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

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I believe I do have a legitimate point of privilege having to do with the interpretation of section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which, as you are aware, is entitled in the marginal notes "Freedom from Arrest" and reads, "Except for a contravention of this act, a member of the assembly is not liable to arrest, detention or molestation for any cause or matter whatever of a civil nature during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days preceding or the 20 days following a session."

I have a copy of a letter written to Credit Bureau Collections, attention: M. Breau, over the signature of the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri), which reads as follows:

"Dear Sirs:

"The Legislative Assembly Act, section 38:

"'A member of the assembly is not liable to... molestation for any cause or matter whatever of a civil nature during a session of the Legislature or ...the 20 days following a session.'

"I will recruit the necessary funds before next Christmas.

"If molested, I will not pay you at all.

"Yours very truly, Michael A. Spensieri, MPP for Yorkview."

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to advise this House whether it is a correct interpretation of section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act that members of this assembly are free to welsh on their debts.

The issue has to do with a service that is provided to the members of this assembly by the Ministry of Government Services, which has arranged for the bulk purchase and the bulk printing of Christmas cards for the benefit of the members. The member for Yorkview has not paid his 1983 Christmas card bill. He is invoking section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act and his rights of privilege as a member, as I said, to welsh on his debts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: I would like you to advise us whether a member's privileges extend to freedom from legitimate debts. If you are not able to make a ruling, I wonder if you will refer this matter to the standing committee on procedural affairs, because if that is the interpretation of this section, I am sure all members would want to join me in having it clarified.

Mr. Speaker: I will be pleased to do that and let you know. This matter has come up before and I think I have made an interpretation or a ruling, but I will look at it again.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TENDERING PRACTICES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, as an eastern Ontario member who had some difficulty getting here today, I should note that as the four Tory wise men arrived from the west, a fierce blizzard arrived in our part of the region in the east.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, whose knowledge of the Ontario Manual of Administration I know to be very comprehensive. In that connection, will the minister turn his mind to pages 64 through 67 of the newly released Provincial Auditor's report?

Can the minister give the people of Ontario, the taxpaying public of this province, an accounting of why his department signed a second five-year management contract two years ago with a major US firm to operate an experimental resource recovery plant without tendering that multimillion-dollar contract, having regard to the fact that, as of this year, almost $20 million will have been spent by his ministry on the running of this public facility, almost all, if not all, of which has gone to this one US company?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the honourable member.

First of all, when that particular plant was first put into operation, the specific expertise that was required for the knowledge we wanted to get in the Ministry of the Environment was only available through that particular company. We were not able to tender the contract in this instance, as we do in all other instances, I might add, only because we required the ongoing information on resource recovery, which is very specific, very detailed and very highly sophisticated information.

Our ongoing work with that particular company has not come to an end yet. It will be tendered at the end of this five-year contract. It was not possible to tender it at this time because there is no other company in the field that would be able to take over at this point.

Perhaps the member has a supplementary, although I could go on.

Mr. Conway: The minister knows the Provincial Auditor has expressed very serious concern about the lack of competitive bidding on what is now $20 million worth of business at the experimental resource recovery plant.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Is the minister saying there were no other companies available for competitive tendering in 1982 when the second five-year contract was being considered?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: To the best of my knowledge, there were not. If another company had even considered bidding on this program -- and I want to share this with the member because I appreciate the concern he is registering by raising the point -- it would have had to go out and purchase an entirely new fleet of vehicles to provide the transportation to and from that plant.

It is a major undertaking and a unique and unusual situation. It is one of a kind in the entire province. I want to make it abundantly clear to the member it is not the practice of my ministry not to tender these contracts. This is a specific situation and a very unusual circumstance. It was only done because of the ongoing nature of the work.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, how can the ministry possibly tell what competition there will or will not be prior to tendering? Is there not an obligation first to tender and then to tender again? Perhaps after that process has been exhausted the ministry can say, "We could not find anybody else." Surely the minister has precluded other people from even entering into the competition.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, when we are involved in a matter as unique as this one, where we are attempting to get scientific information out of a particular project, it is not always possible to follow the normal rules of procedure as they relate to tendering.

In this particular instance, I might add the increases in the contract price, which were cited in the original question, were well below the level of inflation. The feeling of my staff at that time was that we would lose a great deal of ground in our attempt to assist with the whole question of resource recovery in this province by interrupting an ongoing contract at that time. The decision was to continue with it, and I believe that decision to have been the right one.

However, I want to give an assurance to the leader of the third party that the contract will be tendered in the future. This is one of a kind in my ministry. It was cited by the auditor, but I do not think there was anything inappropriate about that contract whatsoever -- in fact, I know there was nothing inappropriate about it.

Mr. Conway: Does the minister know the Provincial Auditor is not at all satisfied? He said in recent days that this is the largest untendered contract of which he has any awareness, not just in Ontario but in Canada.

To be more specific, what did the Ministry of the Environment say to those other two bidders or contractors who expressed an interest in bidding on that second contract two years ago? Why were they not allowed to bid at that time, keeping in mind the very clear directive set out in the Manual of Administration that tries to protect against the government and taxpayers being put in a very beholden position to one single supplier?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That was very simply because the two firms cited by the honourable member could not supply the services and the expertise required by my ministry for that specific operation.

Mr. Conway: It is not at all clear to the auditor or to the rest of us how the minister knew that at that particular time.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

TUITION FEES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a second question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

The minister of all education will undoubtedly have read that her colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), the man who would be king, has just released an economic strategy paper in which there are a number of very interesting suggestions, not the least of which is the number of his ministerial colleagues whom he would do away with. I am not going to ask the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling) and the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) to defend themselves against the cutting knife of the provincial Treasurer. I also wonder what the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) thinks about that.

As a minister of the restraint government that wants us all to live in the five per cent world, what does the minister of all education think of the provincial Treasurer's policy advice that tuition fees for the nearly 200,000 university students in Ontario -- already the highest anywhere in Canada -- should be raised by 15 per cent as a matter of stated public policy? Does the minister of all education agree with the Treasurer when he states, as he did recently in his economic strategy paper, that the time has now arrived for the young people of this province to pay a tuition fee increase three times that which is allowed in the five per cent world of Bill 179?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the question the honourable member asked was, what did I think of it? I think it is very interesting.

Mr. Conway: The nearly 250,000 university students in this province --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: -- will take note that their minister is not very interested in defending their interests against the double-digit increases of the flat-liner himself.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Conway: Did the minister of all education note in the Treasurer's economic strategy paper that he thinks there should be, as a matter of pressing necessity, an increase in the number of available places in community colleges, particularly in those institutions with the longest waiting lists? Mindful that the minister has been quick to point out that she is not aware of any waiting list anywhere, what does the minister of all education think about the Treasurer's suggestion that the time has now come to increase the number of available places in community colleges?

Mr. Speaker: That is the second time you asked the question.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not recall that I have ever made the statement that there was no waiting list anywhere. To my knowledge, I have not made that statement at all. It is a suggestion that I think must be tempered by the factual demographic information now available to us related to the absolute decline in the numbers in the 18-to-24 age group which is currently before us and which will in the future continue to go in the direction of a downward trend until 1992. That has been a matter of some concern, not just to me but to the Council of Regents, to the colleges and to faculty members of the colleges.

One of the growing roles of the college system in this province is that it probably must be prepared to deal with smaller numbers of post-secondary students and significantly increasing numbers of part-time students who are there for upgrading education, for continuing education or for recurrent education. That is precisely the kind of pattern that seems to be emerging at the present time.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether she agrees with the proposal that tuition fees should be increased in real terms by 10 per cent a year plus inflation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have heard that suggestion made. One of the questions that has been the burden of the Bovey commission is to examine university fees and make recommendations about the appropriate degree of responsibility of the students and the degree of responsibility of the public in support of universities.

Mr. Conway: Does the minister responsible for higher education feel that university students in this province should be paying more with respect to their tuition than they are currently paying?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If I had a very strong opinion about that, it probably would not have been part of the terms of reference of the Bovey commission. I think it inappropriate that I should make any comment about that question before the Bovey commission reports. I hope that report will be in the hands of all of us within the next four-week period.

Mr. Rae: Since the Treasurer has released information that can only be described as misleading, I wonder if the minister can confirm to the House that in her own estimates she has shown that, in 1978-79, tuition fees contributed only 14.1 per cent with respect to revenues for universities.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In placing his question, I ask the honourable member to withdraw the word "misleading," please.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I replace the word "misleading" with "incorrect."

Can the minister confirm that, according to her own estimates, in 1978-79, students were paying 14.1 per cent of operating revenues for universities and that, according to the 1983-84 estimated figure in the 1983-84 briefing book of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, they were paying 18.9 per cent? Therefore, there has been a substantial increase in the last six years in what students have been paying in comparison to what the government has been paying.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister confirm that fact? Can she explain why the Treasurer, when he released his statement yesterday, did not indicate that in the past six years under the Tory government students have been paying substantially more?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I remind the honour-able members that in 1960 the students of Ontario, as I think the Treasurer mentioned in his statement, contributed approximately 30 per cent of the total.

Mr. McClellan: What about 1860?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is 1960. They contributed approximately 30 per cent of the total educational costs of the university system of this province. In 1965-66, it was down to about 25 per cent. In 1970, it was approximately 17 per cent. It declined throughout the 1970s until almost the end of the 1970s. It has crept back, after a freeze on tuition fees for a considerable period of time, to approximately 19 per cent, I believe, at the present time.

Mr. Rae: I hope the minister is aware that this 19 per cent figure is different from the figure the Treasurer released yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister aware of the fact that in its latest survey the Council of Ontario Universities found 10 per cent of the students who were interviewed indicated they felt they had to reject an admission offer for financial reasons? Is she aware that 37 per cent of the students who were surveyed indicated financial concerns were their top priority in considering where they would be pursuing their post-secondary options?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The report the member refers to is one that was funded by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities as well as the Council of Ontario Universities and the Bovey commission. I do not honestly recall at this point what those figures are, but I shall certainly check them. It seems to me they are just a little bit out of line, but I will check them to see whether they are correct.

Mr. Conway: Does the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the minister of all education, not find it quite breathtaking to have a senior colleague of hers in the government of Ontario, at one time in this parliament, give the government great credit for holding the line on administered prices, including university tuition fees, to five per cent, and then very shortly thereafter say how terrible it is that the students are not paying enough and that they should now pay rates of increases of the order of 12 per cent, 15 per cent and perhaps 17 per cent?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not sure which year it was, but it was probably 1975 when a very distinguished group of Ontario citizens, Maxwell Henderson and company, having examined very carefully a number of aspects of government in Ontario, made a very strong suggestion about the need for increasing fees at the university level. A very small step was taken when the freeze on tuition was removed, and then we went into yet another freeze period, as far as limitations were concerned, upon the increase in fees.

All these things probably have to be taken into consideration, and they will be when I see what the recommendations of the Bovey commission are.

Mr. Rae: Is the Minister of Education aware of the fact that the average among the other provinces is that students pay roughly 10 per cent in terms of their fees as a contribution to university expenses? Does she really think Ontario students should be paying two and a half times what students in other parts of Canada are paying for their education in terms of total university revenue? Is she suggesting students should be paying two and a half times the ratio of what other students in Canada are paying?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is a somewhat perturbing figure, since in actual fact the leader of the third party is attempting to provide us with bananas when what he is really talking about is oranges. In actual fact, the students in Ontario do not pay tuition fees that are two and a half times higher than those paid by students in other jurisdictions. They pay somewhat higher fees in some areas and somewhat lower fees in some other areas.

Mr. Rae: I was talking neither apples nor bananas. I was questioning why the ratio should be two and a half times higher in Ontario.

EATON'S LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour that concerns the strike at Eaton's. It is a simple question. The vice-president for personnel for Eaton's has been quoted as saying the company's proposals are not final. This is from a story in the Globe and Mail. He said: "'We may' include a system of job classification in a future offer.... 'I do not want to explain, it's just one of those things. You're asking me to give you all our strategy. I'm not going to give away our tactics.'"

Does the minister not think it rather extraordinary that, in collective bargaining in 1984, 1,500 employees would be on the street and the company has not even tabled or stated what its final offer is to those employees? If this government is really committed to helping women workers and workers at the lower end of the wage scale, why does the minister not introduce legislation such as exists in British Columbia, in which a first agreement would ultimately have to be imposed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board if either party felt it was not getting any kind of square deal in negotiations?

Why not force the employer to bargain in good faith and come up with a fair agreement that reflects what is going on in the rest of the province in bargaining?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention at this time of introducing legislation similar to that in British Columbia.

Mr. Rae: I wonder how the minister feels about the fact that the suggested seniority clause that is being put forward by the company, apparently in good faith, reads as follows in the section on promotion, employees "shall be considered on the basis of their skill, ability, qualifications, performance record, potential and experience, and if an employee can satisfactorily perform the requirements of the new position, and in the company's discretion reflects the image and customer profile being attracted by the merchandise being sold, that employee shall be promoted." Hip, hip, hooray. "If two or more employees are so qualified, the company shall determine the best-qualified and he shall be promoted."

