Hansard Transcripts 1984-Dec-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my first question is for the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), who I understand is in the precincts. My second question is for the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker), who, we are informed, will also be here today. In consideration of their arrival, I suppose I will stand the questions down.

If I could take a moment, I must say I saw the Premier (Mr. Davis) of Ontario on television the other night. I understand he still thrives in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have exactly the same problem. We have a number of questions and none of the relevant ministers is here. I have questions for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe). Perhaps I can also stand my questions down until they arrive.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, might I ask that you consider recessing for 10 minutes until some ministers come in? You can do it. You have been known to recess this House before.

Mr. Conway: I agree with my friend from the New Democratic Party. The government House leader (Mr. Wells) indicates that the ministers who indicated they would be here are on their way. To facilitate the arrangements of the government House leader, perhaps we should have a five- or 10-minute recess so that the business of the House can then proceed in an orderly manner.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I can sympathize with the feelings of my friend, but there are ministers here.

Mr. Martel: We do not have any questions for them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: With some of them, the members opposite usually take up half the question period. My friend the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) is here expecting to be occupied for quite a considerable part of the time. He has come prepared and, if anyone has a question he would like to direct to him, I am sure the minister would be happy to answer that question now.

That will give some of the people who sit behind the honourable member, who are always telling us they do not have enough time to get their questions in because of the leaders' questions, a chance to ask a question.

Anyway, I would indicate that we do have some ministers here who would be most happy to answer questions.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute now. If we are going to do this, let us keep it in rotation.

Mr. Bradley: This is not a leader's question.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Bradley: We have stood those down.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT OF ELDERLY

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of Labour, since he is here today, as he is so very often. I must compliment him for being here.

As the minister is aware, the focus of much attention in recent months has been on the plight of young people as it relates to being unemployed, and, indeed, the figures for that particular group are extremely high.

I would like to direct the minister's attention, however, to the plight of older workers who have been thrown out of work, who have had their employment terminated after many years of service with a company and who have had little success in obtaining a new job.

What initiatives, over and above those that already exist and are obviously not working for so many of our older unemployed people, does the minister have for individuals such as one of my constituents who is 61 years old and has been unemployed for 17 months? What initiatives does the minister have for this kind of individual?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have that same type of problem in my constituency, as each of us in this Legislature has, particularly in my area, where unemployment is approximately 20 per cent; the honourable member's area is not very far away from that figure, either. I am well aware of the problem, not only from a constituency point of view but also across the province.

There were some incentives in the budget that was presented by the Treasurer. I am groping for the name of the program, but there is a program that provides initiatives for those industries and businesses that take on older employees. An amount of money was set aside in the budget.

Further than that, though, and more appropriately and more recently, just a week ago today I and the other members of the cabinet committee on manpower met here in Toronto with the Honourable Flora MacDonald. We had a wide range of agenda items on that day, but one of the items we addressed was the plight of the workers in the category the member has mentioned.

Mr. Bradley: Since age discrimination is so often the real reason for the inability of such individuals to obtain employment for individuals such as the 61-year-old whom I brought to the minister's attention, and since the prospects of an older worker who is somewhat close to retirement getting a job are so dim, would the minister not agree with me that there is a need for new and different initiatives on the part of his government to assist such people?

Since the public sector should set an example for everyone by refusing to practise age discrimination, would the minister be prepared to give an undertaking to the House that older job-seekers in our province will be given an opportunity to obtain employment with the government of Ontario and with those agencies, boards and commissions under the direct or indirect control of the provincial government instead of simply having the door slammed in their faces?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am sorry, but I am not quite clear. The member is referring to the agencies, boards and commissions --

Mr. Bradley: Of the government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: -- of the government of Ontario. My personal experience is that most of the people whom I have the opportunity of getting appointed to various agencies, boards and commissions fall into the age group the member is talking about.

Mr. Bradley: I am talking about employees rather than appointees.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Oh, I see, employees. That is a reasonable proposal put forward by the member. I would like to go just a step farther, though, on this question because it is much broader than that particular point.

The very day I was meeting with the Honourable Flora MacDonald, the Treasurer of Ontario was meeting with his counterparts from across the country on the matter of pensions, another issue that has to be looked at seriously for the wage earner who suddenly, at age 55 or older, is cast aside. According to discussions I have had with the Treasurer, that was explored quite thoroughly at those meetings.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, a woman who had been working for Wheel Trueing, a company in Windsor that closed, came into my office a few weeks ago. It was a unionized plant that moved to Mississauga when new foreign interests took over the Canadian operation. It should be a lot easier now with the federal Conservative government. After 28 years of working with this company, her pension at age 54 would be less than $80 a month. She is now collecting welfare.

Is it not time the government put specific proposals to the federal government on pension reform and on job creation for the elderly so that more people such as this woman are not hurt and thrown on welfare for the rest of their lives?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the honourable member, but that is being done. The Treasurer has been doing just that.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the problem of discrimination in the work place, whether against the old or the young, can be solved by keeping open the plants that are closing. I have a question for the Minister of Labour on the subject of the Canadian Porcelain plant in Hamilton. He will remember I asked him about the plant three weeks ago and he graciously replied to my questions on November 26. I met with the men this morning and learned that 14 of them were terminated a week early last week and 18 more are going this week. There will be only 10 men in the plant next week.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: Can the minister bring us up to date on what he has learned about this situation? What has he done about it in the past two or three weeks, and can he tell us what we can expect in the future?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in complete honesty, we have not been successful in keeping that plant open. We have not been successful in resolving its problems. It is a very sad situation, similar to other plant closures with which we have been dealing, unfortunately on a rather regular basis these past few weeks.

Mr. Allen: The minister may not know that the workers met last week with the vice-president, who assured them he did not want to close the plant and that they had nine buyers on their list at that point. A few days later, there were apparently no buyers. They all evaporated.

Since the minister told me the Ministry of Industry and Trade was involved in looking for investors and buyers and he himself had been directly involved, perhaps he could tell us whether all efforts by the company and by the Ministry of Industry and Trade to find buyers or investors have failed? If so, why, when the product is viable and it is the only Canadian source? What is the economic status of the company, because the workers cannot find out? In particular, what is the status of the company pension fund?

Can the minister explain why a company with which his ministry and the Ministry of Industry and Trade have been so involved still leaves its workers flying in the wind as far as basic information about their future is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is true there were several buyers interested in that plant because of the initiatives of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. It was out looking for potential buyers, but that is what they were, "potential buyers." When they started to look at the circumstances relating to that firm, they naturally were discouraged. I have confidential figures here indicating the sales in 1981, 1982 and 1983, and the losses, which were substantial. The comparison between the sales and loss figures is rather dramatic.

I have also been provided on a confidential basis with figures on the money owing by this company and exactly where it stands at the present time. I am afraid any potential buyer looking at the figures I have here would be discouraged. I did not show them the figures, but they would be discouraged.

Mr. Speaker: We will revert to leaders' questions.

HYDRO REVIEW

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in this historic week when, in a legislative sense, we terminate the premiership of the member for Brampton, my colleagues and I are interested in dispensing with some of the unfinished business of the Davis period.

My first question in this connection would be to the Treasurer, the man who would be Premier on January 26, 1985, and the man in whose name Ontario Hydro borrows its billions. My question concerns the telecast yesterday on CBLT's Dateline Ontario and comments by the Provincial Auditor Mr. Douglas Archer, wherein he indicated that his very curtailed examination of the various questions concerning Ontario Hydro represented -- to use his phrase -- "a whitewash."

Having regard to the auditor's suggestion and agreement that his recent investigation of some of the major financial questions about Ontario Hydro, its capital expansion program to name the most important --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: -- and having regard to the Treasurer's own comments in the leadership campaign where he says he would conduct a review of Ontario Hydro, particularly in an effort to rein in its $20-billion debt and his concern about wages and operating costs at the gargantuan utility, in the light of his own comments and in the light of the auditor's rather disturbing summary of his own recent examination of some of these questions, is the Treasurer prepared to give the electrical consumers of Ontario his commitment that he, either as Treasurer or as Premier, would allow, encourage and direct that an independent audit of Ontario Hydro be done and made public?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have always understood and followed the rule that in this assembly I am here to speak for the current policy of the government under my auspices as Treasurer and Minister of Economics. I can, therefore, report only in that capacity during question period and that is all I will do.

Certainly, nothing in this ministry has operated to prevent the auditor from conducting a study. The honourable member would have to ask the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) whether there is anything else that he would report to this assembly which the auditor might have felt impeded his opportunity to do that. I can only say that, from my standpoint as Treasurer, I have never had difficulty analysing the operations of Hydro, through my very competent staff, or taking steps on behalf of this government when I thought Hydro needed some changes.

The honourable member will recall it was just about a year ago now that we cut Hydro's borrowing by some $200 million. We did not need or wait for the Provincial Auditor to analyse their operations; we did it ourselves in the Treasury. We feel we are quite competent to do that in order to make that change.

Finally, with respect to the future, I can only indicate, as I have on earlier occasions and as the member has read into the record, there are measures other than the ones the auditor is referring to that might be helpful in the circumstances.

Mr. Conway: To the would-be Premier, having regard to the Provincial Auditor's very worrisome conclusion about his own whitewash examination of major policy questions at the gargantuan public utility and having regard to the Treasurer's own comments and concerns about the debt load, the operating cost, the capital expansion, is he now prepared, as the man in whose name Ontario Hydro borrowed billions, to give the electrical consumers and the people of Ontario an undertaking that he will direct his colleagues in the government majority to allow an independent audit, by either the Provincial Auditor or some outside agency, to now proceed as a matter of urgent and pressing concern?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not now have that authority.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Treasurer again of exactly what the auditor said on Dateline Ontario: "The Tory majority did curtail the nature of the investigation to some extent. We did not look upon that as an audit. We looked upon it more as a fact-finding mission we were sent on. We were not asked to express opinions. You say it is a whitewash job. True."

Earlier in the discussion the auditor said he would like to have both the authority and the resources in equal measure -- I think that is the key thing -- to audit a number of crown corporations, including Ontario Hydro, but he is currently prevented from doing so.

Since the Treasurer has not answered the question yet, it is still this: Is he prepared to recommend to his colleagues that the Provincial Auditor be given the authority to do an independent audit of Ontario Hydro without the Tory majority curtailing his investigation? As Treasurer, is he prepared to provide the auditor with the necessary resources so his role can be expanded and he can assume a new mandate?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe our Provincial Auditor is well equipped to exercise the responsibilities of his mandate. On this side of the House -- I cannot speak for that side of the House and never will --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the members of the standing committee on public accounts take their responsibilities very seriously, hear the arguments put and make their own decisions. There is no whipped majority on that committee. Knowing the members of that committee as I do, I admire and respect their independence and their judgement.

