed it goes to the board. The board handles the procedures and makes the decisions about what is serious and wilful misconduct and serious disability. Again, as people disagree with those decisions they have to be appealed, and a long process starts when this is not really necessary. If a person becomes injured at the job, let us pay him for his injury and give him his benefits.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have a point of clarification only. The six weeks I referred to do not necessarily have to be consecutive. The member had referred to cases where the worker was off five weeks and later was laid low by the injury again. It does not have to mean termination after five weeks. He can add the periods together to make a total of six weeks.

Mr. Mancini: The minister is saying to the workers that they have to be untruthful.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, he is; that is what he is saying. He is saying that if they are injured because of someone else's wilful misconduct and they lose three weeks' work because of that injury, they will not be paid and will lose all their benefits. However, if they manage to stay off the job for six weeks, then they will be paid.

What does the minister think the injured worker's response is going to be? Human nature is human nature. He will visit the family doctor and complain to the foreman that he has to be off work for six weeks. Why are we going through all this? Will the minister please explain to us why we are going through all these backdoor shenanigans in order to pay a person for an injury?

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, for the last time, I would like to make the position of this party clear in relation to this important aspect of wilful misconduct.

My colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) enunciated his opposition to this clause for reasons clearly spelled out in the course of the debate. I am on record that I support the principle of this section, because the minister is trying to sell something the members should be concerned about, especially when we are dealing with death or serious disability, even though there is no clear definition of what serious disability is all about in the present act.

At the same time, the minister is trying to place the blame on the workers when there is a wilful misconduct case, that the injured worker must be paid in case the injury results in death or serious disability. The minister plays on the number of weeks -- six consecutive weeks of disability, or six weeks that need not be consecutive -- to give an indication of what serious disability is all about.

As far as I am concerned, there is no clear specification of what serious disability is all about in the present act or the new act. I might be wrong, but based on my knowledge I do not think any section gives an indication of what serious disability is all about.

The only thing that is clear in this section is when the injury results in death. Then there is no doubt whatsoever. Then serious disability becomes unquestionable. I think that leaves the door open to the employer to fight compensable accidents just based on the principle of misconduct. That is what I do not like.

I am quite sympathetic to what the minister is trying to do in this section, to move us on humanitarian grounds so that when a wilful misconduct injury results in death or serious disability the injured worker must be paid.

On the other hand, he is opening the door for employers to appeal compensable accidents on the issue of wilful misconduct. Lately, we had an opportunity to appear before the appeal system and to find out what kind of cases the employers are now appealing in that process, and I am very concerned about it.

My final position on this section was to redraft the section. We have been removing liability from management level personnel of a company, officers of the company and so on. but I do not think we are giving the same balance in power to management and workers to be excluded from any sort of liability.

In the case of wilful misconduct, the onus is on the worker to show he was not playing around in the work place in a case where the board is faced with an injury that resulted in death or serious disability, which is based on the principle of generalities. I understand the goodwill of the minister. On the other hand, that opens for us a negative scenario for injured workers across Ontario. They may be extremely confused about the good intention of this subsection, in particular because employers might appeal case after case on the principle of wilful misconduct.

I want to make my position clear. Is the minister going to redraft this subsection to remove this penalizing process on the injured worker in the case of wilful misconduct? Will he come out with more specific phraseology that will not offend workers across Ontario and will also deal with the serious matter of injuries that result in death or serious disability in different terms? I think that will do a favour to workers across Ontario.

If not, I do not have any other option but to vote against the minister's amendment, even though there is one aspect of the subsection I fully endorse; that is, "the injury results in death or serious disability." There is no section of the act that spells out a clear definition of what a serious disability is.

The minister came out with the proposal of six weeks or eight weeks as part of the general policy process the board has. Unless I am completely wrong -- and the minister can tell me if I am wrong -- I would like the minister to read the section of the present act and the new act dealing with serious disabilities of injured workers and what a serious disability is all about.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, my comments may take longer than the two minutes we have left. Six o'clock has almost arrived. I want to speak but I do not think I can cover it in two minutes.

Mr. Chairman: We are in committee, so there is no problem with that. My understanding is that when we return at eight o'clock, we will be dealing with Bill 77.

The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.

November 6, 1984