The minister is in charge of labour negotiations in Ontario and knows what kinds of seniority clauses are contained in contract after contract right across the province. Can he show me one other contract in which the company has discretion in determining the image and customer profile being attracted by the employee? Can he show me one other company in Ontario in which one's appearance is something that is going to be considered when one is up for a promotion?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not aware of any other contract that includes such a clause.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, going back to the minister's first answer, he will recall that the issue of first-contract settlement has been one that has been put to him on a number of occasions. I raised this matter with him in estimates a couple of years ago.

Noting his first answer, perhaps he would be so kind as to elaborate on why Ontario is not prepared to get into this kind of effort to expand fair labour relations in the province, the kind of effort that might allow the parties to begin to work together when a union is first formed. Then we might not have the kind of activity that has exploded at Eaton's and threatens not only the employer but also a large number of employees who have now withdrawn their services in an effort to get a first-contract settlement that would be possible in British Columbia. Why will he not move in that direction?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable member is not trying to compare the labour relations environment in Ontario with that in British Columbia. There is a vast difference, and Ontario looks very good in comparison.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister seriously arguing that employees working in the retail field, where their leverage is severely restricted -- the minister knows that full well; their ranks are mainly made up of women, mainly lower-paid workers who have struggled for a long time even to get certified -- should have to walk the streets for weeks on end without a penny in income coming in from the company just to get basic clauses that are now part and parcel of the fabric of law for literally millions of employees across Canada? Why should they have to go out on the street for something that is generally accepted, common knowledge and the standard of the industry in most industries across this country?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have said this before in the Legislature and I have to say again that I do not see my role in the middle of a labour dispute --

Mr. Mackenzie: No. That is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member should just hear me out. I am prepared to discuss this question in a broader context at any time, but I am not prepared to do so in the context of the particular work stoppage right now at Eaton's. There are negotiations going on, and it is not my role to get involved as to who is right and who is wrong.

Having said that, I want to continue on to say I am troubled by those negotiations. In that respect, my deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister for industrial relations had a high-level meeting yesterday about the current negotiations. My people are doing everything they can to bring the parties back to the table and to have some effective mediation.

Mr. Rae: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister just said in the House there are negotiations going on. He did. He said it. I will go back to the Instant Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please resume his seat.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is correct. I used the term "negotiations" in the wrong context. The negotiations are not going on at the present time, but as I was pointing out, a meeting was held yesterday at a high level with my assistant deputy minister and deputy minister to see whether there could be a resumption of negotiations and whether mediation efforts could be of help.

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Correctional Services and I am hoping he will not become so feisty and fiery as he did with the media yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: My question concerns ongoing violation of the Ontario Manual of Administration by his ministry. The minister will be aware that on March 22, 1984, my leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). raised the question of the ongoing contracts with Montfort Blanchet and Associates, the medical consultants, and he will be aware that those ongoing contracts amounted to $327,000.

He will also be aware that the Premier (Mr. Davis) defended the ministry in this House and indicated the Provincial Auditor had reviewed the contracts then and had not reported on the matter. He will, however, be very pleased to know the auditor has reported on those ongoing medical consultant contracts and found them wanting.

Will the minister now admit that his ministry has been in violation of the Ontario Manual of Administration for several years and that the Premier was very much misinformed when he stood in this House and defended the ministry on March 23, 1984?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, in answer to those questions, first, the Premier was not misinformed, and second, those contracts are not wanting.

Mr. Elston: It seems to me the auditor has indicated very clearly on page 63 of his 1984 report that those contracts were in violation of the Ontario Manual of Administration.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: He further indicates that this ministry now is going to apply for some kind of exemption from the Management Board so it will be brought back into compliance with the Manual of Administration. Can the minister tell us and the people of Ontario how he intends to ensure the people of Ontario will have value for money spent in his ministry if it receives the exemption from complying with the provisions of the Ontario Manual of Administration?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: In answer to that question, that exemption was granted. I do not have the exact date of the granting of that exemption, but the people of this province are getting service and value for their dollars.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the auditor's report on the operation of this ministry, could the minister explain what steps are being taken by his ministry to avoid delays in the administration and monitoring of probation, so we do not have the long delays that are described in the auditor's report and so people on probation are given the kind of counselling they need and the public is protected?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, we welcome examination of our operations by the Provincial Auditor and the recommendations that come forward in his report. My staff have co-operated fully in the past and will continue to co-operate with him.

In answer to the specific question raised by the honourable member, the discrepancies that were pointed out by the Provincial Auditor in relation to the monitoring of those probation cases were under review well before they were brought to our notice by the auditor. We have had a committee working on them and we have developed a new set of standards for case reporting and recording which will be in place by the end of next month.

AVIATION AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CENTRES

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning his thin-skinned and macho response to my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) on Monday when my colleague asked him about the inspection by the federal Department of Transport of the Ministry of Natural Resources aircraft in Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Laughren: Does the minister not understand that it is a requirement of the Department of Transport that it carry out these inspections under regulation? Does he not believe or understand that for reasons of both efficiency and safety the quality of the maintenance of these aircraft is not a matter that should be subject to the cutbacks of his government?

Does the minister not think it rather strange that persons working on maintenance would be the same persons doing quality control on those aircraft? Finally, will he assure us he will abide by the recommendations of the September inspection by the federal Department of Transport?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what I said on Monday. We have a high regard for the experience and competence of the staff at the ministry aviation and fire management centre at Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Laughren: So do we; that was never in question.

Hon. Mr. Pope: My friend should go back and read Hansard for Monday.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: As the ongoing Department of Transport and aviation and fire management discussions continue, we have every confidence that some of the differences of opinion with respect to style of reporting will be resolved.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the aviation and fire management centre has competent and diligent staff. We also recognize that the federal Department of Transport clearly identified the main problems with the maintenance program to be related to inadequate management, poor organization and insufficient personnel.

The DOT said that management has failed to provide an adequate inspection organization, that management has failed to ensure effective monitoring of deferred defects of aircraft and that management has assigned insufficient personnel.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wildman: Is it not time the minister and the director of the aviation centre took the report seriously and indicated what steps they were going to take to reorganize the management and to increase the number of personnel to protect the safety of aircrew and passengers on government aircraft?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, there is no threat to the safety of crew or passengers on government aircraft. We have high-quality technicians of experience.

Mr. Wildman: No one questions that.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Why is the member saying there is a threat to safety if he is not saying that?

Mr. Wildman: Because the management is inadequate; that is why.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Community and Social Services has the answer to a previous question.

CLOSURE OF HOMES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) asked a question in regard to eight developmentally handicapped men currently staying in the Shadow Lake camp run by the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded.

The eight men are former residents of the Pine Ridge centre in Aurora, which closed August 31, 1984, five months later than the scheduled closure date of April 1984. That delay was in keeping with our intention to place every individual in an alternative appropriate to his needs prior to the closure.

The eight individuals referred to were the last residents at the centre and all were scheduled for placement with the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded. Towards the end of August, the Metro association proposed to ministry staff that the association take responsibility for these individuals and provide a small, residential setting at Shadow Lake, rather than have them remain as the sole occupants of a 146-bed facility while awaiting the final touches being put on their new homes.

The ministry staff agreed with this plan and provided a vehicle and extra staff to assist in caring for the men. This action was taken in full consultation with the parents and had the support of the Pine Ridge parents' group, which visited Shadow Lake and was satisfied with this decision and the location. Day programming was provided with the same workshop the men were to attend when the final residential placements were made.

Subsequently, in September, two of the men moved to their new homes at the Hepscott Terrace group home. Prior to the other six individuals moving to their new homes, the spectre of a strike at the MTAMR appeared possible and a decision was made not to move the six until the labour issue was settled in order to minimize any disruption to these clients.

When the strike threat became a reality, the two who had already moved were returned to Shadow Lake to be with their friends, rather than being shifted to a strange home where they would not be familiar with staff or surroundings. At the commencement of the strike, one resident returned to his own parental home at parental request.

The current status is that the seven remaining men are being cared for by competent MTAMR management staff with continuing support from my ministry. They live in fully equipped ministry accommodation that meets all safety and health standards. The facility at Shadow Lake is a year-round centre, specifically constructed to serve developmentally handicapped people. The men are well cared for and will continue to be until the strike issues are resolved.

2:40 p.m.

On three isolated weekend situations, because of the high level of utilization of the camp, the residents were moved to a fully equipped cottage where, for supervisory reasons, two slept on fully bedded mattresses on the floor. Since the strike, five of the men have continued to go to the regular day program at the Reena Foundation's Cartwright Resource Centre. Day programming for the other two is being provided at the Shadow Lake camp. When the strike is over, these men will all move to their community residence, which has now been ready for more than a month.

Mr. Speaker: Can we please have the attention of the House and have business other than what is going on in the House done elsewhere?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have two supplementary concerns. First, can the minister tell us how many supervisory staff have been brought to the Shadow Lake camp in order to provide attendant care for the people who are living there because of the strike?

Second, will the minister tell us whether, when he approved the plan -- I think he said in August or September 1984 -- to send the eight men to the summer camp, it was part of the plan that their residence would be rented out for weekend guests and they would be moved to some other accommodation on the property and sleep on mattresses on the floor? Was that part of the plan he approved?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will find out by tomorrow how many ministry employees are at Shadow Lake. They are management personnel from the Huronia Regional Centre; and they have also been brought in to provide parental respite, not just for these people.

Second, when these men were going to be moved, a zoning problem in North York had held up reconstruction of their home. They were supposed to be in the home long before the two weekends in November when the place they were staying in at Shadow Lake was rented out.

Third, the only other time it was rented out was once in September, and they knew that before they went in.

Mr. McClellan: Three times in November.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, twice.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ADHERENCE TO INFLATION RESTRAINT

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In the resources development committee, my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) extracted the fact that Kirk Foley, president of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., is now making $112,000 a year as a result of a 13 per cent increase. That, by the way, is about $40,000 more than the minister makes.

Will the minister tell us what message that sends out to the thousands of public servants across this province who have been requested, or in most cases compelled, to hold their increases to five per cent? What message does it send out when Kirk Foley, who is already making $99,000 a year, gets a 13 per cent increase?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first, the information that was given by Mr. Foley yesterday morning during estimates consideration was given without any reference to notes. He did not have the exact information with him; he gave that information from memory. He has notified me since that the information he gave was not correct. I will have the correct figures for his salary for the last four years, which I will be tabling in the resources committee this evening.

Mr. Bradley: Is the minister telling us that Kirk Foley does not know how much money he has been making and how much he is going to be making? Or is it a case of having been publicly embarrassed by the fact that he received a 13 per cent increase when others in the province are held to five per cent, so now we are doing a little juggling of the figures until such time as they come down to something more acceptable to the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I resent the innuendo of the honourable member that somebody is juggling figures. I will present a letter tonight to the estimates committee. I do not have it with me today. It is from the chairman of the board of UTDC and contains details of Mr. Foley's salary over the past four years. The increase is not a 13 per cent increase as was stated the other day. believe it is 5.7 per cent.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning that great centre for Tory bumbling and patronage, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

Can the minister inform the House how it is that the LCBO retained a firm of consultants without the benefit of competitive selection procedures and without a written agreement, and that the consultants were hired to do work that was already completed by another government ministry? Can the minister give the House an explanation for this and tell us what he intends to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say it is nice to be back in this friendly atmosphere. There is no suggestion of trying to get any anger or any temper into this debate and I approve of that. I think you are doing a great job controlling the mood and the atmosphere of this Legislature and certainly none of us should be critical of that; we should applaud that and carry on with that great tradition.

I would have hoped the honourable member would have recognized that the LCBO has its own collective agreement with respect to its union and, as such, its insurance coverages and benefits have been subject to that collective agreement.

It is true that the Ministry of Government Services and the Provincial Auditor pointed out this matter. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Government Services suggested a consultant to them in order that they might review their own coverage for their employees under the terms of their contract. That was the reason for that.

Now that it has been drawn to its attention that even that was not proper, the board will in the future tender for such positions, but it does have to retain the right to have its own coverage relate to its own collective agreement and not to those of the public service of the government.

Mr. Philip: The minister will no doubt realize that those explanations were given to the auditor and that his report rejects the argument.

On the same topic, would the minister now confirm that the policies of the Manual of Administration were also violated by the LCBO when board-owned vehicles were sold to board employees instead of being disposed of by public auction? Can the minister inform the House how many vehicles were sold in this manner and the price paid for each of them, and will he investigate to discover whether or not this is a problem of bungling or a problem of fraud?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, in the atmosphere of conciliation pervading the House today and every day these days, I will be pleased to answer in that same sort of mood.

I may say that the board had the practice established of checking with a leasing company as to the reasonable price of a vehicle if it was going to dispose of it and, as the auditor reported, the board sold it to the employee if he wished it at that price. Frankly, as a result of the auditor's comments, they will discontinue that practice and will henceforth be putting them out for tender sale.

I want to say they were acting in good faith. There were five vehicles and the vehicles were sold for a total of $15,000. There is absolutely no suggestion of any impropriety in what they did.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, the auditor reminds us once again of what a rich minefield is the liquor board in this beloved province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: I am sure the minister is very relieved to know the auditor did not investigate the hiring practices, which are even more interesting.