Mr. Conway: I have a final supplementary of this restraining Treasurer. His recent answers make us believe the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is right when he says, "Come on, Larry, you do not really believe in restraint after all."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: If the Attorney General is not to be believed about where the Treasurer really stands on these questions of restraint, can the minister give us one good reason why as Treasurer, concerned about the debt load, the capital expansion and the operating costs of this gargantuan public utility, as he has stated in the public press in recent weeks, as the man in whose name Hydro borrows these billions of dollars, he would not want to give Hydro consumers and the people of this province an undertaking and commitment that he will see to it that the majority of which he is a part will allow the auditor of this province to go forward and do the very important work that needs to be done in getting to the truth of the financial practices of our utility?

Then he will not be left with the unhappy record of having the auditor say that all he has been allowed to conduct, as a result of the machinations of the Tory majority on the public accounts committee, is a whitewash.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member belonged to the right party and had 50 delegates and $10,000 -- in his case, the answer is "(d) none of the above" -- he might be able to put those positions and engage in the Grossman-McMurtry-Timbrell-Miller dialogue. Fortunately for his sanity, he cannot.

I would remind the member that while the Provincial Auditor might want to undertake this analysis, Ontario Hydro goes through several analyses. They are not done by the Provincial Auditor, but they are very severe. Every year Hydro goes through an analysis with Treasury. There is the analysis it must go through in terms of those who buy its bonds. We have talked about Standard and Poor's, which is concerned about Hydro. That analysis goes on. Then Hydro goes to the Ontario Energy Board for its analysis. These kinds of things go on all the time.

The only point I should like to make is that while the member wants to put out the perception that Hydro is -- what was his word? -- gargantuan or whatever, and is under no analysis or scrutiny, with all due respect, it would be unfair and inaccurate to suggest these analyses were not going on all the time, when they are. Proof of that is the fact we did not need the Provincial Auditor to tell us a year ago it was appropriate to cut $200 million from its borrowing. This government did it.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the man in whose name Hydro borrows its billions, the Treasurer, the man who would be Premier. I quote from the Toronto Star of November 16, 1984: "Treasurer Larry Grossman says he would conduct a review of Ontario Hydro to rein in its $20-billion debt if he becomes Premier in January, but he conceded that the utility's spending is higher than necessary in some areas such as wages and operating costs."

Since that is what the minister is telling the people of Ontario this fall in his capacity as Treasurer, why will he not stand in his place today as the minister responsible for much of the activity of Hydro, in so far as he is the man who must in the final analysis give an accounting for its borrowing, and give the people of Ontario a commitment that he will see to it that a review will be conducted, if by no one else, then by the Provincial Auditor, who has publicly complained in recent hours that his most recent review was most unsatisfactory, most truncated and fettered by the Tory majority which allowed nothing but a whitewash?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the answer to this question, which was the same as his first one, namely, that I do not have the authority to order that change. That is very simple. If the member wants to get 50 delegates and $10,000, he can put the question. I do not have the authority today to order that sort of review.

Secondly, I would remind the member once again -- and Mr. Speaker, I will have to beg your indulgence because I have been asked this again -- there has been a review of Hydro's operations. We did not conclude just by throwing a dart at a board that we ought to cut its borrowing by $200 million. We spent a lot of time analysing its figures and operations and we concluded that $200 million could come out of its borrowing.

The member may be unhappy that the standing committee on public accounts did not authorize the auditor to undertake yet another review of Hydro. Successive Treasurers in this government have always exercised a good look, a good review and good control over Hydro through our ability to limit its borrowing to the amount we authorize. That has occurred.

In all sincerity, I repeat to the member that he may be frustrated that he cannot whip up and control the members of the public accounts committee, but it is unfair for him or anyone else to suggest there is a Tory majority conspiracy directed by this government to prevent that investigation. The Tory members of that committee exercise their own independent judgement, and I respect it. I presume they are as concerned about Hydro, the powers of the Provincial Auditor and the ratepayers in their ridings as the member is.

Mr. Conway: The Treasurer, the man in whose name Ontario Hydro borrows its billions, a corporation about which this Treasurer has publicly in recent days raised concerns in the province --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: -- about the activities of the public utility, will know the issue is a full and comprehensive public audit of this public utility. Why is he now, having raised public concern in the leadership race about the borrowing practices of Ontario Hydro, so singularly unwilling to see to it that a full public audit of this public utility is now undertaken? Surely he does not expect electricity consumers or the people of Ontario to rest content with some internal, private audit done in New York or in the oak-panelled corridors of the Treasury building.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have answered that question.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that it was the members on that public accounts committee, who acted in the same way as the members of his government acted in stopping the reinstitution of the select committee on Hydro affairs, that would have got to the bottom of these problems, and that it was his members on the select committee who, by resolution, prevented the auditor from looking into the effect on rates of the breakdowns, the effect on borrowing power of those breakdowns and from having an independent audit of that company?

Is it not the case that it was the members of his party on that committee who prevented that kind of inquiry by the auditor? Why does he, along with the Premier, not order the members on that committee to act in an independent way and vote the way their intelligence would have told them to vote to give the auditor the kind of flexibility he wanted to conduct a fair and impartial investigation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, I will say we do not order our members on this side. We already have a situation on this side where our members on that committee are independent to do whatever they want. In point of fact, as I recall during the course of the past several months, members on that committee from this party have voted different ways at the committee. I believe I am right in saying that. That proves their independence.

If the member wants to talk about conduct on the public accounts committee, let me tell my friend I was a member of the public accounts committee. I saw what a New Democratic Party whipped majority on the public accounts committee did to confidential Ontario health insurance plan records. This party does not need a lecture from that party on conduct on a public accounts committee.

Mr. Conway: I have a final supplementary for our restraining Treasurer, who in recent days has raised public concern about the operating costs of Ontario Hydro.

Was the Treasurer, the man who would be Premier, when he raised a personal concern about the debt and operating costs of the utility, thinking about the long-term, multibillion-dollar uranium contract that was entered into by this government some six or seven years ago with very good friends of the Conservative Party, which now has the Ontario electrical consumer paying nearly three times world price for home-grown Ontario uranium? That is one of the management successes of Ontario Hydro and its friends in the government.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Was that the kind of management practice, the kind of cost escalation and spiral, about which the Treasurer is expressing a reserve and a concern? Is that the kind of thing he wants to investigate at some point in the near future?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was expressing concern that this government would want to ensure that it keeps in this province, not only the finest electrical utility in the world with the most reliable plants anywhere in the world, but also one with very competitive hydro rates compared to any other jurisdiction.

It is not the lowest because some jurisdictions have more water power than we do. But on behalf of the people of this province, I would want to ensure that we continue to have the best at very competitive rates. We have succeeded in doing that to date, and this party will be in business to make sure that continues into the future. That is what we are concerned about.

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier, who, even as we speak, I understand is listening at his squawk box, I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. I do hope the Premier is listening. Are you listening, Premier? I hope he is listening. Earth to Premier, earth to Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services with respect to the unfulfilled promises made by the Premier in August 1975 to stop the Spadina expressway by transferring a three-foot strip of land to the city of Toronto.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) wrote to me on November 1, 1984 and said in part: "I can advise you that the Minister of Government Services is acting on behalf of the government in acquiring the Spadina lands. I can advise you that, to the best of our knowledge, all lands to be transferred which require surveying have been surveyed.

"The deeds that have been prepared by Metro are currently being reviewed by the Minister of Government Services to enable them to be registered and the orders in council are being prepared to facilitate the leaseback arrangements. I am given to understand that the completion of the transfers will take place before the end of 1984."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: My question is really very simple. Will the transfers the ministry has been working on be completed before the end of this week, before we rise for the Christmas break?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, there are really two issues in that question. One has to do with the lands related to the Spadina expressway, that is to say, the lands that were to be given in title to the province through the Ministry of Government Services and, in turn, leased back to the city of Toronto in some instances and to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in other instances. That is one issue.

The other is the perception by some -- and there is no doubt that it is the view of the city of Toronto -- of the so-called three-foot strip. That is a completely separate issue. I do not know that this was included per se as a commitment made by the Premier. More important, it cannot be done. The municipality and the city of Toronto are well aware of this. The city of Toronto cannot own lands in another municipality. In this case, where it wants its so-called three-foot strip is in the city of York, and it cannot be facilitated.

To go back to the original question of the actual valley lands themselves and some residential properties at the top of the valley, I took the order in council to cabinet last week and it was approved. We have title to all of the lands; that has already taken place. The actual leases back to Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto will be registered on title before Christmas.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what on earth the minister is talking about. The Premier's statement on August 8, 1975, which I have here, stated, "In order to give assurance to the city of Toronto that the Spadina expressway is certifiably and irretrievably dead, the provincial government will grant to the city a three-foot reserve across the route of the former expressway as proposed, such reserve to be held in perpetuity by the city."

In his letter to me of November 1, 1984, the Minister of Transportation and Communications reiterated that agreement. The sense of the letter is that the Minister of Government Services is supposed to be preparing the deeds to transfer the land from Metro to the province. As soon as that is done, which I had hoped would be this week, we would have legislation in the House to deed the newly acquired provincial lands to the city of Toronto. Is the minister telling us he is planning to welsh on that agreement?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am not quite sure that "welshing on an agreement" is acceptable language in here, but we will leave that one to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: How about "weaseling"?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is better.

I wish the two issues would not get confused. The three-foot strip that was referred to was intended at the time to be a strip of land within the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto did not want the particular land. Where it wanted it was in the city of York, and that is not part of the current transactions that are being registered on title.

All the lands within the valley, along the sides of the valley and up to the top of the valley, which include properties other than just bare land, will be registered on title, and the 99-year leases for a nominal sum of $1 for the whole 99 years will be in effect before Christmas. But it will not include legislation relating to a three-foot strip in another municipality. We do not need legislation to do what we are doing now.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, just so we do not confuse the question, can the Minister of Government Services indicate clearly and unequivocally that the premiership of the member for Brampton will end as it began, not just with a promise but with the reality that the Spadina arterial road will not be completed south of Eglinton? Will we have on February 1, 1985, all the necessary protections to give a guaranty to the Premier's promise, quoted by my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan)?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I do not think anyone can give that commitment to the extent it was asked for by the honourable member opposite. This Legislature may in its wisdom at some time in the future decide that this particular road or some replacement road is necessary; so that cannot be done.

Concerning the commitment made by the Premier relative to the lands that were involved in the construction of the Spadina expressway, those lands will be taken care of by the deeds and the leases I have referred to for the next 99 years. They can be changed only by this Legislature.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: I hope the Premier is listening as his Minister of Government Services finally takes the shroud off and we see that the 1975 promises are not going to be honoured.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: May I ask the minister -- and again I hope the Premier is listening -- whether he remembers the final words of that great commitment, that great promise, on August 8, 1975, during the middle of that election campaign, when the Premier promised the three-foot strip and said, "I would hope this would be more than a symbol of our resolution with respect to Spadina, but a legal, permanent barrier, the presence of which would end all future speculation and diminish for all time the aspirations of those who continue to hope for some future reversal of the Spadina decision."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: Is the minister saying that was not true at the time? When did it not become true? When did the Premier decide to break that promise?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The Premier did not at any time decide to break his promise; he has not and he does not intend to. The difference is in the perception of the locality of the three-foot strip. The three-foot strip legally could have been negotiated by lease and registration on title, but it was not acceptable to the city of Toronto. Toronto wants the three-foot strip dedicated. It cannot be done in the way we are handling all the others, which is by the normal process of transferring real estate, both by deed through the actual transfer of the ownership of the lands and by lease in the case of transferring on a lease basis back to the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto. It cannot be done within another municipality for the city of Toronto.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps the Premier could send back his Transit Man of the Year award.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, arising out of the statement last week by the Canadian Home Builders' Association. Has the minister reviewed the statements made by the Canadian Home Builders' Association following the release of the report done for it by Clayton Research?