As the minister responsible for the liquor board, what particular plans does he have to ensure that next year he will not be reporting again, or having the auditor report again, that on all of these questions the Manual of Administration is simply being ignored or otherwise flouted? Has he undertaken to meet with the chairman of the board to see that these irregular and sometimes sloppy practices cease and desist?

3:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I thought the member, in his usual magnanimous way, bringing that northeastern hospitality to the Legislature as he does so often, would commend the board for the fact that there was very little in the report that the auditor was able to find wrong with the practices of the board. That is what the member wanted to say, is it not? Did he not intend to commend the board for its practices? That is what I heard, in my own little way, in this friendly little room.

The member will not be surprised to learn that there is a constant communication between the board and our personnel and financial branches and, if any problems arise, steps are taken to correct them. When the auditor points out deficiencies, moves are made to correct them and that practice will continue.

COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTRES

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. In my task force report on the deteriorating state of correctional institutions in Ontario, I criticized the minister's use of community resource centres. I said that, due to lack of consistent guidelines, these supposed alternatives to imprisonment act merely as overflow valves for detention and correction centres, extending the warehousing concept into the community.

By now the minister is aware that the Provincial Auditor agrees with me and that the lack of regulations surrounding community resource centres and the length of stays of inmates in them do a disservice to the concept of alternatives to prison. Will he now act upon both my recommendations and those of the Provincial Auditor and use the community resource centres for rehabilitation instead of as a community warehouse, primarily for short-term sentences?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Auditor did comment on the administration of our system of community resource centres. The program administration for community centre services was regionalized on September 1, 1984. This allows for a localized and quick response to the needs of these agencies. Concurrent with that, we are developing, in consultation with the service providers, standards of service and a uniform contracting format that will ensure that full and effective use is made of these valuable services.

Mr. McKessock: Both the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) have been critical of the ease with which federal parolees are returned to society. The minister has constantly assured us that this ease is not reflected in the provincial probation and parole system. Now we have the auditor stating that supervision plans for probationers and parolees are often incomplete and that at least one probationer who was supposed to check in monthly had not done so for two years.

Can the minister tell the House the number of probationers and parolees who have violated their conditions of release who are still legally under the minister's care yet whose whereabouts in society are unknown to the minister?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: I do not believe the Provincial Auditor's report was critical of the supervision provided by our probation officers and parole officers. It was more critical of the administrative procedures that are provided along with that supervision. That recommendation has been acted upon and, as I mentioned earlier in answer to the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), we have developed a new set of standards which will come into effect at the end of next month to address that very concern.

AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. By the way, I would mention to the minister that the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League has not filed those reports with me yet and the minister has not presented them to the House.

I have a question concerning a young man from Sudbury, Jamie Gregor. Is the minister aware that Jamie Gregor was hit from behind, as is usual, during a university hockey game recently and two cervical vertebrae were cracked in two places and dislodged so severely that surgery was initially considered as the only treatment possible?

I want to know how much longer we are going to look at the body count or the crippled bodies in this province before we put an end to hitting kids from behind, against which there is no defence whatsoever. How many more are going to be crippled before we say we have had enough?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we would respond to that question in that way. How many more bodies are we going to count? I have frankly reached a point even now where I think, as the honourable member does, that there are far too many injuries. As he knows, we are taking a number of steps, along with the hockey world, to try to correct the situation.

It is not a case of waiting until we have reached X number of bodies before we take some action. We have set up the hockey development centre. We are working on establishing the sports safety board. We are working with Dr. Tator. As the member knows, Dr. Tator himself has indicated that although he is very concerned about this situation, there is no one simple answer to reducing dramatically the incidence of injuries.

In summary answer to the question, yes, I have had it almost up to here, just as the member has, with these injuries.

Mr. Martel: Even the coach of this team says the problem is that it is left to the discretion of the referee to call a penalty when someone is hit from the rear. Surely the new rule adopted by the Canadian Minor Hockey League, which calls for two minutes for hitting from the rear and five minutes if the player is hurt, is inadequate.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister aware that Dr. Tator indicates that most of those who become quadriplegics do so because of being struck from behind? We simply cannot leave it to a referee's discretion any longer. Even according to Vern Buffey, we have to take that discretion away and make it mandatory that you cannot hit someone from behind, for which there is no defence. Are we prepared to go that far, at least, and tell the hockey establishment we will not tolerate youngsters being hit from the rear?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That is certainly going to be one of the very specific questions that I will be taking up with the new hockey development centre to see what progress we can make there.

I am not cynical about this, although I am sometimes inclined to be a little sceptical, but I think we can achieve some progress by working through that committee and through organized hockey.

HYDRO REVIEW

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. In view of the catastrophic events and economic hardships that the Grey-Bruce area is facing, with thousands of homes being affected by the closing of the reactor; in view of the fact that we all know Ontario Hydro is totally out of control, with 50 cents of every dollar going to take care of Hydro debt and $4 million a day pouring into Darlington; and given that the top nuclear authorities said last week in the Wall Street Journal that Darlington was a scandalous affair --

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: In view of all these things, why will the minister not level with the people of Ontario and tell them he has no power and his ministry is a farce? He has about 100 people in public relations spending $10 million and he is doing nothing but conning the people of Ontario. Even though he is a decent guy himself, why does he not resign and get out of all this nonsense?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I dare not ask the honourable member to repeat the question. Perhaps I should.

I think the member has offered some modest exaggerations in some of the figures he has quoted. I would suggest to him that the closure of the reactor at Douglas Point will not produce the impact he has led the House to believe it might. I would want to research more carefully some of the figures he has offered me on Darlington, the cost of borrowings and the other activities of Ontario Hydro.

I will not make any comments about my future in the Ministry of Energy or about the future of the ministry itself, other than to say that this appears to be the subject of some public debate these days as well. Perhaps the member would care to get into that debate, along with others, out in the public forum.

Mr. Sargent: A few months ago I asked the minister about the buildup in uranium that was never used, which is costing us $100 million a year, and this scam of a uranium contract. He had the audacity and stupidity to say he would refer that to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) because it was a mining matter. That is what goes on.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that the minister thinks he should stay in that job and that the memorandum of agreement dated November 8, 1982, clause 4.1, reads, "The minister is not responsible for the control and direction of the business and the affairs of Hydro" --

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: It also says, "This memorandum of understanding shall remain in force until December 31, 1984."

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: The question is, right now the ball game is over in about 21 days or something like that.

Mr. Speaker: Is that an observation or a question?

Mr. Sargent: It is in the interest of the public good. Mr. Speaker, why do you not you sit down and listen for a moment?

Mr. Speaker: Why do you not place your question right now?

Mr. Sargent: All right.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Sargent: The minister knows it is a farce. Why does he not quit?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Because there are three children, a dog, a wife, etc.

I do not know what the honourable member has against Elliot Lake and the folks there who earn their living in those jobs in the uranium industry, or what he has against Ontario Hydro and the extensive activities it has carried on at the Bruce Peninsula.

Because this is a multi-faceted question, I want to give him a multi-faceted answer. The memorandum of understanding that is in place is being discussed and will be reviewed and revised, and a new memorandum will be put in place prior to the expiration of the current one, if indeed that is appropriate and necessary.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to quit, but in relation to the question asked by the honourable member, in view of the fact that all four candidates for the leadership of the minister's party are now saying Ontario Hydro is out of control, which is what we have been saying for many years, and also that this government has no control on the rates citizens are paying for the projects Hydro is building --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Di Santo: -- does the minister think at this time, or is he on the edge of making a decision, that finally the people of Ontario deserve a forum where Hydro can be discussed? Is he ready now to say we again need a select committee to discuss the business of Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is a supplementary on the original question, or which of the supplementary questions it is supplementary to.

Mr. Speaker: I think it was a supplementary to your answer.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I think I have answered the honourable member's question on many previous occasions. The whole question of a select committee is one that has been debated in this House on many occasions and it has been debated elsewhere. I have commented to the member on the various forums that are available to members of this Legislature to pose their questions on matters relating to Ontario Hydro. I encourage the member to keep up his interest in the activities of that utility and to be prepared to address these issues when they come.

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson), I present a petition submitted by all the missionary churches in the Stouffville area and the United Church of Stouffville. It reads as follows:

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

"We petition you as our member of the provincial Legislature to bring to the attention of the government the total disregard for the Retail Business Holidays Act being exhibited in the flea market operations on Saturdays and Sundays in Stouffville. We petition you to have full enforcement of the act undertaken and the necessary amendment to the legislation to preserve Sunday as a day of rest."

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Kolyn: On behalf of the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson), I present the following petition:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

"Whereas there is an understood convention in democratic societies which respect the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policies are implemented such matters should be debated in the Legislative Assembly with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have an identical petition signed by 33 members of the Geraldton Composite School staff.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McLean from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $11,847,800; industrial relations program, $7,160,000; labour relations board program, $4,217,000; occupational health and safety program, $34,772,500; employment standards program, $6,611,000; manpower commission program, $2,135,000; human rights commission program, $4,938,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Your committee further recommends that Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton; Bill Pr16, An Act to incorporate Canada Christian College and School of Graduate Studies; Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Harold and Grace Baker Centre; and Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the Madawaska Club, Limited, be not reported.

Motion agreed to.

3:10 p.m.

MOTIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding any previous order of the House, the supplementary estimates tabled Tuesday, December 4, be referred to the committee of supply.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding the provision of standing order 64(a), government business will be taken into consideration this afternoon, December 6, and next Thursday afternoon, December 13, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding any previous order of the House, this House will sit in the chamber on Wednesday, December 12, at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 154, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing for first reading the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 1984. The Business Corporations Act, 1982, came into effect in Ontario on July 29, 1983, and its enactment put Ontario in the forefront of Canadian corporate law. The Business Corporations Amendment Act clarifies through addition and elaboration the intent of the existing act and corrects certain anomalies that have resulted in most cases from different interpretations of the wording.

The bill before the members today proposes minor changes of a housekeeping nature to 16 sections of the existing legislation. For example, when it was enacted, the act was acclaimed for widening the rights of shareholders in general, and in particular for requiring companies to buy out dissenting shareholders. A proposed amendment to section 184 of the act makes it clear that such dissent must be communicated to the company in writing and that casting a negative proxy vote does not constitute a written dissent.

Further, proposed amendments to sections 42, 45 and 56 of the act will permit securities dealers to control the ownership of their publicly traded shares to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the rules on ownership set down by the Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange.

There are other changes that are elaborated in the bill and in the compendium.

FARM FORECLOSURES MORATORIUM ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, first reading of Bill 155, An Act respecting Farm Foreclosures Moratoriums.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the bill would require a mortgagee who wishes to foreclose on a mortgage against farm land to obtain the court's permission first. In considering whether to grant the order, the court is to take into account whether the land is being farmed, whether it is the mortgagor's primary source of livelihood, whether the mortgagor has made all reasonable efforts to pay the debt, whether the mortgagee has attempted to make an arrangement with the mortgagor for the payment of the debt, whether the farm is or could be viable, and the need to preserve active farming operations.

While new measures such as farm loans at reasonable interest rates and adequate commodity prices including stabilization are essential for the long-term survival of many farmers, this legislation will keep many of them afloat until the other life-sustaining measures can be put in place.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House, I beg to advise the House that pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the maintenance of Ministry of Natural Resources aircraft at Sault Ste. Marie. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I want to table the answers to questions 540, 541, 544, 555, 589, 590, 591, the interim answer to question 592 and the response to a petition presented to the Legislature, sessional paper 255 [see Hansard for Friday, December 7].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the motion we have just passed, I would indicate to the House that the business for this afternoon is continued consideration in committee of the whole on Bill 101, with votes to be stacked to 5:45 p.m.

This evening at eight o'clock we will deal with Bill 119 in committee of the whole House, followed by Bill 149. Then we will come back again to Bill 101, if more time is still needed, with the votes stacked to 10:15 p.m.

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 11:

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three points I would like to make. First, I would like to clarify a response I made to the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) during last Tuesday's debate on Bill 101 with respect to a survey of employers.

The honourable member suggested that a survey had been conducted containing a question --

lnterjections.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am having difficulty hearing myself.

Mr. Chairman: Order. As members are leaving the chamber, I wonder if they would do so quietly. The minister wants to be heard on these points. All the committee wants to hear.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I really do not think it is that important that I be heard, but --

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, it is.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, yes, it is.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have trouble concentrating when --

Mr. Stokes: If you are going to take the trouble to say it, we want to be able to hear you.

Mr. Kerrio: If there were only one minister left over there, we would want it to be you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is a nice touch. I like that. I agree with it 100 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member suggested a survey had been conducted containing a question related to the length of time of workers' compensation claims. In particular, he indicated employers had been asked whether they thought the length of time of claims was too long, too short or all right. I indicated in response that no such survey had been conducted by either the board or the ministry.

I want to be clear, though, that what I had meant to indicate at the time was that no survey had been conducted by either the board or the ministry that addressed the precise question to which the member referred. In fact, as members are aware, it is the case that the board has periodically conducted surveys of employers. Indeed, one was conducted last spring and was the subject of a question by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) on April 18.

This is the most recent survey of employers conducted by the board of which I am aware. I reiterate, however, that there is no question in this survey to employers asking whether in their view the length in time of claims was too long or too short. I feel I might have misled the member in my response and I wanted to clarify that.

3:20 p.m.

There are just a couple of other points I would like to make quickly. I probably provoked a bit of an uproar in the Legislature on Tuesday when I indicated I was worried about the length of time this bill was taking. I want to be very clear, and I think Hansard will confirm this, although I have not had a chance to look at it, that I do not recall my comments as being critical of the honourable members. I was just expressing a personal concern that this bill be passed before the session is over.

I think it is a good bill. It is a good bill because of the consultation and debate we have had now for close to two and a half years at the committee stage, around a table, informal discussion, formal discussion and so on, with the injured workers, representatives of the Legislature, representatives of the private sectors and representatives of the medical community.

I should not say this, but I was going to say I do not think there is any other bill that has been looked at in such detail. Perhaps others have, but I am not aware of them, my experience being short in this Legislature.

Also, I would like to stress that we have considered very seriously the various points that were made by the members of the opposition in the committee stage, which as I said was an elongated committee stage. We have considered those very seriously, and we did come back into the House with some changes such as in the case of support for existing survivors.

We have listened and listened very carefully, but we have not accepted all the recommendations that have been made. We tried to maintain a healthy balance, a balance between the needs of the injured workers and the demands on the employers in an economy that is troubled.

I would not suggest at all for a moment that the members restrain themselves. I am prepared to sit here just as long as they wish. All I really was trying to ask the other day was that perhaps we all, myself included, could be a little less repetitious in our debate.

It was also requested of me on two or three occasions on Tuesday that I get up and respond to certain points that were being made. The procedure I had been following up until Tuesday was that usually at the end of the debate on any particular section if I did have anything to say -- and I did frequently -- I got up and made my comments at that time. I would like to continue that practice.

For that reason, I say to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), who had some points he was raising with respect to the covered earnings ceilings, I will be pleased to stand up and provide my comments after all the members have had an opportunity to make their points.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the first statement about the survey I was referring to, I do not think there was any misunderstanding on my part, even though the question I emphasized was not drafted in the latest survey conducted by the board. The copy I have did not pay attention to the date, but there is a clear question that was raised, although maybe the minister and I are talking about two different surveys that have been conducted at different times by the Workers' Compensation Board.

I did not have time to go through the contents of my paper, but I can provide the contents of that survey to the minister and he will realize the question I raised was included in the survey I was talking about.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, it is good to see you in the chair, because the last person who sat in that chair dealing with Bill 101 was the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) on Tuesday night when we had stacked some votes and were attempting to deal with them. I do not think I have ever seen such misuse of a chairman's powers as I saw that evening. If the member for York Centre continues to behave that way when he is in the chair, we are going to be a long time expediting the business of this bill. It was an outrageous performance. Those of us in this party felt insulted by his performance.

Mr. Chairman: I was not able to be here on that occasion, but perhaps the member could go to the debate.

Mr. Laughren: When we were debating this bill on Tuesday afternoon, we were on section 41 of the act, as set out in section 11 of the bill. The reason I was agitated on Tuesday afternoon was that, despite what the minister just finished saying now, when I finished making my comments on this section, I sat down and the minister did not rise to respond to the arguments I had been making on the whole question of the way benefits are calculated with a ceiling of $31,500.

It was only because the minister indicated he was not going to respond that I continued to debate this section. I do not think we need to dwell on it much longer, because the minister indicated a few minutes ago that he intended to respond to this section.

I simply say I do not know how one can logically argue for any ceiling in the computation of injured workers' earnings. Surely to goodness, when a worker gets injured, there are three main purposes of the compensation system: the prevention of accidents, the maintenance of earnings and rehabilitation. If a worker gets hurt on the job and that worker earns $25,000 a year, he will get 90 per cent of his net average earnings under this bill. If a worker earns $35,000, he will get only 90 per cent of $31,500 rather than a percentage of the net earnings based on $35,000.

I have always felt injured workers should not pay a financial penalty for being injured on the job, yet here we have a double penalty. We are already penalizing everybody else by 10 per cent, and now we are going to bump up the financial penalty for workers who earn in excess of $31,500.

People as committed to the work ethic as is this party do not do that. On the other hand, if the governing party in this province says, "You have to temper the work ethic with a financial penalty," then let its members stand in their places and say so. Let the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) stand in his place and say, "We do not think an unfettered work ethic is a good thing for Ontario, as it applies to workers who get hurt on the job."

This seems to me to be an incredible contradiction. The members of this party do not believe that. Because of our commitment to the work ethic, we believe that when someone is doing his job, working in a way society judges to be good, as opposed to not working, he should not be penalized that way. If he earns more than $31,500, why would we put an increased penalty on him? Surely we have an adequate penalty with the 10 per cent. The logic of that completely escapes me.

I would have more understanding and respect for the Minister of Labour if he were to stand in his place and say, "We believe we must impose a penalty on people earning more than $31,500" -- for example, a bonus miner or a high steel construction worker -- "because they have this kind of job" -- perhaps a dangerous job; certainly one in which they must work very hard to earn that amount of money.

3:30 p.m.

If that is what the Minister of Labour believes, let him have the courage of his convictions to stand in his place and admit it. But he does not. What does he do? He said in the past, and again a couple of minutes ago, "At a time when the economy is troubled, we do not think we can move or do anything different."

Why is it that injured workers should have to take upon themselves the problems of a troubled economy? Surely they are not the elite in our society. Why pick on them and those who are working very hard and earning more than $31,500? I know it is an improvement over the existing level-- I understand that; it is better than the existing level -- but that does not deal with the principle involved. What I would like to know from the minister is how he deals with the principle of an increased financial penalty on people who earn more than $31,500 and who get injured.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago when the minister rose to comment on the thrust of this act, he indicated that he and his colleagues have been attempting on the one hand to meet the legitimate needs of injured workers and on the other hand to be conscious of the financial impact on employers who have to pay the premiums.

I remind the minister that factor came up many times during our committee hearings this summer. The minister will remember that one of the counterproposals to the fixed figure in section 41 of the bill, entered by members of this party, was that we recognize the financial difficulties and have a phased-in change for this figure.

The proposal we made was that we begin with 175 per cent of the average industrial wage and that we increase that by 25 per cent a year until we meet the proposal of Dr. Weiler, until we reach the 250 per cent figure. That was proposed by Dr. Weiler and it was contained in the government's own white paper. We would be talking about three or four years down the road, at which point the ceiling would be phased out completely. That still appears to us to be a legitimate proposal, taking into consideration both the needs of injured workers and the financial restrictions employers face at the present time.

The other point that was clearly drawn to the minister's attention was that we are not talking about a large number of people. We are talking in the neighbourhood of three, four or five per cent who would be in those higher figures. I do not know what the exact figure is, but it was clearly brought to our attention through the statistics presented by representatives of the board. Once one gets up into the figure mentioned in this bill, one is over the 90 per cent level of all injured workers. Therefore, we are talking about a small number of people. I cannot remember the exact translation into dollars, but we are not talking about a majority of injured workers; it is only a minority.

I still want to go on record as indicating that a fixed figure of this type is not fair; it is not the best way to go. The sliding scale we proposed once before is fairer to injured workers and employers, and it takes into consideration the proposals presented by both Dr. Weiler and the government itself through its white paper. We ask the minister to reconsider this fixed figure.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would like to take a minute to explain our reasons for settling on the figure of $31,500 as the new level of the covered earnings ceiling in Bill 101. As the members know, there has been a good deal of debate about this issue and it was fully canvassed in the standing committee. Nevertheless, I am happy to reiterate our basic rationale.

It should be remembered that Bill 101 represents the first phase of workers' compensation reform. This is to be followed by a comprehensive review of the permanent disability pension system and the various options for reforming that system, wage loss and others, that have been suggested over the past several years. In the context of this review, we will be prepared to give consideration to raising the covered earnings ceiling further.

In phase one, our concern was to introduce major structural and procedural changes while at the same time addressing several of the most critical benefit issues. This we have done in Bill 101. Additionally, however, we have been sensitive to the need to restrain, as much as possible, the cost increases for employers.

Economic recovery is fragile in many sectors, and as all members know, unemployment levels are still distressingly high. In our view, this is not the time to increase the costs of hiring and retaining workers beyond what is absolutely necessary. Coupled with the general economic climate, we are also reluctant to burden employers further with workers' compensation costs at a time when there is an urgent need to address the unfunded liability of the board by significant assessment-rate increases.

The unfunded liability and the costs we have to pass along to employers to cover that is a very serious matter. This is not to say that the increase in the covered earnings ceiling in Bill 101 is insignificant. In fact, it represents a healthy increase of more than 17 per cent above the current level. Moreover, it brings Ontario into line with most other provinces. Only Newfoundland and Alberta would have significantly higher ceiling levels after the enactment of Bill 101.

The increased costs of the higher earnings ceiling are also significant. In fact, fully half of the costs of benefit increases under Bill 101 relate to this one provision. The increase to $31,500 is estimated to cost an additional $41 million annually or about four per cent of the current total cost of workers' compensation.

The figure of $31,500 represents approximately 150 per cent of the average industrial wage. Our best estimates indicate that only 14 per cent of all Ontario workers, those at the top of the wage scale, would be less than fully covered by the workers' compensation system. The corresponding figure at present is 32 per cent and one can therefore see that a significant improvement is being made in this first phase of our reform process.

Mr. Chairman: Member for Nickel Belt, are we moving on? Is this again section 41?

Mr. Laughren: I was going to speak briefly to section 41. Is that in order, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Laughren: I thank the minister for his response and for the numbers. I had forgotten them, quite frankly. I remember they were discussed in committee. What we are really doing is moving from having 32 per cent of injured workers subsidize the system to having only 14 per cent subsidize the system. We are saying we do not want one third of injured workers to subsidize their employers' costs of them getting injured on the job; we only want 14 per cent of injured workers to subsidize the employers' costs of compensating injured workers.

When you look at it that way, and I do not think it is an unreasonable way to look at it, it does put it in perspective. The only argument the minister has put has nothing to do with the principle of whether injured workers should pay twice, once for the injury and once financially. He is simply going back to the old argument that the employers are paying enough. There is only one way to reduce the costs of compensation in a civilized way in this province and that is by reducing the number of injuries and industrial illnesses.

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being on my feet again, but both the first time and second time I got up, I meant to make an additional comment and both times I got caught up in the circumstances and neglected to do so.

When I was referring to my comments the other day that provoked a bit of a furore within the Legislature, I also wanted to mention that I contributed to that furore.

Mr. Laughren: The minister is the only one who was provoked.

Mr. McClellan: The minister created it; he was the sole cause.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I created it, I contributed to it, whatever. Whatever they wish to say, I accept.

All I am trying to say is that in the exchange I made a couple of comments to the member for Nickel Belt that in retrospect I regret making. I would like to stand in my place today and withdraw those comments.

Mr. Laughren: I have forgotten what they were.

Mr. Chairman: Is the member for Nickel Belt withdrawing anything?

Mr. Laughren: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment to delete section 41 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, when we are voting for the deletion of a section, normally we do not move a motion. Perhaps you could remind us when we come to the stacked vote.

Mr. Chairman: Fine. Thank you.

Mr. Lupusella moves the addition of subsection 42(7) as follows:

"(7) The levels of compensation shall be increased twice yearly by an amount equal to changes in the consumer price index in Ontario."

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments because I think this amendment addresses the basis of many of the complaints from injured workers who have raised concerns over the years. I do not think the government had the decency to take into consideration such concerns, even though there was a long report by Professor Weiler and the standing committee on resources development reviewed the recommendations of Professor Weiler.

In a different debate, I told the minister that if we do not want to see injured workers meeting at Queen's Park and demonstrating against the unwillingness of the government to make changes in the Workers' Compensation Act, this kind of amendment to the legislation would be appropriate, because it takes into consideration the injustices of the system with which injured workers have been faced for so many years.

Therefore, I think it is imperative for us to show our concern for injured workers, to try to move forward so the levels of compensation will be increased twice a year to take into consideration the changes in the consumer price index in Ontario.

I want to remind honourable members that before 1975, the cost of living in certain instances was going up 100 per cent and injured workers did not receive any increase in the amount of money or pension or level of benefits they were receiving from the board. Therefore, it appears appropriate that the best economic indicator of how much the level of benefits should be increased for injured workers across the province is and should be the consumer price index in Ontario.

We know for a fact the way our injured workers have been treated for so many years in relation to the amounts of pensions and the meat chart, which has been opposed by injured workers since the inception of the act in 1914-15. We also know for a fact the way our injured workers are assessed on receiving the amounts of their pensions, which most of the time is unfair, and the bureaucratic process that injured workers are supposed to go through to get their pensions increased. The onus is on injured workers to demonstrate that their level or degree of disability is higher than what the board had previously assessed.

In the final analysis, injured workers will eventually succeed in having their pensions increased within the framework of the structure of the present act. This, as far as I am concerned, is a recognition on the part of the board that an injustice has been committed by the board or by the pension department. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that this economic indicator, the consumer price index, ends this type of injustice which injured workers have been enduring for so many years.