The Canadian Home Builders' Association indicated that unless there was an end to rent controls and an immediate phasing in of a 25 per cent increase in rents across the board to provide development capital for home building, including rental accommodation, its members basically would not be building any housing in this province. It gave the figures as to need and indicated how far below those target figures its efforts would be.

Now that the Canadian Home Builders' Association has declared it is on strike until such time as rent controls are removed and does not intend to build affordable rental accommodation, what housing supply programs does this government intend to bring forward to fill the void?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which one of the three questions the honourable member would like me to answer.

Mr. McClellan: The last one.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member says there is a strike by the development industry, the contractors or the developers in this country and in this province. I remind him that Ontario and the Canadian government brought out the Canada-Ontario rental supply program about a month ago. We went out and said there was an opportunity to build 2,800 units under the auspices of the federal and provincial governments. We would put up about $38 million.

If they are on strike, it happens that we had 86 people take out forms to submit for the opportunity of building units in this province. When it concluded on December 1, we had 37 applications for something between 7,000 and 8,000 units. I think that speaks for itself. The industry is still interested in building affordable accommodation in this province.

Mr. McClellan: The minister neglected to say that the total number of units to be funded under the Canada-Ontario rental supply program is 2,800.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: For example, in Ottawa there are about 1,600 households on the waiting list for subsidized housing. Is it true that 250 units will be built in the Ottawa area under the new CORSP? If a third of those are subsidized, that gives a grand total of 83 subsidized units. How will the minister allocate those 83 units among the 1,600 families currently on the list for subsidized accommodation in the Ottawa area? Why is he building so few units under this wonderful program?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, if the member reads Hansard, I did mention 2,800 units. The member may not be listening, and that is his problem. I said we had 37 applications here in the city of Toronto alone for between 7,000 and 8,000 units. We have 11 applications in Ottawa. Just last week I also assigned to the city of Ottawa an additional 99 units out of subsection 56(1) of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. to allow the rent supplement program to come into action.

Let me refer to the city of Ottawa since that is the one the member wants to aim at. In the city of Ottawa at this point there are 17,348 units owned or operated by the public housing authority in that community. We know very well -- the member has heard me say this in estimates and I will repeat it here in the House -- there is about a 10 per cent turnover in the occupancy of our units in that community as there is in the rest of the province. That means in the range of 1,700 to 1,800 units a year become available for people on the waiting list.

In addition to that, through the Canada rental supply program and the nonprofit, municipal, private and co-ops, we have about 850 new units coming on stream in the Ottawa-Carleton area for rent supplement purposes. If the member adds the 1,700 or 1,800 together with the 850, he will find there is a fairly substantial improvement in the opportunities for rent-geared-to-income units in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

I make no apology to the member or to the people of this province. We have done an outstanding job in trying to meet the requirements of that community as we have in this community. I have said before, and I repeat in this House, that I doubt very much either the federal or provincial government will find the solution to all the problems on any given day in rent-geared-to-income housing in Ontario, but we make a tremendous impact on those waiting lists on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis. If one followed the period of time that some of the people have been on the waiting list, one would see that they have been handled in a relatively short period of time.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about building in the province, rental supplies, help to builders and seeing that units are put on the market, let me say that I wrote to the minister a couple of weeks ago about an incident that occurred in the Belleville-Trenton area.

A joint federal-provincial program was announced by CMHC's Kingston office, which said it would give interest-free second mortgages to anyone who made a submission in the Belleville-Trenton area to build such a project for either 52 or 54 units, I believe it was. In that case, there was a call from a developer and builder in the Trenton area asking if there was going to be any money available for this project, and he was told no.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. O'Neil: A couple of days later, CMHC made an announcement that a project would be forthcoming. Why were people only given 16 or 17 days to submit proposals for that federal-provincial program? Is the minister aware of anyone on the sidelines who had already asked for that money?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if one goes back to the beginning of this year, when the Canada rental supply program was brought into being, a vast number of applications were made by individuals as well as on behalf of nonprofit organizations, private nonprofits, municipal nonprofits and co-ops.

When the Canada-Ontario rental supply program was announced just prior to the federal election and then the calls for the actual proposals came late in the month of November and were called back in after a 16-day period, there were a great number of people in various areas of the province, including Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor, London, Thunder Bay and Kingston, who already had their plans and proposals put in place because they had submitted them previously under one or two of the various programs we had. They were in a position to --

Mr. O'Neil: Why would somebody be told there was not any money?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously the Canada rental supply program was announced by the honourable member's friends prior to the last federal election. If he will recall, the program was announced prior to the September 4 election, and it was our friends who brought it into being and put it into place. It was announced in a public statement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: To go back to the original point, the Canadian Home Builders' Association indicated that for the period from 1986 to 1991, Ontario will need 46,000 new rental units per year. It also said that if rent controls continue -- and it is obvious rent controls will continue, since all three parties seem to support the continuation of rent controls -- Ontario can expect an annual average of 21,000 to 27,000 units to be built.

Does the minister accept the accuracy of those figures from the Canadian Home Builders' Association? If he does, surely it is obvious even to him that there is a tremendous vacuum between what is needed and what is going to get built and that government is going to have to move in to fill the vacuum, including picking up its fair share of housing supply programs.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am sure the member will recall that when we went through our estimates not that many months ago, the ministry brought in a slide presentation so the members could see in a tangible way our predictions on ownership and rental in Ontario. He will recall we gave the members the figures. At that time, we said very clearly there will always be a difference of opinion among the home builders, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., perhaps the Conference Board of Canada and one or two others on how many units will be built. We have been fairly accurate over the years and our position was very clear.

I admit there are going to have to be programs that will encourage the private sector to develop further rental accommodation; there is no doubt about that. This is why we have subsection 56(1), why we have had the Canada rental supply program and why we have the Canada-Ontario rental supply program. Indeed, last Friday the provincial ministers reporting for housing met with the federal minister to review what we might put in place for 1985 to stimulate the rental construction program and to look after those requiring rent supplement units.

RECYCLING

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's Globe and Mail, we read that several independent soft drink bottlers have announced their intention to break provincial law regarding soft drink containers. What action does the Minister of the Environment intend to take in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for that question but should perhaps inform my colleague that the action suggested by a few of the bottlers is not the position being taken by the majority or by their formal association.

My staff will be reviewing the situation to determine what further action we might take. Because this proposed action -- and it is only proposed at this time -- would be in violation of the regulations of my ministry, some further action could well be necessitated as a result of what these bottlers are proposing to do.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, is not the real reason they have decided to break the law that the minister has failed to enforce the regulations and the agreement on a 75:25 split between refillable bottles and disposable containers? Has he not procrastinated for five years after giving a promise that he would have a new policy in place? There has been no new policy put in place, and for this reason the bottlers have decided to take the law into their own hands.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: What is the minister going to do now? Is he going to prosecute them, is he going to enforce his regulations or is he going to adopt a real policy and tell the people of Ontario what he is going to do environmentally about the bottles?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, when the honourable member is present, this place sometimes feels so vacant. We do not have a policy or a regulation that indicates a 75:25 split. That was a gentlemen's agreement within the industry to which my predecessor attempted to get the industry to adhere in an attempt to resolve this question without government interference. In fact, my ministry does have a proposal that is before cabinet and is being reviewed at the present time. That proposal takes into account the various problems of all segments of the industry.

The honourable member was here last week when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), who happened to be passing through the great municipality of Hamilton, indicated for the first time in this House some concern about the steel industry. That is one segment of the industry; the plastics industry is another and the independent bottlers still another.

I can assure the member that we have been meeting regularly with all segments of the industry in an honest attempt to resolve this issue for the betterment of the total industry. I admit it is not an easy question, and I am trying to answer it.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has made the point that it has been very difficult to come to a final determination on this very important question. He will recall that it was last Christmas when he expected to make some kind of announcement. Now that 12 months have passed and the bottlers are feeling very much under the gun, because of what is happening in the marketplace, as a result of there being no definite statement of government policy --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Conway: -- can the Minister of the Environment indicate to the independent bottlers and to the rest of us specifically when he intends to make public the new policy on these matters relating to the soft drink industry?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate only that in the fullness of time we will take into account all the various dimensions of the problem. To be more specific, the issue is before cabinet at the moment. I need not tell the honourable member that I am not in a position to resolve it myself; I will be relying on my cabinet colleagues for a final determination of this issue. We are as anxious to solve the problem as are those members on the other side who have been interested in the problem. It is a complicated problem, and in the meantime we are trying to keep the industry as viable as we can.

RIDGE LANDFILL SITE

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. It is regarding the Ridge landfill, which is in Harwich township in Kent county. The Ridge Landfill Corp. has recently raised its tipping fees by 80 per cent to the city of Chatham and by 120 per cent to the town of Tilbury. These hefty increases are causing financial difficulties for the communities using the dump. The company has a monopoly on this activity. Does the minister not think we should have a system whereby the company would have to justify these increases under its monopolistic mandate?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, there is no monopoly in the honourable member's area or in any part of Ontario with respect to dumping and landfill sites. I did speak to the town council of Tilbury on Sunday about this very matter and I indicated that in the first instance it should look at alternative sites even if there were additional transportation charges; it might be able to relieve some of the financial pressure by moving its solid waste elsewhere.

If that is not possible, then certainly another alternative, which many a municipality has undertaken, is to find its own landfill site and go through the environmental assessment process to get that site approved. It then owns the facility itself and can dump at whatever rate it wishes. It is a facility that is managed, owned and operated by the municipality. Certainly a number of options are available.

Mr. McGuigan: Surely the minister knows that in economic terms, in real terms, this is a monopoly because it would cost millions of dollars to establish a new dump.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

3 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Much of the $1.5 million that the company is claiming it has to retrieve is associated with lawsuits and environmental hearings that were caused by materials that were dumped there years ago from all over the province and from the United States. In 1980 alone, 1.5 million gallons of liquid waste were brought in from outside.

Does the minister think those costs should be charged to the local municipalities? Those costs should be charged to the company itself, which, over its North American operations, is a moneymaking corporation.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: My own personal opinion is one that I am sure is shared by the honourable member. I think those costs should be blended throughout more of the operations than on a specific site that is at the moment addressed with some immediate problems that may have come from outside of the area.

Some new competition in the area might be beneficial in helping to lower the prices being charged for the specific tipping fee for that particular site.