The recommendations of the umbrella organizations of injured workers across the province to the standing committee on resources development, which was appointed by the government, made it very clear that this type of change would reflect the unfair realities that injured workers have been living with for so many years.

Again we are faced with the government's unwillingness to implement such requests, even though the Minister of Labour told us on several occasions that the injured workers' concern was taken into consideration. As far as I am concerned, their concern was not taken into consideration, even though we had a commitment from the Minister of Labour that in the months and years to come there would be adjustments to reflect the consumer price index in Ontario on top of the level of benefits that injured workers are already receiving.

The only thrust that moved the government to appoint Professor Weiler and to come out with the government white paper was all the injured workers who had been faced with old injuries and who protested the inefficiency of the system.

3:50 p.m.

The government responded to this concrete and real concern with a new type of legislation that will take into consideration new injuries by completely excluding the old injuries. The only mechanism which is in place under Bill 101 is the fact that all injured workers, even workers injured in the past, can have an open option to be covered under Bill 101.

Based on estimates by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt, the old injured workers, of course, will end up being the losers if they decide to move into the new system. They will have to give up their pension. Their Canada pension plan benefit will be deducted in calculating the amount of money they are supposed to receive in the form of a supplement pension in cases where injured workers are able and available and willing to co-operate with the rehabilitation department of the board.

In all fairness, I do not think the government has responded to the needs of what we have seen through the years as the major concern affecting injured workers across Ontario: the old injuries, the degree of their pensions, and the meat chart, which injured workers favour having eliminated or updated because it is so archaic there is need for a change.

In the overall spectrum of changes, the government responded to the new realities of injured workers with Bill 101, which will take into consideration new injuries by excluding old injuries. With the greatest of respect, the Minister of Labour cannot defend his position or the position of the government. Through the years, they came out with the mechanism of legislative changes of increases equal to the amount of changes in the consumer price index in Ontario.

This type of discretionary power, if I can use that phrase, that was implemented by the Minister of Labour and by the government should be legislated in order that injured workers will get the benefit of an automatic increase without having to appear in front of Queen's Park and demonstrate the hardships they have experienced as a result of the increases in the consumer price index in Ontario.

If we are really serious about taking into consideration the needs of injured workers across Ontario, this is the only way that will reflect what appears to be a fair request; that is, by legislating their demands and having the Workers' Compensation Board every year or twice a year make the adjustment. The computers will be ready for the adjustment rather than the board being shocked each time an increase has to take place.

We are faced with the scenario of all the injuries for which justice has not yet been received from this government. We are faced with serious injuries. The workers see the board as an adversarial system because the law became inadequate as a result of the economic changes of our society and also of the rapid changes in the consumer price index in Ontario and across Canada.

We do not have any legislative mechanism to take such a reality into consideration, even though we have to admit that, from time to time, there is political pressure on the floor of this Legislature coming from our side or from other members interested in raising the issue of increasing the level of benefits on behalf of injured workers.

At any rate, because I am dealing with compensation which should be increased twice a year and because we do not have any automatic legislative mechanism in place, instead of raising the question during question period, I hope the minister will be kind enough to tell us when the new changes affecting the old injuries will take place. I understand these changes will be presented some time in the near future, but we do not have any time frame for the increase in pensions for injured workers, which has nothing to do with Bill 101. I am talking about all injured workers covered under the old act.

I am convinced the government members will reject my amendment but I would feel better if the minister would give me the good news that the new changes will be introduced as soon as possible to take into consideration the needs of all injured workers covered by the old act.

Again, I want to test the sensitivity of the minister. We are not playing political games. We do not want to wait until a spring election is called, or for a ministerial or government statement that increases for injured workers will come when the election is over and when this Legislature resumes business. Let us get a clear statement from the minister now as to the time, the month and the year when these changes will be introduced in the Legislature.

As we stated several times, we do not feel injured workers across Ontario should feel the political pressure or political game of the government. I hope the Minister of Labour will take my comments into consideration and will make a ministerial statement to clear the air of any misunderstanding that might surround the changes affecting injured workers covered under the old act.

I am quite disappointed that the government rejected this particular motion during the clause-by-clause debate in the committee. It is an important amendment to the bill. I thought for a moment that the minister would come out with his own amendment to reflect our request, which is the consumer price index.

I am sure other members would like to participate in the course of this debate. Therefore, I am leaving the floor and I hope the members of this House will support my amendment.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of the amendment introduced by my friend the member for Dovercourt. The reason I am in favour of it is very simple. If we look at this section, we will see that we are dealing with the minimum pension for injured workers who are totally disabled. The minimum pension for them will be not less than $10,500 a year, which means that workers in this category are ones who have no recourse at all.

4 p.m.

We are dealing with workers who may have been injured many years ago. I know people who were injured 30 years ago. Those workers have been deprived of the right to work, but if they were working today they would be making a decent salary. In many cases, we are dealing with skilled workers. They were trained in a special skill and today would be making salaries that would far exceed $10,000 a year.

Because of the way the Workers' Compensation Act is structured, those workers are penalized. In fact, today they will receive a pension of $10,500 a year. I think the least the government could do would be to introduce a mechanism that is automatic so that those workers would receive increases as the cost of living goes up.

Even though their pensions do not reflect, by any stretch of the imagination, the income they would make if they were able to, if they had not had an accident, they should not have to wait on the whim of a Minister of Labour as to whether he or she introduces an amendment to the act every year so that they have a meagre increase in their pensions.

I would like to bring to the attention of the minister that this mechanism exists for the Canada pension plan. I do not think it has created any disruption in the system or has increased the cost of the system to the point that it is breaking the finances of Canada.

I know that the reasoning behind the $10,500 and behind the fact that the government does not want to introduce a mechanism to increase automatically the minimum pension for workers who are totally disabled is the same as the one the minister mentioned on the previous section. He said we cannot remove the ceilings because the employers cannot put up with such costs at a time when recovery is not proceeding the way we desire.

In regard to the workers who are injured, who are deprived of the possibility of having the decent income that they would have if they were not disabled, and who are deprived of the enjoyment of life, this means we are talking of totally disabled workers who have to pay another price to the economy, because this government thinks it is much easier to have the workers pay than to have the employers pay.

I know this is an ideological choice; it is clear cut. We reject it straightforwardly because it is against natural justice and against any common knowledge of what we consider fairness.

As a final argument I want to say that today, in 1984, the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the National Council of Welfare consider that $13,700 is the level of poverty. This government is compensating totally disabled injured workers at below the level of poverty. Not only that, it does not even give them hope that if prices drop they will receive a minimum increase commensurate to that.

I hope the minister has a second thought and accepts this amendment.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I have not participated in these debates for a few sections. I want to speak briefly on this section because I want the minister to understand how bitterly people have felt about the failure of this government to bring in an automatic cost-of-living adjustment mechanism for the Workers' Compensation Board.

I think back over the last nine years and over the period before I was elected when I was working with injured workers' organizations. I can say without any hesitation or qualification that the most bitter confrontations between injured workers and this Tory government have been on the issue of its failure to bring in annual cost-of-living increases.

There have not been any incidents in the last few years, thank goodness, but I can remember the mid-1970s when the current Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) was the Minister of Labour. She allowed three full years to pass without a cost-of-living adjustment being brought before this assembly.

The injured workers in this province were so desperate and bitter that there were literally pitched battles outside the offices of the Ministry of Labour. I forget what year that was, 1977 or 1978. The record is there and it can be looked up.

That was an appalling set of circumstances. The injured workers were driven to such a state of desperation that there was literally violence at one of their demonstrations outside the offices of the Ministry of Labour.

The minister knows as well as I do that these are not violent people. These are hardworking family men who were driven beyond endurance by the callous actions of a government that seemed completely oblivious to the kind of suffering they were experiencing. If the minister is interested, the excuse used at the time was that the government had to study the size of the unfunded liability. I have forgotten the name of the company it hired.

Mr. Lupusella: Wyatt Co.

Mr. McClellan: Wyatt studied this matter for something like three years, during which time there was no legislated increase because of the so-called concern about the size of the unfunded liability.

Of course, in those days the unfunded liability was a fraction of what it is today. I think it was something like $250 million at the time. I could go on at great length and give a very learned discussion of the unfunded liability, as I have many times in the past to the delight of my colleagues, but I am not going to do that now. Seriously, I do not understand why the government does not bring in a cost-of-living mechanism for the Workers' Compensation Act.

Old age security has an annual adjustment mechanism; the Canada pension plan has an automatic adjustment factor. This is a social insurance program and it is entirely proper that a social insurance plan have an automatic cost-of-living adjustment mechanism. It is simply intolerable to continue to allow this question to be left to the whim of the government of the day. It is unfair, it is unjust and in the past it has provoked the most bitter and occasionally even violent reaction on the part of injured workers.

I would think the government would understand the depth of those feelings and would have moved a cost-of-living mechanism on this occasion when we have so many sections of the act open to us. I would like to ask the minister why on earth he has failed to do this. I would be grateful for his response.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief because I have just spoken. I would just urge you to hurry and do your bit so that we can get the United Way cookbook out on time before Christmas.

My other comment is to reinforce what the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) said. I recall that when dealing in the committee with the Workers' Compensation Board, the member for Bellwoods had to accept some severe reprimands from his own colleagues, including me, who teased him at great length because of his preoccupation with the unfunded liability. This is back when other people did not think it was a problem.

I think a lot of people now wish they had listened to the member for Bellwoods back in those days because it really has caused a problem and, of course, guess who is paying for the problems of the unfunded liability?

Mr. Lupusella: The injured workers.

Mr. Laughren: The injured workers, that is right, and the employers with higher assessments. It is not just the employers who benefited by having lower assessment rates.

As we heard in the committee hearings, there were years in which the benefits to the injured workers were going up and the assessments to employers were going down, and we wonder why there is an unfunded liability at the board. It was inevitable; so no one should be surprised. There is an unfunded liability and no one should be wringing his hands about it, because those same people who benefited from the drop in assessment rates are the ones who should be making up the unfunded liability now.

4:10 p.m.

No one needs to shed tears at this point because I did not hear them cheering and shouting from the rooftops whenever their assessment went down. I did not hear them saying that and issuing press releases in that regard. I did not hear the Minister of Labour of the day -- not this minister -- standing in his place and saying, "This year the rates will be affected in such and such a way because we have been able to reduce the assessment rates on employers and so we can raise benefits for the employees." I did not hear any such comment being made.

Everything was just done in those days. Now those misspent years are coming back to haunt them, the tears are being shed and injured workers are being asked to pay for the mistakes of the past, mistakes that had absolutely nothing to do with any mistakes the workers made. The fact that there is an unfunded liability is 100 per cent the fault of the Workers' Compensation Board.

We know to whom the WCB reports. Besides the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation, it reports to the Minister of Labour. That is why, when we on this side argue that certain things should be done, we have difficulty having much sympathy for the minister's arguments on behalf of the employers of Ontario. We have little time for them, because this minister never stood in his place and admitted those mistakes were made between 1975 and 1984. I believe that was roughly the period of time, perhaps even a little before that.

When assessment rates on employers were dropping and benefits were going up, I did not hear the minister stand in his place and say: "It is true. If the assessment rates went up at the same rate as the benefits, we would not be in this jackpot today and we would not have to ask the injured workers of the province to subsidize their employers yet again." That is why we on this side have little sympathy for the dilemma in which the WCB finds itself and why the Minister of Labour has such a difficult time justifying the continued regressive policies of his compensation board.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if my comments will be in order. I would like to make a few comments, not on my subsection, but on subsection 42(1), the government section of Bill 101. Will there be a vote first and then may I make my comments on subsection 42(1)?

Mr. Chairman: It would be better if the committee members, and the member for Dover-court in particular, concluded discussions on the subsection 7 amendment.

Mr. Lupusella: It is not a problem, but I hope there will be an understanding that I can go back to make a few statements on clauses 42(1)(a) and (b) and subsections 42(2) and (3) before the vote.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member should proceed with them now.

Mr. Lupusella: I thought so, because when the vote takes place, the whole issue is in doubt.

In reviewing clauses 42(1)(a) and (b) and subsections 42(2) and (3), they talk about the minimum amount of compensation payable for temporary total disability. I thought it would be appropriate at this time to make a few statements in relation to that, even though our general position is that no ceiling should be imposed on the level of benefits because we are of the opinion that the income of injured workers should not be penalized as a result of injury.

The minimum amount of compensation payable for temporary total disability is $10,500 per annum or the net average earnings of the worker at the time of the accident where the net average earnings are less than $10,500 per annum. I think this is improper. In previous comments, I put forward my opposition to the amount described in clauses 42(1)(a) and (b). I would like to remind the minister that even though the ceiling will be increased in the future to whatever amount it is going to be -- three per cent, six per cent or 12 per cent -- so that the maximum will increase above $31,500, the $10,500 will cover injured workers who are not fortunate enough to make enough money because of the kinds of jobs they used to perform, low-paid jobs or jobs that are covered by the minimum wage only.

The new feature of the overall compensation situation is that so many injured workers will be faced with serious disabilities, and persons affected by serious disabilities should not be prevented from having decent pensions, a decent lump sum or a decent amount of money to cover the period when they are receiving temporary total disability.