I would suggest the local municipalities should do what is being done in Essex county. As I am sure the member is aware, Essex county has a master study going on in that area with respect to new landfill sites. If some of the areas get together in a co-operative way, they can be effective in bringing the cost of the waste disposal in their communities down to a more reasonable and realistic level. That is what I would suggest he advise his municipality to do.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Treasurer to stay, but he was so busy he could not. I will ask my question of the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is currently occupied --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am going to place both my question and my supplementary question because of the time factor.

Mr. Speaker: Place your question quickly, please.

Mr. Martel: I am sorry, I cannot. My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services and it involves a young man. What do I tell Mr. Ron Arsenault, a 20-year-old who has finished grade 13 and one year at Cambrian College; he lives at home, has applied for make-work jobs with provincial funding and was disqualified from all of these jobs because he must be on welfare; because he is not on welfare and because he is living at home, he cannot qualify for the make-work project the province is funding --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Martel: That is a catch-22 position. He cannot get welfare because he is under 21 and he cannot get a funded job because the minister has laid down the criterion which says he must be on welfare. What should I advise this young man? The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission will not hire him.

My supplementary, because I am not going to get it on, is this: is the province more interested in cutting out welfare cases and is that why it has established that criterion which makes him ineligible for work?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is incorrect on two points. A person does not have to be on social assistance to qualify for the Ontario career action program. He may have to be a dependant of someone on social assistance to qualify for one of the special programs the Treasurer provided me with the funds to operate. Those are only part-time; they are not full-time.

I would suggest to the member that he can also get social assistance, but not before he is 21.

Mr. Martel: If he leaves home.

Hon. Mr. Drea: He can get social assistance.

I would suggest the most straightforward thing is for the member to tell his young man to go into my regional office this afternoon or tomorrow.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition that reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to appeal 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 policy 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 debates to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for the people to appear and be heard."

This is signed by a number of people from Sault Ste. Marie and environs.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have an identical petition signed by 28 teachers from the Nipigon Red Rock District High School in Red Rock.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Kolyn from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 82, An Act to amend the Theatres Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding any previous order of the House, the standing committee on social development be authorized to meet on Wednesday morning, December 12.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 510, 514, 522, 524 and 538 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for final day of session].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HUMAN RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Martel, resolution 13, that on this 36th anniversary of the signing of the International Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Soviet Union is a signatory, this House reaffirms its commitment to human rights in this jurisdiction and across the world and brings to public attention that nine Soviet Jews, Alexander Kholmiansky, Yakov Levin, Zachar Zunshain, Yuli Edelshtein, Yakov Mesh, Moshe Abramov, Mark Niepomniashchy, Yakov Gorodetsky and Alexander Yakir, stand accused of the "crime" of teaching Hebrew, with this basic right of transmitting one's language and culture denied only to Soviet citizens of Jewish origin; and that this House condemns suppression of Jewish culture and urges the Soviet Union to drop charges and release those unjustly imprisoned and allow them to continue in the pursuit of learning.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

3:10 p.m.

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, on Thursday, the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) moved an amendment to subsection 45(4) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill. At that time, I agreed this section would be stood down while I had an opportunity to look at it and to confer with senior officials of my ministry and of the board.

Members will recall that as it now stands, this subsection requires the board to direct that a lump sum, instead of a periodic payment, be payable to workers whose impairment of earning capacity is less than 10 per cent, unless the board feels it would be to the worker's advantage to receive continuing payments.

The member for Dovercourt has moved that the worker be given the option of continuing to receive periodic payments, if he or she so desires, by inserting the words "with the agreement of the injured worker" into the subsection in question. I am pleased to inform the member I am in agreement with the principle that workers should have the option of receiving periodic payments instead of a lump sum in this situation. After conferring with counsel, I have determined that more effective legal language can be drafted to achieve this result.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ramsay moves that subsection 45(4) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill be amended to read as follows:

"Where the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker does not exceed 10 per cent of the worker's earning capacity and the worker does not elect to receive compensation by a weekly or other periodic payment, the board shall, unless the board decides it would not be to the advantage of the worker to do so, direct that such lump sum as may be considered to be the equivalent of the periodic payment shall be paid to the worker."

In the light of this proposal, does the member for Dovercourt want to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a look at it first. With the consent of the minister, I would like a copy of the amendment. I will comment after reviewing the content of it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the minister for bringing in the amendment, assuming it says what I think it says. I have not had a chance to read it. My colleague the member for Dovercourt is doing that now.

The minister has taken a bit of the wind out of my sails. I was prepared for a speech of an hour and a half this afternoon on this section; now I cannot give it. That means we will have to proceed with the rest of the bill and expedite the sections as we move along. I want the minister to know that if he continues to bring in amendments we have proposed, this bill will be through faster than he would ever have imagined.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, the principle of the minister's amendment incorporates our concern, but I have a few questions to raise about the Workers' Compensation Board, which might decide not to give that option to the injured worker. I would like to ask him what criteria the board will use in judging that it is not in the best interest of the injured worker to receive the lump sum.

I understand the bona fide intention of the minister and I am sure that as a result of the open principle incorporated in that section, the board will eventually write other policies just to explain where it is not to the advantage of the injured worker to receive the lump sum. I am really concerned with finding out about the framework in which the board will operate just to describe the limits on when it will not be to the advantage of the injured worker to receive that money.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, my personal intent was to accommodate the member's amendment because I happen to agree with it. I am really not in a position to justify the actual wording, because it was put together by two very distinguished legal minds.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, that is where we got into trouble.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I think if the member knew the identity of the two legal minds, he would agree that they are very distinguished.

Because I have a great deal of respect for the two gentlemen who combined to come up with this wording I am accepting it, but I am afraid I am out to lunch if the member wants me to try to explain it.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Dovercourt like to proceed with withdrawing his amendment, having heard the minister?

Mr. Lupusella: I will accept the minister's amendment with reservations because I really would like to have some guidelines.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The two gentlemen are here, and if the member for Dovercourt would care to go over and talk this matter over with them, I am sure his questions would be appropriately responded to.

Mr. Lupusella: We can stand this down again until I have had a chat with the gentlemen over there and we can proceed with subsection 45(5). I think my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) had the floor.

In the meantime, I really appreciate the positive step undertaken by the minister. On several occasions I have emphasized the fact that he is quite sensitive most of the time, or that on particular occasions he is flexible and sensitive to issues we are bringing to his attention. I really appreciate the fact that he recognizes the principle that the injured worker should have an option when the board is to decide on the lump sum at times when the percentage of disability is below 10 per cent.

Mr. Chairman: Did I hear the member say he would withdraw that one?

Mr. Lupusella: Dealing with subsection 45(4), I expressed a concern that I would like to stand down the minister's amendment until I have an opportunity to speak to the gentlemen working for the minister.

In the meantime the member for Nickel Belt had the floor on subsection 45(5) and maybe he can carry on the debate.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I hope history will record the contribution made by my colleague the member for Dovercourt to the cause of injured workers in this province.

We were on subsection 45(5) on Thursday night, and it is another example of where the minister could expedite things. I was mistaken earlier; the hour and a half speech I prepared was not on subsection 45(4), it was on subsection 45(5). If the minister wants to make a comment on subsection 45(5), I would be very happy to take my seat and hear it at this time.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of perhaps clarifying my position, I do not think the honourable member is going to agree with what I am going to say and he might still want to make that 90-minute address after I have finished; but at least he will know where I stand and why I stand in this position. He was asking me to do that on Thursday, and to that extent I am obliging him now instead of, as he appropriately put it the other day, stonewalling him. I would never want to do that.

Mr. Laughren: I said it was a filibuster of silence.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Whatever.

The member for Dovercourt has suggested that we amend subsection 45(5) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill to remove the discretionary power of the Workers' Compensation Board to award supplements and to make them compulsory wherever it can be argued that the impairment of earning capacity is significantly greater than usual. This amendment was also introduced at the committee stage and was thoroughly discussed. The committee finally rejected the amendment after much debate.

I would like to remind the member that the substance of the proposed subsection 45(5) is nothing more or less than what is contained in the current subsection 43(5) of the existing act; in other words, the section under discussion simply re-enacts the existing provision. To do more, to remove the discretionary power of the board in this respect, would in effect institute a wage-loss system for permanently disabled workers. I have no intention at this time of introducing through the back door an approach we would not welcome through the front.

This is not to say the wage-loss concept has been rejected by the government. Rather, as I have said before on many occasions, we have deferred the resolution of that complex issue to phase 2 of the workers' compensation reform process. It is at that point we will weigh the costs and benefits of wage-loss and other approaches to permanent disability compensation and arrive, I am sure, at an appropriate solution. For the purpose of this bill, however, we are continuing the present system of supplements as modified by significant improvements vis-à-vis older workers and those in receipt of Canada pension plan benefits.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, that has to be the most outrageous argument I have ever heard put by the minister. Is he really telling us he is not going to make it a requirement that the board make up the difference when the impairment of earnings is greater than the physical impairment, because it might encroach on phase 2 of his perpetual study of workers' compensation in the province?

I really find that he is making an outrageous argument. The minister has an opportunity to justify what clauses 45(5)(a) and 45(5)(b) say; that is all we are asking. We have not put an outrageous request to the minister at all. For the minister to make that argument is a bad debating tactic, dragging in something that might happen in the future as an excuse for not putting it in now.

At least the minister should stand in his place and say he is not going to put it in now because --

Mr. Mancini: Because he does not want to.

Mr. Laughren: He does not want to put it in now because he knows he is being watched very carefully. Every amendment that is made is being scrutinized carefully by the workers and the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation. The minister is hesitant to make any changes that do not have the prior approval of his caucus or the employers' council. That is what it really comes down to. The minister is simply engaging in a debate without substance when he uses those excuses to avoid making a change.

One moment the minister stands in his place and agrees to an amendment that makes a minor improvement, and the next minute he stands in his place and refuses to accept an amendment that would make a minor improvement as well. I do not know how the minister justifies his change in attitude between subsection 45(4) and subsection 45(5).

To put it as precisely as I can, the minister is saying that if a worker gets injured and suffers a small percentage of disability as determined by the meat chart, but the worker cannot go to work because of the nature of the job that person must do, then it is at the discretion of the board to say physical level of impairment is going to be the level of impairment vis-à-vis earnings as well.

I do not know how he justifies that. If a worker is off the job because he or she is injured, surely it is the replacement of the lost income that is important, not the physical percentage, not the meat chart. I do not know how often we will have to argue this in this chamber. How can the minister defend a system that says, "A worker can be 20 per cent physically disabled but 100 per cent disabled in terms of earning capacity and we will only pay him 20 per cent of his earnings loss"? What kind of silly system is that? It is an outrageous system.

I guess we will be arguing a long time in this chamber. Injured workers will understand as we go along that the minister is not really interested in bettering their lot when he allows a section such as this to remain. He has the opportunity to change it so that the Workers' Compensation Board does not have the discretion to say, "You are 20 per cent disabled physically; therefore, we will supplement your earnings only to the tune of 20 per cent." That is simply not fair.

For the minister to engage in this punitive action makes no sense whatever. We will be debating these problems with the minister until the cows come home. As long as he does not change it, there is going to be a problem.