This is the thrust of my comments. Workers paid the minimum wage who are affected by serious disabilities -- and when I say "serious disabilities" I mean, for example, those in which people end up in a wheelchair or have legs or arms amputated as a result of serious accidents -- because they were working for the minimum wage, receive the minimum of $10,500, while other people making more will eventually be covered by the ceiling of $31,500. I think this is unfair.

So even though the government and the minister will introduce increases in the future that will reflect the increase in the cost of living, people working for the minimum wage across the province will be penalized, especially in cases where accidents result in serious disabilities. It is an unfair balance used by the government to pick up the minimum, which is $10,500, when people will be living with serious disabilities for the rest of their lives.

Even though the minister was not moved by the arguments used previously, I hope that in the future, when the changes take place to cover either the new act, Bill 101, or the old act, this item will be reviewed by the minister and a different measure applied, especially for people working for the minimum wage.

I suggest that if there is a permanent or serious disability arising out of an accident, we should have a different measurement here in relation to the amount of money, one that will really reflect the pain and suffering of so many people who have been suffering as a result of serious disabilities. For example, a temporary total disability in relation to pain and suffering can be applied to everybody because for a short period of time the disability may be very serious.

I want to go beyond that scope. I am saying that when the temporary total disability is over and one gets into the issue of permanent disability awards, if the disability is really serious, I do not think we are treating these people justly in comparison to the people who used to make $31,500 and are faced with the same type of disability. I will leave it to the minister to revise this item, because it will be of importance to so many people and to so many injured workers who will be covered under Bill 101.

4:20 p.m.

If we take a look back at the history of the Workers' Compensation Act, even today we can easily see that there were minimum amounts set up by the board under the power of the act for injured workers who were earning the minimum wage. When they were faced with a permanent disability award, they were penalized because of the amount of money they were earning at the time of the accident. In the final analysis, it meant that because of their earnings and the degree of their disability, their pension was really small but the eventual seriousness of the disability was really high. I hope the minister will consider this comment and that action will be taken in the future to remedy this problem.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, a direct question was asked of me by the member for Dovercourt and there were comments from the member for Bellwoods. During my tenure as Minister of Labour, on a regular basis we have provided inflation adjustments to the Workers' Compensation Act on July 1. I do not see any reason why that will not continue as long as I am Minister of Labour. That is the only comment I had to make.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take a lot of time, but I can well recall we went for years around here trying to get the government to make adjustments when the pensions fell behind very dramatically. The minister is well aware of that. If we get a Scrooge in this minister's place, what do we do then? Can we bring the present Minister of Labour back and get him to put him in his place?

That is our concern over here. We recognize the minister has made the annual adjustment, but we do not know if that is policy because of this minister. To leave it just at ministerial discretion seems to me --

Mr. McClellan: What if the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) were the minister?

Mr. Martel: Yes. It is really bothersome to leave it at ministerial discretion, because they might not have the compassion required to make the adjustments that are necessary.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I hope I am not going, but the point I would make is that the question of regularly indexed adjustments is a part of phase 2 and will be studied in phase 2.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella has moved the addition to section 11 of the bill of a new subsection 42(7) of the act.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: I understand there is an amendment to section 43 of the act.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I could move my amendment first, but I would like to make a few comments on subsection 43(1). It is up to you to decide the best process.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 43(3) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill be deleted.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments on subsection 43(1), which I think were part of the comments made by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt. He talked about the average earnings of a worker and what the board is supposed to do in relation to new accidents or recurrences.

On the issue of recurrences, there was no particular problem because the method used by the board was to take into consideration the earnings that were higher. However, in the case of a new accident, I think the minister confirmed that if the injured worker was making less and the accident was new, the board calculated the average earnings of the worker for the job he was performing at the time the new injury occurred.

We saw that process as a way of penalizing people. I do not think that is a fair way to determine the average earnings of a worker, especially after he has been injured once and has gone back to a different job because he was unable to perform the same job he used to do before the accident. He is faced with a new accident at a job that pays less in comparison to the first one. The board has to determine the average earnings of the worker at the same job, without really taking into consideration at the time of the second injury the fact that he could not perform the type of job he used to perform.

My concern was not taken into consideration by the minister. We had an opportunity to suggest a new way of resolving this situation. The minister and the members of the committee from the government side rejected our proposal. As well, we made a reference to the issue in our dissenting report. I hope that, either in phase 2 or in future amendments, the minister will review the constructive debates we had, in particular the comments of my colleague the member for Nickel Belt, and that eventually our concern will see legislation by new amendments.

This is one of the greatest problems affecting injured workers. After a certain period of time when the legislation has been implemented by the board, people will realize the loopholes that exist in the new law. That is why we have a parliamentary procedure to debate the law and to make recommendations and constructive criticisms on the law. In future, if the loopholes that have been brought to the attention of the minister are not covered, the whole implementation of Bill 101 will be in jeopardy and injured workers will manifest their opposition in the form of demonstrations.

4:30 p.m.

My colleague the member for Nickel Belt is a great believer in preventive medicine. He is a great believer in preventive measures that should be implemented or taken into consideration when a new law is enacted by this Legislature. He also believes, and I think members of this party believe, that if we want to make this place really relevant, the minister has to listen to the constructive criticisms that have been raised on different occasions. In the past I do not think the government was willing to change the law. It was not aware of the problems affecting injured workers because it did not spend enough time with injured workers.

Until the member for Nickel Belt was elected, the government was of the opinion, apart from seeing the demonstrations that took place once a year in front of Queen's Park, that the act was working properly. My colleague had spent a lot of time with injured workers and he brought all the loopholes in the old law to the attention of the government. They were completely shocked. They realized something very serious was affecting injured workers and they came out with the position that the law will be reviewed. They said the member's comments would be taken into consideration and action would be taken immediately. Now we have the position of the minister that phase 2 will come first and all the problems will disappear.

There are still problems, even though I realize there are marginal improvements in Bill 101. Subsection 43(1) will raise major problems. People will receive the amount of benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board at the time they are injured. In the past, the government came out with the figure of $31,500, being extremely generous. Under clauses 43(1)(a) and (b), and subsection 43(2) eventually, injured workers will realize they are going to be set on a different scale of earnings and a different scale of benefits. That is when opposition to the law will come from injured workers to the government, because they will not be happy.

The fanfare about improving the benefits is good and $31,500 sounds attractive. The minister maintains the position that it is an improvement to the present law, and nobody denies that; but let us find out how many people will be eligible for $31,500 a year. How many people will be receiving the minimum of $10,500, considering that in Ontario we are faced with 35 per cent of the total labour force receiving the minimum wage? We are faced with 35 per cent of the total labour force eventually receiving the minimum of $10,500. If they are faced with a serious accident, they will suffer for the rest of their lives. We hope any accident that occurs in Ontario will cause only temporary injury, not permanent injury.

I remind the minister once again that the law sounds attractive. He might see Bill 101 as an improvement. I have my reservations and I maintain my reservations, even though I realize that in certain instances there are marginal improvements under Bill 101. I hope all the loopholes contained in Bill 101 will be taken into consideration by the minister to cover these loopholes and give justice to injured workers, who really need justice from this government.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put on the record that I have problems with subsection 43(1) of the act as set out in this section of the bill.

The minister knows that in determining the average income for the purposes of setting the benefits, we have had many cases -- for instance, I can mention the workers at Ford in St. Thomas. Last year those workers had to make a very great number of appeals because layoffs were occurring quite often. As a result, their average earnings were much lower than in the 12 months preceding their accidents; thus their benefits were much lower and did not reflect the income they would have had if they had not been laid off.

The minister knows that if workers are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, those benefits will bring their income to a lower level; if an accident occurs, the benefits will be much lower. In effect, this means that in calculating the benefits, the act does not take into account the potential income; instead, it takes into account the average income, which always works against the workers who are in those circumstances.

I wonder why the minister cannot figure out a mechanism to put in the act whereby an injured worker would be compensated, not on the basis of the average but by giving him an option. In other words, if in the week before the accident or in the preceding 12 months the payroll time is much lower and thus does not reflect the average earnings of the workers in the same group, the worker should be deemed to have received the higher income and the benefits should be paid on the basis of those earnings.

I would like to make another brief observation on subsection 43(5), which is in relation to special expenses. It says, "Where the employer was accustomed to paying the worker a sum to cover any special expenses entailed on the worker by the nature of the employment, that sum shall not be reckoned as part of the worker's earnings."

4:40 p.m.

This subsection wipes out a very large number of workers, and I can give the minister an example. Let us suppose a superintendent gets the use of an apartment because of his work in an apartment building and receives a lower wage since he gets the use of an apartment as part of his responsibilities. Should that worker have an accident, he will receive a much lower benefit as a result of this section, because the expenses incurred for the apartment are not considered part of his remuneration. This subsection will actually penalize workers such as those I have mentioned. I wonder whether the minister is willing to reconsider this subsection.

Mr. Laughren: On behalf of the minister, I would like to thank the elegant and eloquent member for Dovercourt for his remarks. I concur in everything he said, and accept the amendment. I know the minister has not been in the chamber as long as some of us, but those of us who have been here a little longer can recall the battles the member for Dovercourt fought on behalf of injured workers before he became elected. When he speaks in this chamber of injured workers, the minister could do himself and his government a lot of credit if he would accept without question any amendment put forth by the member for Dovercourt.

Mr. Chairman: We were following a practice where the minister was making the wrapup comments on the section or amendment. We were working towards that, were we not?

Mr. McClellan: This is not second reading debate. This is clause-by-clause. There is no such thing as wrapup comment.

Mr. Chairman: That is exactly so, but I thought we were trying to expedite this. I did hear that suggestion earlier.

Mr. Lupusella: I have an amendment to delete the proposed subsection 43(3) and I move such amendment.

Mr. McClellan: It has already been accepted by the minister, so we do not need to vote.

Mr. Lupusella: If it has been accepted by the minister, then I will move to a different amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we put the question on subsection 43(3)? Mr. Lupusella has moved the deletion of the proposed subsection 43(3). Shall that section stand as part of the bill?

The proposal is for the deletion of subsection 43(3). Seeing you are proposing to delete it, I am asking, shall that stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Dovercourt has another amendment.

Mr. Lupusella: I have an amendment on subsection 45(1), starting in the sixth line, to delete the words, "such impairment not exceeding in any case the like proportion of 90 per cent of" --

Mr. Mancini: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, before I move --

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if I can just put the question from the chair first, unless the member has one earlier than that.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, I am sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Chairman: Do you have an amendment on an earlier section?

Mr. Mancini: Yes, on section 44.

Mr. Lupusella: I have not moved my amendment yet.

Mr. Chairman: We have not read your amendment to section 45 from the chair yet. The member for Essex South has an amendment to section 44.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on section 44.

Subsection 44(1) states: "The net average earnings of a worker shall be determined by the board by deducting from the earnings of a worker, (a) the probable income tax...; (b) the probable Canada pension plan premiums payable by the worker; and (c) the probable unemployment insurance premiums." Then we go on to subsection 44(2).

Perhaps we can ask the minister to help us out as to whether this is the right section. I am very concerned that after a time many injured workers lose their Canada pension plan benefits and pension benefits from private pensions because in some cases it takes 10 years, I believe, to have them vested.

I was wondering if we were going to address the situation where, after one year of injury has passed, the board will then start making payments on behalf of the injured worker for the upkeep of the Canada pension plan and, possibly, the private plan so it can become vested.

I have an amendment to section 44 which would create a new section, I believe.

Mr. Chairman: The chair does not have anything in writing at this point.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, before I went through the formality of placing the motion and giving you a copy which I have here, I wanted an answer and an explanation from the minister as to whether that concern was somehow addressed in the bill. If not, I would like to move my amendment.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe it is addressed. If we can stand it down for a moment, I will get the exact spot.

Mr. Lupusella: As a short reply to section 44, I would like to remind the member -- it will not be in defence of the minister because he is doing what the Liberal government did in 1984: he is penalizing injured workers, by having them declare the amount of their pension and then pay income taxes on that amount. This was in the 1984 budget brought down by Mr. Lalonde, the great Liberal member in Ottawa.

Therefore, they are to be blamed. We raised this particular concern in the past. When the minister and the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board heard the news that injured workers would be penalized as a result of a particular law which was enacted in the federal budget, they were supposed to appear in Ottawa to launch their opposition to this penalty imposed on injured workers in Ontario.

The Progressive Conservative government is doing what the Liberal government did in its budget. It is penalizing injured workers because the probable Canada pension plan premiums and unemployment insurance premiums payable by the worker will be deducted in considering the net average earnings of a worker. The board has to determine the amount.

Again, we come to the same line. There is no difference between the Tories and the Liberals. The Liberals did it first, and the Tories are doing the same thing. Actually, the Tory government went even further than the Liberals did in their budget. It is unfair.

We are going to vote against section 44 anyway, so if the minister has a reply, I will sit until he gives an answer to the member.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I agree with the member. I think it is unfair too. But we will see.

Mr. McClellan: Why is Brian Mulroney doing it?

4:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not sure it is going to be done. I am really optimistic that we will have the matter straightened out.