I feel so strongly about this section because in my constituency there are a great many miners and people who work in the bush. For those people, a 20 per cent physical disability according to the meat chart is a 100 per cent disability in terms of their earning capacity. That is why I feel so strongly about this section. The board should not have this discretionary power. That 20 per cent physical disability means a 100 per cent impairment of earnings.

I would not be doing my job if I accepted the minister's position. It is his system in Ontario; it is the employers' system of compensation. Why should injured workers have to suffer in that way? It is completely beyond my comprehension how the minister can stand in his place and say: "It is fine by us. If a worker has a 20 per cent disability and a 100 per cent earning impairment, we will pay him the 20 per cent." That is what he is allowing the board to do. I would like to know how the minister sees that as fair.

In this section, we are not asking the minister to enrich or to index the benefits. We are only asking him to be fair and to replace 90 per cent of the income of an injured worker when that worker cannot work because of an injury on the job. That is all we are asking.

It is already the principle of the bill. The principle of the Workers' Compensation Act is to replace earnings because of an injury on the job. Yet here the minister says, "Yes, but it is at the discretion of the board." How does he fit those two things together? I think it can be argued that this section is not in order because it contravenes the principle of the bill, which is to replace income lost as a result of an injury on the job. Perhaps the Chairman might want to look at this section, if I could get his attention. He might want to look at this section.

One of the main principles of the bill is to replace income lost because of injury on the job. Then in this section the board has the discretion not to do that -- in other words, to pay only 20 per cent, even though the impairment of earnings is 100 per cent. It is at the discretion of the board. How does that square with the principle in the bill of replacement of earnings because of an injury on the job? I think it contravenes the whole principle of this bill and of workers' compensation in Ontario.

I do not believe I would be allowed to move an amendment that did that sort of thing; the Chairman would rule me out of order. Yet the minister is allowed to sit there complacently and leave in the bill a section that says the board has the discretion to rule that a worker can have a 20 per cent physical disability and a 100 per cent earning disability, but it will pay him only 20 per cent.

3:30 p.m.

I do not know how the minister gets off with that discretionary power. I can see why he would like to have it and I can see why the employers' council wants to keep it that way, but I do not see how the Minister of Labour can sit there contentedly and allow that section to remain. I really do not understand that. Perhaps the minister can give us an explanation. He certainly has not to this point. Nothing would please me more than to stop talking on this section and allow the minister to give me a further explanation, and perhaps he will.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I was just sitting here thinking, and I am not trying to be flippant, that if I had to appear before any tribunal whatever, I would like to have the member for Nickel Belt represent me because he makes very compelling arguments. He is a skilled orator and I am often tempted to fall into the trap he is trying to set for me because, as I say, he is quite skilled and persuasive.

However, I have indicated my position. I want to make the point that I have tried throughout, to honour the requests of the opposing members, both from the official opposition and the third party. I believe I have demonstrated that by coming in with some positive amendments since the committee stage, including attention to the problem of the existing surviving spouses, as well as the amendment I moved today. There are other examples as well.

I have not just simply accepted what we had when we came out of committee. I made a commitment to study these things, to look at them objectively. Incidentally, I did that without consultation with the employers' council. I have looked at them objectively. In some cases, we have moved in a positive way, but there are other positions I feel I have to take, and this is one. I have explained the reasons for it and I do not intend to get back on my feet again in respect to it.

Mr. Laughren: There we have it again, another filibuster of silence.

My colleague the member for Dovercourt, who I am sure has handled more compensation appeals than anybody else on the face of the earth, except the adjudicators themselves, makes the point that one never wins an appeal under this section. If we try to take this section to appeal, do members know what is waved in our faces? The discretionary powers of the board are waved in our faces when we go to an appeal.

The minister wants to keep discretionary powers because he thinks the board will probably rule in favour of the worker one time and against the worker another time. That is what is implied in the minister's response, but that is not what happens. He should take one of these to an appeal and see what happens.

I have tried it with workers who work in the bush. Very often if the worker has a bad back, he cannot go back in the bush and operate a chainsaw with a 20 per cent disability or even a 10 or 15 per cent disability. The board says, "We are sorry. We have discharged our responsibilities. According to the doctor or our assessment, the worker has a 15 per cent disability and we are paying him up to his level of disability."

What does that worker do? Very often if that worker works in the bush, he lives in a fairly remote community. Where does he go? What does he do? Many times the workers in my area are unilingually French-speaking. The minister says, "Get another job." He knows it is not that simple, particularly for someone who is unilingual. Those are the kind of people the minister is abandoning as long as he leaves this section in place. I do not think that is fair.

I am increasingly frustrated with the attitude of the minister. The other sections of the act do not mean anything. If the minister really wanted to be honest, at some point in this bill he would say the board has discretion to pay benefits as it sees fit. He might even put in there, "if it considers it in the best interest of the worker," in the true historical, paternalistic sense in which the board is for ever regarding injured workers.

Is it any wonder there is the kind of unrest about workers' compensation? As long as workers' compensation is employer run and funded totally, with all decisions made by the collective employers of the province, how are workers ever going to believe they are getting a fair shake?

The minister says, "We now have a more independent board." That is true. That is why we support those particular changes, but internally the board is still being paid for by the employers. That is fine. I am not arguing against that, but one has to understand that when the employers are calling the shots, because they fund the board, when there is a discretionary section such as this, one can guess which way the decision is going to go. If members do not believe me, let them take it to an appeal. If anybody wants to attend an appeal with me on one of these sections, I would be most happy to have him do so.

I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to say that opposing these kinds of decisions, that are not designed to cost the board a lot of money but simply to bring some fairness to this section, make debating this bill not a very happy experience.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, unlike the member for Nickel Belt, I am not surprised the minister has decided not to accept the amendment. We have seen the Workers' Compensation Board and the principle by which the board operates evolve over a good number of years. This section has been one of the keys to the decision-making process at the board. The board believes -- and I have talked to many senior officials at the board, both during discussion of the annual report of the board and during the estimates of the Ministry of Labour -- it is there to pay only for the injury that has been caused. It does not believe the worker is in any way entitled to have indefinite benefits for loss of wages because of a particular injury.

The officials bring up the fact that they offer retraining. Yes, they do, but that program has not been working well. They bring up the fact that it is incumbent upon the worker either to return to the old employment or to seek new employment. Yes, that is true. In situations where people cannot return to the old employer, they should look for new employment, but the job market is tight. Everyone knows that.

The situation for injured workers is difficult because new employers hedge somewhat before they hire an injured worker, unless special arrangements have been made by the board and unless they are assured they will not have to pay any premiums if the old injury recurs or if there is an accident involving the old injury. I, for one, am not surprised the amendment has not been accepted. That is one of the principles under which the board operates.

All we can do here today is put our case on the record and ask whether it is justifiable that a worker be penalized not only by the pain and suffering that goes along with an injury and by the possible loss of the original job and all that entails, but also by suffering the financial consequences between what may happen at a new job and what was the case at the old job.

As a matter of fact, the member for Nickel Belt mentioned he that had brought several cases to the board concerning this particular section and that he had not done very well. I can say to him there probably has not been any member in the House who has done very well when bringing these kinds of appeals to the board.

3:40 p.m.

I want to close by saying I realize this is our last week for debate on all the important matters we have to pass, and we want to make sure this bill is passed by the end of the week. I am not trying to hold up things, but when we take away from people the right of being able to sue because of negligence, etc., which in many areas of North America, especially in the United States, is a very lucrative right, I do feel we have to be very careful that the impediments we put in front of injured workers, who want not to make more than they were earning but to make as much as they were earning, are not such that we not only take away the right to sue but also guarantee them permanently a substandard rate of pay compared to their rate of pay before the injury.

We can bring in the situation of people who work in the bush with chain-saws. We can mention that some people are not bilingual. Some people might not speak English, and that would be a handicap. In some cases having the ability to speak French would be an asset. It has been pointed out that this is a problem in the remote areas of the province, where there is not a lot of secondary manufacturing or assembling going on.

This is a problem everywhere. This problem of being clinically rated for a certain payment, and then finding oneself unable physically or mentally to reach the earnings one made before, is not restricted to the north or to problems of language; this problem is prevalent all across Ontario.

I fully understand why the minister is not prepared to accept such an amendment, but it behooves us to stress that we would be foolish indeed to believe that these clinical ratings are accurate as they affect people's earning power. The clinical ratings have absolutely nothing to do with the earning power of an injured worker.

Only last Saturday morning, when I had office hours in my constituency, an injured worker came in whose shoulder has been virtually destroyed because of an accident. I believe he has had two operations on the shoulder. That man would be hard pressed to do any kind of physical labour whatsoever.

One of the options available to this person is job retraining, and the board will make up the difference. The board will give a supplement as long as one is co-operating and as long as one is on the way to being retrained. But the reality is that it is very difficult to be retrained, especially if there is an educational problem or if one did not have a certain level of education beforehand and it is very difficult to pinpoint a new skill that could be useful.

In this area I have a real criticism of the board. The people in the local offices of the board in Windsor, London, Sault Ste. Marie or wherever, should know the exact needs of the community. They should be in touch with the people who are in the business of hiring and they should know what the demand for skills is and what skills are most needed.

I find it very frustrating to see some people retrained knowing full well that when they finish, there will be no jobs for them. The board is letting us and the injured worker down when it has him finish a retraining project and then, once the retraining project or the program is completed, says: "Fine, you have been retrained. Go out into the marketplace, find a job and there will be no more supplementary benefits for you because we have done our job; we have carried out our responsibility."

It seems to me that in some cases, the board is more interested in getting a person into any kind of retraining -- it does not matter what it is -- to have the person there for a time, have him graduate if he can from whatever course he is involved with and then the board's job is finished. The clinical rating has been made, the responsibility of retraining has been carried out and then it is so long and goodbye. The worker is then out on his or her own again.

I understand very well why the minister is not accepting the amendment, but I do say there is room for improvement and maybe in phase 2 there can be evidence collected, as the minister has suggested. All that has to be done to make a case is to compile the evidence. We do not need to search for it; it is there for us. Once it is compiled, then possibly the minister can see himself bringing in such an amendment.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: In view of the importance of this debate, I think there need to be more members of the government party in here in order that we can have a quorum.

Mr. Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: A quorum being present, we are dealing with the amendment to subsection 45(5) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill. I sense the debate is drawing to a close. Are we ready for the question?

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, on subsection 45(5), I was trying to tell the minister that there are many punitive steps incorporated in this subsection. I know he is not willing to change his mind. However, the members and the minister should be aware there is an extra dimension to the discretionary power given to the board under subsection 45(5).

The first was spelled out by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt. In the scenario where the impairment of the earning capacity of the worker is significantly greater, there is discretionary power that the board may supplement. Even though a clear-cut case is spelled out as to the principle for the board, we give the discretionary power to the board to decide.

The other one is worse. As to "the amount awarded for permanent partial disability for such period" for which the injured worker qualifies, the board may fix the amount and the number of months. Even though the board may realize the person is eligible for a pension supplement, there is another discretionary power by which the board will decide how long the injured worker will receive the pension supplement.