Mr. McClellan: With the helpful contribution the minister is making, can I ask him whether he intends to make representations to the federal government on this bill?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I do.

Mr. Lupusella: He promised he would do it long ago.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In fact, I have the letter all ready. I have also called the office of Honourable Mr. Wilson and talked to him personally about it. I agree with the honourable member.

Mr. Lupusella: I think the latest report you gave us was that you were supposed to meet in July with someone and even the chairman of the board was supposed to appear and report his opposition to what the Liberals were doing in relation to injured workers.

Mr. Chairman: This exchange between the minister and the members has been helpful to the members, but we do have to get back to section 44.

Mr. Lupusella: It was also in July that the government changed the bill brought forward in May. Is the minister now delaying the process, or what?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I do not recall any commitments in July. If I made a commitment, I would have followed up. I did not make a commitment.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I do not believe my concern was answered by the minister. He got caught in a political wrangle with the member for Dovercourt a few minutes ago.

My comment to the minister was strictly about the Canada pension plan benefits into which workers with long-term disability might run.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I apologize to the member. I misled him; it is not addressed elsewhere in the act. The vesting of pensions and so on is the responsibility of the federal government through federal legislation and it is not covered in this act.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, could I ask for unanimous consent to return to section 40 because I would like to propose a new subsection 40(4). If I am given the unanimous consent of the House, I have an amendment that will address the concern I have raised.

Mr. Chairman: Could the member help us with this? Is he speaking of subsection 40(4) or is he talking about section 44? We certainly would have to have unanimous consent to reopen that section because we have dealt with the amendments and have moved on through sections 41 and 42. As you know, we are up to section 44.

Mr. Mancini: My apologies to the members of the House, Mr. Chairman. I had a municipal council down from the riding and we were having some meetings with senior officials of the government or I would have been here at the time to make the amendment. If unanimous consent is granted, I shall move my amendment; if not, I can understand.

Mr. Chairman: I think our problem is that section 40 was carried Tuesday night. Do you wish to ask for the committee's consent?

Mr. Mancini: On Tuesday night we got as far as subsection 40(3).

Mr. Chairman: That is true. That is the point I was making. I see; you want to deal with a new add-on to section 40.

It is in the hands of the committee. Do we have unanimous consent to return to a proposed amendment by the member for Essex South to section 40?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, if the two opposition parties wish to do that, I have no objection.

Mr. Chairman: Then I would say to the member for Essex South that we have consent.

Mr. Mancini: Thank you. I want to thank the members of the House for their co-operation.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mancini moves an amendment to section 11 of the bill, to add subsection 40(3), which reads as follows:

"Where the worker is in receipt of compensation for a temporary disability for a period greater than one year, weekly Canada pension plan contributions will be made on behalf of the worker of the difference between the average weekly employer and employee contributions on behalf of the worker before the injury and the amount of the employer-employee contributions, if any, being made in some suitable employment or business after the injury."

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, an injured worker on an extended period of temporary benefits will not have CPP benefits paid on his behalf and his pension entitlement will be reduced. An injured worker on an extended period of temporary benefits will not have contributions made to his employer's or union's group pension plan on his behalf and his pension will ultimately be reduced.

An injured worker on an extended period of temporary benefits, or whose injury forces him to leave his accident employer or former line of work, may not only lose the benefit of future contributions to a private employer-funded pension plan, but also may lose his entitlement to the benefit of contributions already made, if they have not been vested. In some situations, it takes as long as 10 years to become vested.

We have workers who have made regular contributions to the Canada pension plan and to the private pension plan. If these contributions are not continued and if the plan is not vested, the worker is not only penalized because of his injury, but also because he may have to seek new employment with a different employer. This in itself is a great penalty.

I believe trying to continue the pension plan benefits is very important for the worker. We have seen the employee who has his earnings -- I will not say slashed -- reduced because he either has no job or a different job when an injury occurs. I believe we should have some concern about the Canada pension plan and also about any private plan.

It would be sad if someone had paid into a private pension plan for seven, eight or nine years when a full 10 years was needed before vesting. All that money would be lost. Not only would it be lost, but the worker would be without any recourse to try to get the money back. It is a large pool of money and that pool is used to pay the pensions of other people who start to collect at a certain age, or whatever their contractual arrangements suggest.

I am moving this amendment because I am concerned for the future of the injured workers and because I believe it is necessary for this government to do something in the way of pension reform.

5 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the member for Essex South is a step towards the position the New Democratic Party has been proposing. Although it is clearly insufficient, we support the idea. The member may remember I introduced a private member's bill in this regard. It provided that not only the workers who are on temporary total benefits, but also the workers who are on permanent partial disability should have a right to contribute to the Canada pension plan. We in the New Democratic Party think that workers should not be penalized because of an accident and that is what happens now.

There are many instances in which workers, especially those who are contributing to private plans, lose this right because of an accident. That does not happen only in the period of temporary total disability. In my personal experience, a situation has developed in which a worker who has a back injury on the job may be on total disability compensation for a protracted period of time. At a certain point, as we know the system now, and it does not change with this act, the worker is taken to the rehabilitation department. It usually happens that the rehabilitation department takes a number of months, and in some cases years, to come to the conclusion that the worker can go back to work.

In a very few cases, the worker can find a new job. In many of the cases that concern me and, I suppose, concern the member for Essex South, those workers are not able to go back to work. Despite that, they are unable to apply for Canada pension. They lost the right to apply, because during the previous 10 years they did not have five years of contributions because during the period they were on compensation they were unable to contribute to the Canada pension plan. We think that is an injustice.

Those workers are deprived of the right to go back to work. In fact, there is nothing in this act that provides the right to re-employment. Not only can they not contribute to their private pension plans but they also cannot receive Canada pension disability if they are considered disabled by the Canada pension plan.

Therefore, we support the amendment but, as I said at the beginning, we consider it quite inadequate. It is just a first step in the direction we have indicated in committee and in the Legislature.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Barlow): All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, it is nice to see you back in business.

The Acting Chairman: It is a familiar spot for me to sit in.

Mr. Lupusella: I have an amendment to subsection 45(1) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, had we completely disposed of section 44? I was not aware that we had carried section 44.

The Acting Chairman: I guess section 44 was stood down, was it not? All right, we will go back to section 44, then, if we can.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a couple of words on section 44, if I may. I wanted to register my unhappiness with clause 44(1)(b), which states that, in the computation of net average earnings, Canada pension plan premiums will be deducted from gross earnings. As I said in the committee, I believe this is double jeopardy.

If Canada pension is considered in some aspects of the worker's earnings, then the premiums should not be deducted from gross earnings when computing net earnings. I do not think you can have it both ways in this world -- at least, I have always had trouble -- and I do not see why the compensation board should have it both ways.

One cannot consider Canada pension plan earnings when computing benefits to workers while at the same time deducting Canada pension plan premiums from their gross earnings. That is why I believe clause 44(1)(b) is unfair to injured workers when one is computing their net average earnings to arrive at the 90 per cent of net.

The Acting Chairman: Shall section 44 of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

Mr. Laughren: We are opposed to it. Is that what you want to know?

The Acting Chairman: That is what I want to know.

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 45(1) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill be amended by deleting the words starting in the sixth line, "such impairment not exceeding in any case the like proportion of 90 per cent of."

Mr. Lupusella: I do not have any brief notes to make because this item was debated previously. I think we should place the question.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella has moved an amendment to subsection 45(1) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that the proposed subsection 45(4) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill be amended by inserting in the third line, the words "with the agreement of the injured worker" before the words "the board shall."

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Lupusella: Subsection 45(4) talks about the lump sum payment. It appears that if we are dealing with a less than 10 per cent impairment of the earning capacity of the worker the board might decide to pay the amount in the form of a lump sum. We have had an opportunity to review the past practice of the board in relation to lump sum payments. Especially when dealing with the 10 per cent, the present practice is to pay it in the form of a lump sum.

It has to do with the supplementary pensions as well. Sometimes injured workers do not want the lump sum payment, even though the past and present practice of the board is to pay the total amount in the form of a lump sum.

The reason behind it is that the Workers' Compensation Board, by assessing the 10 per cent, is not considering the injured worker to be seriously affected by a permanent disability. The board thinks the degree of 10 per cent is a minor degree of disability and, therefore, the money should be paid in the form of a lump sum.

History has taught us that if an injured worker went through the appeal system and was eventually able to demonstrate that the degree of his disability was above the 10 per cent figure, which meant that the 10 per cent was already liquidated in the form of a lump sum, then as a form of the appeal system, the board recognized a two per cent disability award on top of the 10 per cent, and that two per cent was paid to the worker in the form of a lump sum. If the injured worker had not received the lump sum from the very beginning, now the total amount would be 12 per cent and not 10 per cent. I am using a conservative estimate of a two per cent increase on top of the 10 per cent.

For some time, injured workers got an extra five or 10 per cent because they were able to demonstrate from a medical point of view that their disability was not 10 per cent but that they were disabled in the range of 20 per cent.

The lump sum payment was always applied by the board for the benefit of the board per se. When an injured worker received a lump sum payment, he was not entitled to receive the benefit of future increases or the increases introduced by the Ministry of Labour in this Legislature. So the government was able to save money. Even though it is complaining about the unfunded liability, injured workers have been paying the price of the unfunded liability in the form of these loopholes that save the board money and take it away from injured workers.

Therefore, I think our amendment is appropriate and rational, because with the approval of injured workers, the board has to decide whether or not a lump sum should be paid. The Workers' Compensation Board as a matter of policy, not as a matter of legislation that was contemplated in the old act, implemented a policy that was taking money away from injured workers when the increases took place by a form of legislative change.

It appears to be fair and just to give it back and to reverse this policy that was implemented by the board eight or nine years ago. We are of the opinion that the injured workers who received the 10 per cent lump sum payment deserve the increases that took place between 1975 and 1983.

I hope the minister will not legislate the 10 per cent impairment of earning capacity as a measure of whether an injured worker is really disabled and if he is entitled to supplementary pensions. The 10 per cent figure, as we read it in this particular section, gives the impression to the board and to the injured worker that his or her disability is not severe enough and therefore he or she should be paid in the form of a lump sum and eventually he or she will not be entitled to any supplementary pension.

I think our amendment is appropriate. It takes into consideration the principle of the lump sum per se and the 10 per cent which we are disputing because it gives the impression the disability of an injured worker is not severe enough. The 10 per cent figure should not be an indicator for the board that, because the disability is not severe enough, an injured worker should not be entitled to any supplementary pension when he or she is co-operating with the rehabilitation department.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments on this amendment. We are going to support this amendment. I am not so sure we are going to support it for the reasons the member for Dovercourt mentioned. However, we do not dispute what he has said.

Mr. Laughren: In that case you should support it.

Mr. Mancini: I said we are supporting the amendment, but there are far more reasons to support the amendment --

Mr. Ruston: For wiser reasons.

Mr. Mancini: -- or wiser reasons.

The matter of the 10 per cent is important. I do not believe we should put the employees of the board in a position -- when they may be under a lot of pressure -- of awarding eight, nine and 10 per cent and knowing, after they have done that, that a lump sum payment to the worker involved would automatically close his case and dispense with one more file. I have a problem with that. When we set targets, goals and quotas, we usually end up meeting those particular targets, goals and quotas.

The other problem I have with the 10 per cent is exactly what the member for Dovercourt said. A person may be assessed at 10 per cent today, but a year or two from now, because of an aggravation or further injury to the same part of the body or because of a worsening situation, the injury may be awarded at 15 per cent compensation. Just because a 10 per cent lump sum payment was awarded, I do not think that necessarily -- and maybe the minister can correct this -- prevents the board from reviewing a claim and assessing a further compensation to that particular claim.

What I like about the amendment is it gives the worker the choice. I know the member for Dovercourt and the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) have had a lot of injured workers approach them about commutations -- at least I have had -- where they can use a 10 per cent lump sum payment to pay down the mortgage, if their income has been reduced, in order to meet their household demands. I have known of people who have used the lump sum payments to start up a small business or maybe move out of one area into another area of the province where the opportunity for job placement is easier. We need to be in a position to give the lump sum award if injured workers can make a case for it as they do now through commutations.

5:20 p.m.

For that reason and the two others I have mentioned, I find subsection 45(4) too rigid. I believe it will cause many appeals and administrative problems we really do not need. With the amendment that has been suggested, we are giving the injured worker the opportunity to say: "Yes, I will take my lump sum award the way you have offered it and I accept it. Thank you and goodbye." Or the worker can say, "No, I would rather have a fixed monthly pension I can count on every month for the rest of my life, or as long as this award lasts." In most cases, it is for the entire working career.

I do not know what the difficulty would be in allowing the person to have the choice. The board could make the decision as to the amount of disability, as it will anyway under this section. They are going to offer the 10 per cent or less, as they would anyway. That will all be the way the minister wants it.

The only thing we are asking for is the opportunity for choice, because some people might not want the lump sum payment. For many different reasons, they may feel they just do not want the lump sum payment. They may feel insecure as to the future of the injury and what it means for them. If people have a choice, they will make the right choice for themselves and we will have a situation that will be better for all concerned.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take a long time, but this is one of the issues that cause a tremendous amount of trouble and problems.