I understand the minister's intention. However, as far as I am concerned, there is no good legal phraseology incorporated in the principle of this bill. The reason there is no good legal phraseology is that the punitive steps are so clear and evident that I do not have to convince all injured workers or the legal minds that this kind of phraseology should not be written in this type of legislation.

With the extra dimension of the discretionary power as to how long the injured worker is eligible to receive the pension supplement, which is at the discretion of the board, I would like to remind the minister, now that he is going to move another amendment on the issue of the Canada pension plan and keeping in mind whether the person is really co-operating and is available for medical or vocational rehabilitation, that eventually the board will decide whether he is eligible for one, two, three or six months. It is up to the board to decide.

This section betrays the whole content of Professor Weiler's report. I give some credit to certain parts of his report. Professor Weiler was trying to deal with compensation in cases of permanent disabilities without penalizing the injured worker when he could not go back to do the same type of job he used to perform at the time of the injury.

If the pension supplement is a new concept incorporated in Bill 101, that the injured worker should not suffer the consequences of an injury and the pension supplement eventually has to replace the earning capacity to which the injured worker is entitled because of the permanent disability involved, I do not think subsection 5 will alleviate the situation. It will penalize the injured worker at the discretion of the board.

The minister is not here, but I understand he is not flexible on this point. Maybe the parliamentary assistant who used to sit on the committee will intervene in this. The case is clearly spelled out. We have been trying to elaborate the situation through the forceful approach of the member for Nickel Belt.

This terrible legislation contravenes the principle, which was clearly enunciated by Professor Weiler, that workers should not be penalized as a result of an accident by giving all the power to the board. First, the board has to decide whether the worker is eligible. Although it is clearly spelled out in subsection 5 when a worker should be eligible, the board might say that in its opinion a worker is not eligible. Second, the length of time the injured worker should receive the pension supplement is at the discretion of the board.

It is a terrible law, which is why we have been spending so much time trying to convince the minister that our proposal makes sense and that injured workers should not pay the price for that.

Mr. Chairman: The question is an amendment to subsection (45)(5). All those in favour will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I suggest we go back to subsection 45(4). I believe that could be dealt with.

Mr. Lupusella: On subsection 45(4), I will withdraw my amendment and the minister can move his amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ramsay has moved an amendment to subsection 45(5). Does the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to subsection 45(6).

Mr. Chairman: I believe the minister has an amendment to subsection 45(6). Perhaps that should come first.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: My amendment is to subsection 45(9).

Mr. Chairman: I have amendments here to subsections 45(6) and (8).

4 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will check. I have been advised that to introduce my amendment to subsection 9, I will need agreement from the House leaders of the other two parties, but that is for subsection 45(9).

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 45(6) be amended by deleting the words "90 per cent of" in the sixth line and the rest of the subsection after the word "difference."

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague the member for Nickel Belt would say this is a housekeeping amendment. We have made our case in previous statements; therefore, we have nothing to add.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 45(6) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Mr. Chairman: I remind members that we need five members standing in order to stack.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, on subsection 45(7), even though I do not have an amendment to move, I would like to bring to the attention of the minister that another discretionary power is given to the board. It reads, "the board may supplement the amount awarded for permanent partial disability with an amount not exceeding the old age security benefits that would be payable under section 3 of the Old Age Security Act (Canada)."

We argued at committee stage that this is terrible legislation, and I have problems in dealing with it. Either we give the benefit or we give the board the power to decide. I understand why this discretionary power is being given to the board, but if we are dealing with old workers and if this type of supplementary pension must be given under section 3 of the Old Age Security Act, why are we playing legal games even in this section? Either an injured older worker who is close to retirement age will get that supplement or the board has to decide.

As far as I am concerned, even though we are talking about a new law, a new way of revamping or shaping the Workers' Compensation Act, a double standard has been enacted in the principle of Bill 101. On one hand it gives the impression that the injured worker will get the benefit; on the other hand the board has to decide, and I do not think this type of approach can be tolerated, even by the legal minds who have drafted this subsection. I do not blame them; I blame the minister and the government for the intentions that are behind the permissive verb "may" and the discretionary power given to the board.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, do you not think there should be more than five government members in here for a debate like this?

The Deputy Chairman: I do not see how that applies to Bill 101.

Mr. Laughren: All right, I will translate it for you. Would you see if there are enough for a quorum? I was not going to do that.

The Deputy Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

4:08 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with subsection 45(7) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, we are offended by this section because if an older worker is entitled to these benefits, the older worker is entitled to the benefits. It is not "may or may not be entitled" -- he is either entitled to or not entitled to them. I do not understand the minister's thinking in bringing in this section. Either an older worker is entitled or he is not entitled. In what kind of world is the minister living in which he can say --

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I cannot hear what the honourable member is saying.

Mr. Laughren: That is not my fault. Mr. Chairman, the minister is complaining he cannot hear me. I never thought I would see the day, but that is what he is doing, Mr. Chairman, so perhaps you could bring some order to the chamber?

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The member for Nickel Belt cannot hear himself.

Mr. Laughren: What is bothering me, Mr. Chairman, is -- I wish I could think of a good analogy. I cannot when I am on my feet. Perhaps when I sit down, I will.

The minister says in this section that an older worker who would have great difficulty being retrained, and whose income from partial disability is not sufficient to live on, should receive a special supplement that will not exceed the benefit he would receive if he were an old age pensioner.

That is reasonable. That is a good section except for the discretionary aspect to it. This was missing in the other bill. I think it is an important section. But the minister could make it a good section as well as an important one if he would take away the discretionary powers of the board. Why give them those discretionary powers? Either the older worker should have that supplement -- and we think he or she should -- or the older worker should not have it. The minister should make up his mind. He sits there and thinks he can have the best of all worlds. The board will decide whether an older worker should get the supplement or not.

I happen to agree with the minister that there should not be an age in this section. It should not say age 55 or 54 or 56. I agree with the minister's decision in that regard. What I do not understand is, since he has gone this far and said there should be a supplement for older workers in this predicament, why does he not say, "There must be a supplement for workers in this predicament"? Why not? What sort of hedging is he doing with this section?

Surely to goodness an older worker is entitled; if the older worker was not entitled to it, the minister would not put it in the section. I have never seen him make this act richer than it should be for injured workers. He says there should be a section for older workers and then he puts in that very nasty section that says, "Of course, at the discretion of the board." What sort of nonsense is that?

Mr. Wildman: He's a Grinch.

Mr. Laughren: Yes. The Grinch of the injured workers.

Why does the minister insist on taking away when he gives something? Why can he not simply say that older workers in this predicament are entitled to a supplement and put it in the bill, which he has done? Why does he then take the next step and take a little bit away? That is mean spirited. If older workers are entitled, they are entitled, plain and simple, without getting into this silly game of saying, "Of course, it is all at the discretion of the board."

The minister must encounter older injured workers in his own constituency because of the layoffs that have occurred in his community and the high unemployment rate there. The other day somebody implied the minister never talked to injured workers. The minister got quite incensed and said he certainly does. I believe he does. In a community like Sault Ste. Marie, he must spend a lot of time on workers' compensation problems. I have no hesitation in believing that. But if that is true, would it not follow he would recognize this problem and the contradiction in this section? I think he should recognize the contradiction.

If older workers are entitled to this supplement, then put it in the section. Do not hedge it by saying, "Of course, it is at the discretion of the board."

Mr. Lupusella: I have an amendment to subsection 45(8) unless the minister, as a result of his own amendment on subsection 45(9), is going to delete subsection 8. No?

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 45(8) be amended by deleting the figure "90" in the fourth line and replacing it with "100" and by deleting all the words following "pre-accident earnings rate" in the seventh line.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I have to make a short comment. Let us pretend for a minute that the member for Nickel Belt, who will be the next Minister of Labour, is dealing with this legislation. He would state that this is a housekeeping amendment and that we have nothing else to add.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, under the amendment to subsection 45(9) that I am moving today, the present subsection 45(9), which provides that receipt of Canada pension plan payments will not be a bar to receiving a supplement, is combined with a new statement which provides that only those CPP payments relating to a compensable injury will be deducted from a worker's gross pre-injury earnings.

The Deputy Chairman: May I suggest that the minister move the amendment and then we will speak to it.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am sorry. I thought it might be easier the other way around, but I will follow your instructions, as I always attempt to do.

The Deputy Chairman: You are very noble.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay moves that subsection 45(9) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(9) Notwithstanding subsection 40(3) or subsections 6 or 8 of this section, the fact that a worker is receiving payments under the Canada pension plan shall not be a bar to receiving payments under clause 40(2)(b) or subsection 5 or 7 of this section, and the board, in having regard to payments received by a worker under the Canada pension plan, shall have regard only to those payments received by the worker with respect to a disability arising from the injury."

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Under the amendment to subsection 45(9) that I have moved today, the present subsection 45(9), which provides that receipt of CPP payments will not be a bar to receiving a supplement, is combined with a new statement which provides that only those CPP payments relating to a compensable injury will be deducted from a worker's gross pre-injury earnings. CPP payments received for a noncompensable condition will not be so deducted.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I have to speak against the amendment.

Mr. Laughren: Why? Your colleague has spoken for it.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: There are reasons. We established some time ago that we were unhappy with the way the minister was handling the matter of Canada pension plan integration. We established that we did not feel it was within his jurisdiction or proper for him to be fooling around with a system operated by another level of government and paid into by the workers themselves.

Therefore, to be consistent, I cannot accept any amendment from the minister concerning CPP unless he is willing to inform the House now that there will no integration of the plan and that no workers will lose money because of the integration of the plan.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I understand what the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) is saying, but I think he might recall a little more clearly what went on in the committee, where I believe his colleagues supported this idea.

I have some sympathy with what the member for Essex South is saying because we are also opposed to the integration of CPP and WCB benefits for, among other reasons, precisely the reasons he has given. I do believe the amendment moved by the minister is more progressive than regressive, in view of the fact that he is saying that if the worker has qualified for and is receiving CPP benefits -- by the way, I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation --

Mr. Breaugh: Is the member on the right section?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I think so.

Mr. Breaugh: I am just checking.

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Labour is easier to deal with than the member for Oshawa.

If a worker is receiving CPP benefits, the only time those benefits will be considered in arriving at the money to be paid by the WCB will be if there is no relationship between disability benefits paid by Canada pension and the compensable injury.

Mr. Mancini: Why should there be?

Mr. Laughren: I am trying to make sure I have got this correct because it could cause a problem in my own ranks if we support something here we should not. What the minister is saying -- I wish I had a copy of this in front of me -- is that a worker -- I am not sure whether he is referring to older workers in this section or all workers. Perhaps the minister could clarify that.

"Notwithstanding section 40(3) or subsection (6)" -- and subsection 6 does not deal with older workers -- "the fact that a worker is receiving payments under the Canada pension plan shall not be a bar to receiving payments." We know they are eligible to receive payments, but what we are discussing here is the amount of money they receive from the WCB.

I have a copy of the amendment now. "The board, having regard to payments received by a worker under the Canada pension plan, shall have regard only to those payments received by the worker with respect to a disability arising from the injury." I see. It is becoming clearer by the minute. If the worker is getting CPP benefits as a result of a compensable injury, then the board will consider those as earnings when computing any payments from the board to the worker.