At one o'clock this afternoon, I was at an appeal of a case where a worker was rated in November 1983 at 10 per cent and subsequently his pension was adjusted to 20 per cent on the first round of his appeal. Now we have medical evidence in regard to the back injury that there is nerve root involvement as well as other complications and the pension is going to be adjusted again, probably to the vicinity of 30 per cent.

Fortunately, there was not a lump sum payment in this case, and thank God for that. This worker is 63 years of age and now is on Canada pension plan disability benefits. With any luck, we will be able to get his pension up to something approaching 30 per cent. However, this man would be in serious trouble if he had been given a lump sum payment in November 1983, when the board's doctors all looked at him and said: "There is nothing really wrong with your back. You can go back to work. Here is 10 per cent. Get lost." If he had been given a lump sum then, he would never have been able to get a monthly pension commensurate with the extent of his disabilities.

It is a tremendously dangerous mistake for the board to give lump sum payments when the initial rating decisions are 10 per cent or less. It is based on an assumption of infallibility on the part of the board's medical rating procedures, which has been proved simply not to be there.

In many instances, with many kinds of disabilities, the board is completely unable to determine the long-term effects of an injury in the first instance. That is why there are so many opportunities for review, re-review, appeal at claims adjudication, appeal at claims review, appeal at appeals adjudication, appeal at the appeals board and, at each stage, an opportunity for further medical examination.

At least that reflects the reality that it is very difficult to determine what the final pension level is going to be for many types of injuries. When the board gives itself the arbitrary power to decide in the first instance whether it will commute the pension in the form of a lump sum payment instead of giving a regular permanent partial disability award in the form of a monthly pension, it leads to tremendous problems for injured workers down the road.

This is one of the things that cause the most bitter kind of frustration on the part of injured workers. Members can talk to injured workers who were given a 10 per cent lump sum payment 10 or 15 years ago and now find their injuries were more serious than the doctors understood at the time. There is no way they can obtain a regular pension to compensate them for the nature and degree of the injury. That is what it is all about. It is a serious mistake to enshrine that policy in the act. The minister should accept this amendment. It is a good amendment. It gives the worker the opportunity to say "yes" or "no."

I really hope the minister will take a second look at this, because it is the same kind of thing. This is one of those issues that have produced the most severe kinds of problems in my own constituency office, and there is no way of solving them. Once the board makes that mistake in the first instance, there is no way of solving it. You cannot pay back a pension that has been commuted by way of a lump sum and restore regular periodic payments. It is a mistake that is irreversible and it is a mistake that is very likely to happen in many cases.

I think the course of wisdom would be to accept this amendment.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I cannot force the minister to answer.

Mr. McClellan: No. He has an answer.

Mr. Di Santo: Is the minister going to answer?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: When the honourable member is through.

Mr. McClellan: This is a debate; this is not second reading.

Mr. Di Santo: Okay. Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I was just trying to be polite to him, that is all.

Mr. Di Santo: I want to be polite to the minister. He can go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, the member for Downsview got up before I did, although I was attempting to get up, and he was recognized by the chair. I was trying to show a little bit of respect for the honourable member.

Mr. Chairman: With all due respect to members, we were following that, and I think the minister referred to it earlier. It is a courtesy on his part. He thought he would let the members have their comments and then make his response at the end, because he was being criticized for having missed making comments on some sections. Anyway, we are in the hands of the committee.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: There are two points here. This is my understanding from the board officials. First of all, claims can be reviewed at any time, even if a lump sum has been paid. The claim can again be reviewed for a greater pension at a later date. That is what I am told.

Mr. McClellan: That is not accurate.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is what I am told, and I have it in writing here.

Mr. McClellan: You cannot get the 10 per cent back. That is the point.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No. You cannot get the 10 per cent back, but you can be reviewed for another pension.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Let me just finish, please.

In any case where deterioration of the worker's condition is likely, lump sums are not awarded.

Mr. Di Santo: I do not think the minister understands what we are discussing. Of course the claims can be reviewed, but what the member for Bellwoods tried to bring to the minister's attention was that when you have the case of an injured worker with a back injury who is rated at 10 per cent, you put that worker in the most untenable situation because if his claim is reviewed and he is given a further 10 per cent, then what do you give him, another lump sum?

If that happens, we are saying it deprives that worker of the right to receive monthly payments that reflect his disability. The reason this section, which in my opinion is very offensive, is part of this bill is that it is a money-saving bill for the Workers' Compensation Board. This bill has nothing to do with fairness and justice for the injured worker.

In fact, this section says the board shall pay a lump sum unless the board thinks a lump sum is not to the advantage of the worker. Why should the board have the power to determine what is to the advantage of the worker while the worker himself should not decide whether it is to his advantage to receive a lump sum? Is a worker not capable of making a judgement as to what is in his interest? Is it only bureaucrats at the board who can make a judgement whether it is to his advantage to give him a lump sum payment?

Can the minister justify that? Can he tell this committee why he thinks accepting this agreement would subvert the process at the board? Why can he not accept the worker saying, "I want a lump sum because it is in my interest"? Why should it be only the board that determines what is to the worker's advantage?

5:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will try again. I feel badly that I am obviously missing a point, but on the other hand I am not sure that I am.

Let me try to explain my understanding of it. Let us use a couple of examples. A worker has received a 10 per cent lump sum. He comes back later and his injury is reassessed at 15 per cent. He would now get a five per cent lump sum. However, if his injury is now assessed at 30 per cent, he would get a 20 per cent pension. That is the way I understand it.

The other point I would like to make is that it is my understanding that rarely in the case of back injuries, for example, do they ever give a lump sum. Back injuries are liable to deteriorate; so they do not give a lump sum in the case of back injuries.

I am sorry that I cannot get the additional point the member is attempting to make.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I am going to give the additional point. I hope it will be clear and eventually the minister will change his mind.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: My friend is not suggesting that the member for Downsview is not being clear?

Mr. Lupusella: The minister is going to hear from the member for Nickel Belt as well. If the issue is not clear, he will clarify it further for the minister and even for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope).

We are against the straightforward principle that an injured worker has to receive a lump sum as a result of a pension based on the principle of 10 per cent. I will tell the minister why we are against it. For the board or the pension department, the 10 per cent figure is an indication that the injured worker is not faced with a serious disability. We are against the principle of the 10 per cent and that, as the result of the 10 per cent, a lump sum must be given to an injured worker because there is a reading within the 10 per cent figure that the disability is not high enough. There is no misunderstanding in stating this principle. The minister might disagree with it.

The second point we would like to bring to the minister's attention is that after the first lump sum has been given to an injured worker as a result of a 10 per cent disability pension, the minister might introduce legislative changes to increase an injured worker's pension by eight per cent, and as a result of a policy that has been in existence for eight years, the injured worker who got the lump sum payment based on the principle of 10 per cent will not be eligible for the increase. We are against that.

Another reason is that the minister does not give the injured worker the opportunity to decide whether he or she wants the lump sum. We are against that because a widespread power is given to the board to judge the situation. In some instances, the board might not give the lump sum because the person gets drunk or plays cards and might lose the money; I do not know. However, the board eventually might decide in such instances that the lump sum is not appropriate. We want the injured worker's consent before the board decides to give a lump sum.

The other point that must be emphasized is that we agree with the minister that if the physical conditions deteriorate, the person will be recalled by the pension department for a further assessment; there is no disagreement on that. Again, however, the board might calculate another 10 per cent and he might receive another lump sum on the 10 per cent issue. If the minister introduces legislative changes, the person will lose perhaps nine per cent from the first 10 per cent and another 15 per cent increase as a result of the legislative changes. He is losing money and the board is making money at the expense of the injured workers.

For all those reasons, we are against the section as it stands. I hope the minister will approve our amendment.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister understands that the member for Dover-court's amendment simply inserts the words "with the agreement of the injured worker." It does not say the board may not or must not commute a pension of 10 per cent or less. It makes no reference to the powers of the board at all except to say that it must consult with and have the agreement of the worker before the board does this to the worker's pension.

The board has always argued, and the minister has bought the argument, that the pension belongs to the worker and that the worker has a proprietary right to the pension but does not have a right to that commuted to cash. That is the argument the board members have always put whenever we have engaged them in debate before one of the standing committees. They argue the pension belongs to the worker but a commutation does not. The reason for that is that not one of us is so naïve as to think it is not in the best interest of the board not to commute above 10 per cent. We understand that money invested, even at the prime rate, would return to the board more than it is paying out in monthly payments. Invariably, it is in the best interest of the board not to commute and it does not commute.

It is very difficult to get a commutation at the board except when the administrative costs are exceeding the return on investment of a pension that is not commuted; that is where the board makes its decision, and that has shaken down to mean 10 per cent. The board has it both ways; it will not commute above 10 per cent except in extreme cases, and it arbitrarily decides it will commute below 10 per cent.

How can the minister sit there and accept this as the right of the Workers' Compensation Board in Ontario? If my colleague the member for Dovercourt had changed this wording from 10 per cent to 11 or nine, I do not know what the minister would do because he would have difficulty explaining the difference between 10 and nine and 10 and 11 vis-à-vis a pension. It is obviously an arbitrary figure, except it may not be as arbitrary as I used to think. When I think of the administrative-cost line crossing the return-on-investment line, perhaps it is not as arbitrary as some might think.

All we are saying to the minister is, why not have an agreement with the injured worker? We did not say all commutations should be negotiated with the injured workers. That is what I believe, but I know the minister would never accept that amendment. We did not put it in the amendment, although I and most of my colleagues believe that is the civilized way. We know we cannot get that through this chamber; so the member for Dovercourt moved a very reasonable amendment that simply says "with the agreement of the injured worker" on commutations of 10 per cent and under.

5:40 p.m.

What is unreasonable about that? For example, if a worker came to me with a back injury and had 10 per cent, nine per cent or eight per cent, I would advise that worker not to take that commutation, to tell the board not to commute. Now that worker has no choice. On the other hand, if someone had lost the end of a finger or something like that and had a pension of eight or nine per cent, I would probably advise the worker to take the commutation.

All we are asking is that there be the agreement of the injured worker. I suspect most of them will take it, but I do not think I would personally advise them to if they had back problems. I do not know whether this caucus has made its point with the minister; we have made our point, but I am not sure whether it has sunk in. Before we engage any further in this debate, perhaps we should wait and see whether the minister has seen the light.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the honourable members? Was this brought up during the committee hearings? Was it discussed?

Mr. Lupusella: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I must have been absent that day because it is all very new to me.

Mr. Laughren: Is that the minister's answer?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I make the point that this is new to me and I am not going to make a snap decision. I will not accept the amendment.

Mr. McClellan: Can we stand this down?

Mr. Chairman: One at a time, please, members. I think the member for Nickel Belt was continuing his thoughts.

Mr. Laughren: Since the minister has no sense of adventure in exploring new ground on the floor of the Legislature, will he consider standing down this section? We are not going to finish this debate this afternoon, obviously. Will he consider standing this down to give him time to think about it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Certainly, I would be happy to stand it down to look at it.

Mr. Chairman: It has been proposed that we stand down subsection 45(4).

Mr. Lupusella: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves the proposed subsection 45(5) be amended by replacing the word "may" with the word "shall" in the fourth and fifth lines.

Mr. Lupusella: I think subsection 45(5) has detrimental effects that are worse than the previous ones. I am not planning to talk for an hour, even though I am inclined to talk for three hours about this particular subsection. We are talking about the wellbeing of an injured worker who goes to the rehabilitation department to seek assistance in being rehabilitated, and would, therefore, be excluded from receiving the supplement pension.

Another strong and effective discretionary power is being given to the board even though the board realizes that if the injured worker is in a certain condition, the board shall give the benefit to the injured worker. I will be more specific. Subsection 45(5) now reads:

"Notwithstanding subsection 1, where the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker is significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury, the board may" -- this is the word that is offending us -- "supplement the amount awarded for permanent partial disability for such period as the board may" -- that word again -- "fix unless the worker, (a) fails to co-operate" or to be available for a lighter job.

There is a clear-cut case when the injured worker is recognized by the board and the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker is significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury. Then there is a discretionary power within the principle and content because of the word "may." The board may refuse to give a supplementary pension to an injured worker.

We stated our case very clearly at the committee stage. We were trying to convince the minister to change his mind. He was not flexible about it, nor was he sensitive to the issue that because of the word "may' the board will again have the discretionary power to exclude an injured worker from receiving a supplementary pension. Even if the injured worker co-operates and is available for the vocational rehabilitation program of the Workers' Compensation Board, because of the use of the word "may" the board will have the power to exclude the injured worker from receiving the supplementary pension.

It is unfair. This discretionary power is offensive to injured workers and the minister should change his mind.

Mr. Chairman: We have an agreement by which we must abide. Would the honourable members agree to including this in the vote? The critic nods yes.

5:55 p.m.

On section 11:

The committee divided on Mr. Mancini's amendment to section 40 of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 33; nays 42.

The committee divided on whether section 41 of the act should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to section 42 of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 16; nays 59.

The committee divided on whether subsection 43(3) of the act should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on whether section 44 of the act should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 42; nays 33.

The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 45(1) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 16; nays 59.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

December 6, 1984