Mr. Mancini: His payments will be less.

Mr. Laughren: I believe that is correct.

On the other hand, if the worker has a compensable injury and a heart condition, then the board will not consider the Canada pension benefits awarded because of the heart condition, if the worker is also getting benefits from the board because of a compensable injury. I believe that is correct. I see those incredibly finely honed minds under the gallery are nodding, so I must have grasped the essence of this amendment. For those reasons, we will support the minister's amendment.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the debate, but I ask the members of the House what business it is of the Workers' Compensation Board whether an injured worker is receiving some kind of payment from CPP because of a heart condition or because of some other ailment that is not related to an injury the worker may have.

Why should we confuse that issue at all and have it in the act? Why do the minister and the WCB have to tell us that under no circumstances will they penalize injured workers if they have a heart ailment and have been given a pension under the Canada pension plan because of it? What does that have to do with the Workers' Compensation Board?

I said earlier that I cannot support this amendment and we will not support this amendment. I am not even sure why we need such a silly amendment. Why does the board need to have in legislation an instruction saying it should not fool around with someone's CPP benefits if they are totally unrelated to the injury? I fail to see any logical reason for that to be in the act.

Through Bill 101, this government is going to integrate the Canada pension plan benefits, a plan not instituted by this government and into which it did not pay, into a system over which it has no control. That is the issue at heart here, and we are going to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring some sanity to this debate. In past debates the Liberals and the New Democrats have tried to remedy or improve the worst situation spelled out under Bill 101 and to convince the minister that there might be a better way to deal with the situation.

Even though we agree with the principle that CPP benefits should not be a bar to receiving a supplement pension or any other benefits, as we have noted in discussions on previous subsections, injured workers have been penalized in several ways. By being a bit flexible, the minister is at least alleviating the situation, even though he is not solving the problem of penalizing injured workers.

I see some contradictions between subsection 45(8) and subsection 45(9) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill. I would bring to the attention of the minister that under subsection 45(8) there is no question but that the CPP benefits will be deducted to determine 90 per cent of the average earnings of the injured worker. There is no misunderstanding on that point. Injured workers will be penalized because CPP will be deducted.

In subsection 45(9), we are dealing with an injured worker who is to receive a supplement pension. The minister is adding a new or extra dimension to the Canada pension plan with respect to a disability arising from an injury. I do not understand what kind of scale will be used by the board to apportion the money between the injury arising from an accident and the money the injured worker is receiving for disabilities not arising from the accident.

It is not clear what scale the board will utilize to determine the amount of money payable with respect to the disability arising from the injury and the amount of money for disability not arising from the injury. I need clarification of that.

4:30 p.m.

In relation to the whole principle of CPP, there is another question that should be clarified by the minister. I think there were several statements by representatives of the board before the committee that, to be eligible for a pension supplement at the time an injured worker is applying for a pension supplement and an application for CPP has been made, under the terms of the policy the injured worker is not penalized from receiving a pension supplement or rehabilitation service. Am I correct? I think that is the case.

With the principle of the present act, an injured worker is penalized from receiving a pension supplement or rehabilitation service at the time he is receiving CPP payments. I think the board uses a different system under the present act, not Bill 101 but the present Workers' Compensation Act, so that by receiving CPP payments, the injured worker is actually penalized because he is not available for rehabilitation or is not entitled to receive a pension supplement. I need some clarification because I understand that under subsection 45(9) injured workers are not penalized as to where they will be receiving payments.

I need clarification as to what kind of repercussion there will be under this act for an injured worker at the time he is receiving payment from the Canada pension plan. Will there be a new policy to reflect the new approach used by the board, or will the present policy be implemented and, therefore, injured workers will be penalized at the time they are receiving Canada pension plan payments, especially if they apply for pension supplements or seek rehabilitation service from the board?

I would like to find out the interchangeable infrastructure existing between the old act and the new act. I think the minister has to clarify that.

We also agree with the statement by the member for Essex South that injured workers should not be penalized at all. I think this type of amendment clarifies the situation. There is a slight improvement, because there is a clearer approach so that injured workers will not be penalized at the time they are receiving Canada pension plan payments. The board will now take into consideration the disability arising from the injury.

I am not clear in my mind about the scale that will be used in determining the amount of money that should be deducted as a result of the implementation of this new section.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe my amendment to subsection 45(9) answers the concerns of the member for Dovercourt by specifying that only payments received from CPP for the compensable disability will be taken into account under subsection 45(8). I also want to stress that this subsection will treat existing workers as well as new workers in exactly the same manner.

I thought we had reached an accord on this. I thought the honourable member was convinced that this would do what I am telling him it will do. However, I am pleased to have the opportunity to confirm it.

Mr. Lupusella: Since the minister is confirming it, I would like to give a clear example to answer our concern.

Let us say an injured worker is receiving $300 from the Canada pension plan as a result of combined work injury and other physical components not related to the injury. Eventually, he receives a 30 per cent permanent disability award from the Workers' Compensation Board, resulting in $250 per month. By the nature of subsection 45(9), what kind of scale will the board use to deduct the amount of money from the Canada pension plan that will be strictly related to the disability arising from the injury? I want to give the minister a concrete example so we can get the right answer.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps we could stand that down for a moment. We will have that information very shortly for the honourable member.

The Deputy Chairman: Fine. Shall we proceed to the next amendment and then come back to that subsection later? The next one I have is on section 15. Shall sections 12 to 14 inclusive of the bill carry?

Oh, I did not see the member for Nickel Belt standing up.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, we were dealing with subsection 45(9) of the act. Is that right?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, and we have just stood it down.

Mr. Laughren: I wanted to say something on subsection 45(10).

The Deputy Chairman: Then let us proceed there. You are quite in order.

Mr. Laughren: I will not dwell on it for long, but it is the same old bugaboo. The section states, "where the worker is seriously and permanently disfigured about the face or head, the board may allow a lump sum in compensation therefor."

It is the old story about the word "may." I would not feel so strongly about this subsection if I did not have two constituents, both of whom I had to fight for in order to get this disfigurement award. These were very serious disfigurements because of a gasoline explosion in a service station.

The thought that the board would not have volunteered those disfigurement awards still appals me. This happened 10 years ago. I still see these gentlemen around, and whenever I see them I get angry all over again. The board should not have the kind of discretion that would allow it to ignore a gross disfigurement.

I guess the only problem here is in determining whether a disfigurement is serious. There is a line between a scar and disfigurement; I can understand the problem there. But once it has been determined that the disfigurement is serious and permanent, then it should not be discretionary on the part of the board.

I can understand the debate over whether it is a serious disfigurement and I have no quarrel with that, because I can see the board would not want to pay a $25,000-disfigurement award on a slight scar.

Mr. Mancini: When has it ever paid that kind of money?

Mr. Laughren: I believe $25,000 is the maximum disfigurement award; I think that is correct. What is bothering me here is that there are lots of people out there who do not know the law, do not know the compensation act, just as people do not know most acts in detail. I wish the minister, the ministry and those finely honed legal minds had written this in such a way that the debate centred on whether the disfigurement was serious and permanent rather than on the discretionary powers of the board to make the award in a case of serious disfigurement.

4:40 p.m.

I do not know whether the minister appreciates what I am saying. It may be a fine line, but I think it is an important one. If the disfigurement is serious, there must be a lump sum award. Debate if you will whether or not it is serious, but once it is determined that it is serious, then it should not be discretionary on the part of the board. There must be a lump sum compensation award.

I ask the minister to respond to that. It is not fair. The people I am talking about should never have had to come to their local members of the Legislature to get satisfaction from the board.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I recall the debate at the committee stage quite well, because at that time I had a similar case with a constituent of mine, which I have referred to. I can sympathize with the member. I know the point he is trying to make, and I accept it, but we will have to leave the subsection the way it is.

Mr. Mancini: Why is this limited to disfigurement of the face and head? Why does it not include other parts of the body?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe this to be the same as an existing section in the old act.

Mr. Mancini: Then I have to inform the House I am not satisfied with subsection 45(10). The minister knows full well that terrible disfigurement can occur to different parts of the body in cases that involve scalding and burns. Those disfigurements will last a lifetime. In many cases, the skin turns dark and looks almost like canvas. Because of that, I want to know from the minister whether the board makes lump sum payments to workers who have had the kind of accident I have described.

Within the past year or so, a worker in my constituency was scalded from the bottom of his neck all the way to his ankles. He will be totally disfigured for the rest of his life. He still wears the protective garments that burn victims have to wear. I cannot sit back and simply allow a section to pass which says the government will make lump sum payments for disfigurements around the face or head, but the individual will not be entitled to anything if other parts of the body -- or in an extreme case like this, the whole body -- are disfigured and scarred.

This is especially intolerable when one reviews the circumstances of the accident, which occurred because certain equipment had not been inspected. Equipment relating to boilers had been put into place, and it had never been registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and therefore health and safety inspectors of the Ministry of Labour and boiler and pressure vessel inspectors from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations never inspected that equipment. We had a tragic experience which culminated in all this information being made public, and for us to sit back and say there can be no lump sum for that individual is intolerable.

Unless someone can assure me that this person would be entitled to some type of payment for disfigurement, I am going to ask that this be stood down so I can prepare an amendment. We may have a lengthy debate on this matter.

Mr. Lupusella: We have been talking about marginal improvements under Bill 101; but I am not particularly sure any more, after reading all the discretionary powers that are in place throughout the bill. Here we are talking about another clear-cut case of discretionary power.

With the greatest of respect to the minister, the section says that in the case of a worker who is "permanently disfigured about the face or head, the board may allow a lump sum in compensation therefor." We are not inventing a disability. We are talking about when the disability is so evident and so clear, the board may decide to give a lump sum in compensation to the injured worker.

The minister has great faith in the board, and I do not blame him. However, based on our experience, we do not have the same faith he has. That is why injured workers have been suffering injustices and that is why the law is becoming terrible. A lot of injured workers -- too many injured workers -- will be caught in the middle. Those who have a case, because of the discretionary power given to the board, eventually will have to appeal to the appeal tribunal or to the board to demonstrate their disability, which as far as we are concerned is clearly spelled out under subsection 10.

I do not want to become repetitive, because we have made the same arguments on different topics. We are talking about when a "worker is seriously and permanently disfigured about the face or head, the board may allow a lump sum in compensation." I am not sure if what we are doing on Bill 101 is legal, and I do not like the legal language, because there is something that is political hiding behind the motivation that is spelled out under subsection 45(10) of the bill.

We are not talking about hypothetical cases where we cannot visualize the disability. We are forcing injured workers to appeal their cases although at the very beginning of the process and through to the end of the process of a disability arising as a result of an accident, the board will have ample opportunities and good medical reports to spell out the case of the injured worker as to whether the injured worker is faced with serious and permanent disfigurement about the face or head. I am sure the pension department will have an opportunity to review the medical file of injured workers and to allow what the injured worker is entitled to under the different sections of Bill 101.

There is no quarrel or misunderstanding about the seriousness of the injury and how seriously the injured worker has been disfigured as a result of the injury, because the pension department, the medical panel and the medical staff employed by the board will have an opportunity to see the injured worker at the time when the injured worker is called for an assessment of his physical or psychological conditions. Here we are faced with the discretionary power that allows the board or the medical branch of the board or the pension department of the board to refuse the lump sum award as a result of the seriousness involved with this disfigurement issue, which subsection 45(10) is talking about.

4:50 p.m.

We are not saying we do not have safety valves within the system to identify the principle of whether the injured worker is seriously affected by disfigurement, but when we have such a case the board still has the power to allow the lump sum payment in compensation. I think it is terrible. The minister might tell us we are trying to delay the process of this legislation. I think he was unfair at the time he made the statement. We are particularly concerned about the content of the language which he --

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I clarified that on Thursday. I came back in this House and thought I was being extremely gracious. I did not think it would be raised again. I acknowledged I was at fault and accepted full responsibility for my actions and what happened in the House that day. I am worried that the member for Dovercourt may not have heard my comments that day.

Mr. Lupusella: I withdraw my statement. I had forgotten the minister had apologized for that.

We have exhausted our convincing arguments to change the minister's mind because it does not make any sense to convince the minister any more. He has made up his mind. He does not want to change his position. It is as simple as that. The law is so clear. The case is clearly spelled out within subsection 45(10) of the act as set out in section 11 of Bill 101.

The minister is unfair in persisting in the use of the word "may." The word "may" is nicely used by the public on a daily basis as a permissive word, but when used by the board under Bill 101, it might have a detrimental effect on the injured worker who has to receive different benefits covered by the bill. I hope the minister will have an opportunity to change his mind.

I would move an amendment that the word "may" should read "shall."

Mr. Chairman: Does the member have that in writing for us?

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, may I inform the House that I have submitted a motion which may take care of the New Democratic Party's concern and which goes a little further on this issue of disfigurement.

Mr. Laughren: It doesn't deal with the word "may."

Mr. Mancini: I will consent to change "may" to "shall."

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mancini moves an amendment to subsection 45(10) of the act as set out in section 11 of the bill, "Notwithstanding subsection 45(1), where the worker is seriously and permanently disfigured, the board shall allow a lump sum in compensation therefor."

Does that satisfy the member for Dovercourt?

Mr. Lupusella: Yes, it does.

Mr. Mancini: I took a couple of moments earlier to express my concern about this section. Before I get into lengthy debate on this, I wonder whether we can hear from the minister. In accidents where scalding is involved and where a person may suffer from fire --

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am prepared to respond to what the member has said.

Mr. Mancini: Fine. I thank the minister. I am willing to listen.

Mr. Chairman: I would just say to the member that we made a couple of editorial changes in the text of this.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am prepared to respond to what the member had to say before. A portion of this response would also relate to some of the comments made by the member for Dovercourt, other than the "may" and "shall ." We have gone through that on many occasions now. I appreciate where he is coming from, and if I were in his shoes, I would be making that point at every opportunity I had as well. I am not being critical of it, but there is not much sense in responding each time he makes that same argument, which he makes very well.

However, let us talk about subsection 45(10). The member for Essex South is implying that this is something new. Let us look at the history of it. At one time, this was not in the act. In other words, disfigurement of any portion of the body that was serious and caused impairment usually meant one received a lifetime pension. Obviously, I do not know the complete history, but there was pressure to put in an additional section to make special provision for those who had disfigurement about the face or head. This was an improvement on what we had before. This is not a regressive step.

We provide lifetime pensions when there is disfigurement anywhere on the body, but when it is to the face or head, additional compensation is available. This was brought into the act after representations by many organizations and, I am sure, by the members opposite. That is the background.

Mr. Mancini: In the limited amount of time we have, I am going to try to make a case to the minister as to why the amendment I placed should be accepted. If he would accept that amendment, which would include the whole body, I would even be willing to substitute "may" for "shall" again.

This is very important. I firmly believe that any reasonable person who has the opportunity to see disfigurement caused by scalding, burns, flames, etc., would automatically agree that some type of compensation should be payable. If one's body has been scalded or badly burned, it is not very comfortable to be walking along a beach, is it? If one's body has been scalded or badly burned, in some cases one cannot even wear shorts. If a person's body has been scalded or badly burned, it is difficult to play baseball with the guys and then take a shower in a situation where there might be no privacy.

I am not talking about a burn behind the knee that one cannot see, something that might be the size of a silver dollar. I am talking about severe scalding and burning that covers a tremendous portion of a person's body. To me that is just as severe and just as painful psychologically and physically as a person who has been facially disfigured.

I understand the minister's concerns. He does not want to pay lump sum payments to somebody who has had his small toe scalded. However, he must also understand our concerns. In situations similar to the ones I have described, there can be no logical reason to deny the person some type of lump sum payment.

I understand that the minister has made a case. He said the act has been improved and that we are extending benefits. That is great. I appreciate that. I am sure all people who receive these benefits are going to appreciate that their concerns will be listened to and in some cases compensated.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Have been.

5 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Have been; fine. I have constituents who have been compensated for facial injuries. I am aware of that.

We have to look at this again in the light of disfigurement of a person's body. In cases where the disfigurement is severe and the extent is enormous, we cannot just sit by and say: "The person who has had some disfigurement to his face can get $2,000 or $4,000. However, the person who has had his whole body burned, who will never be the same again, whose skin will always look like canvas, who will never be able to walk on the beach and who will never be able to wear shorts or do any of the things that even people with disfigurement around the face and head will be able to do, will not get anything." We are talking about a maximum of $25,000, not millions of dollars.

I want to go back to the point of negligence against the employer. I have a situation in my constituency -- and I say this honestly; I am not exaggerating at all -- where, if this person were in the United States, the settlement would be in millions of dollars, not $380 a week or some such figure from the Workers' Compensation Board.

What are we asking the minister in return for giving up the right to sue people who have been negligent? In this situation, even the ministry proved that the company involved was negligent. The company has been charged and may have been fined already. I do not know, but it has happened. What are we asking for? We are asking for some recognition for damage done to the body.

I do not think there is a member across the floor who could stand up and make a good argument why someone who was injured in an industrial accident and had his body scalded from the bottom of his neck all the way to his ankles should not be treated equally with someone who has been disfigured about the face or head.

I am sure none of us would want to be put in any of those positions. We understand what that would mean to us, what it would be like to walk around with a disfigurement, how embarrassing it would be and how self-conscious we would be. The same applies to other parts of the body. If we are going to do it, as the bill says in subsection 10, for the face and for the head, then there is no logical or justifiable reason to deny the same privilege, right or consideration to people who have been badly disfigured as a result of scalding or other burns.

I do not know if the minister is going to reconsider or dismiss my case out of hand. If he does the latter, I will be very sad about it. I know he has already accepted some amendments put forth by the opposition. I know he is concerned about costs because the board has a $4.8-billion unfunded liability. We are not unaware of the board's financial plight.

I want to know from the minister, or from some of his experts, how much the cost would be, taking into consideration the maximum a person could receive is $25,000. I want to know from the minister, or to hear a guess from his experts, how much money the board would have to spend to accept my amendment. I would be willing to take out the word "shall" and resubstitute the word "may," because I have no qualms whatsoever about people who find themselves in this position being able to convince fair-minded people that they do deserve some consideration.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I do not want to put such a serious subject on the question of cost. I do not think we should be looking at it from that aspect. It is a matter of policy.

I would like to remind the member, with respect, and the member for Dovercourt because this ties in with his comments earlier -- and this is the last time I will rise on this section -- that the bill provides for a new corporate board, as the members opposite are aware, which will have worker representatives who will influence policy. Just as this section was included and added to the act some time ago, this time the workers will have an influence.

Further to that, there is a tripartite appeals tribunal to which the worker can turn if he is dissatisfied. The measurement of serious injury is one that can be argued about. I believe the new corporate board makeup which deals directly with policy and the external appeals tribunal are new factors that bring new elements of importance into play.

Mr. Mancini: The minister says he is not concerned about the costs and that my concern is not covered in the bill because of policy and not because of costs. That is fine; I accept that he is not concerned about what the costs would be. Yet if he is not concerned about the costs and knows the board will make payment only after a thorough review and after it has been firmly convinced that some kind of payment is necessary, why would he want to take away the opportunity for someone who has been terribly disfigured to get some type of payment? I just do not understand that.

I am not attempting to try anyone's patience. I realize this is probably the last week the House is going to sit. I realize that at this time of the year, honourable members want to be with their families. I know ministers have very little time to spend with their families at this time of the year because of the pressures they face. I know that.

Mr. Stokes: Is the member saying this is the time of the year for the minister to be charitable?

Mr. Mancini: I am leading up to that. I know the ministers face those pressures, because we face them too; so I am not trying to be difficult, and I am not putting forth my amendment to try to get under anyone's skin or to try to prolong the debate.

Mr. Laughren: The member is trying to provoke the minister.

Mr. Mancini: No, I am not. I would not do that on such a serious matter, especially when it affects one of my constituents and when I personally have seen the physical damage caused by the scalding suffered by this individual. I would never want to fool around with a situation such as that.

That being said, to the very last moment we will take every opportunity in the House to try to persuade the members on the government side of some of the inequities that exist, and this is a terrible inequity. This is a terrible situation whereby we prevent people who have suffered grave disfigurement from even making an application, from even asking the board for a decision. I cannot understand why the person's body would not be taken into account.

These cheques are not handed out just because somebody asks for them or because the board feels that because today is Monday, it should give somebody a cheque. These payments are made after full scrutiny and after medical teams have visited with or seen the injured worker.

I have spent a great deal of time talking about being scalded or burned, but a similar situation might arise on a farm. A person might have his hand, arm or leg caught in a piece of farm machinery and be so badly injured that one would not even be able to recognize the part of the body after the person got himself out of the situation and into a hospital for care. We are saying that there would be no disfigurement allowed, that the board could not consider it, even if a person's arm was chopped up from his fingers to his shoulder. All I am asking is for the minister to give the board the opportunity to consider payment for disfigurement.

5:10 p.m.

If a construction worker has a wall fall on his hip, knees and leg and after a period of years because of no muscle activity, the leg and muscle start to shrivel, are we to say to that worker, "You are really not disfigured, people really cannot tell that you are disfigured, and therefore you will not even have the right to ask for some type of compensation"?

I understand what the minister says when he rises in the House and tells the members that we have a better system here in Canada than they do in the United States, because when you are judged to be injured, you are paid, period. You do not have to hire a lawyer, you do not have to go through a long lawsuit and you do not have to take a chance. I agree with that. That is fine. That is the way it should be.

But it works the other way around too, and the minister does not mention that as often. The employers do not have to take a chance either. They can be negligent, either wilfully or unintentionally, and grave disfigurement can occur. In the United States these people would receive millions of dollars, and here they do not even have the right to ask for a lump sum payment that has a ceiling of $25,000.

I just do not understand how we can say that this is acceptable. It is not acceptable. Having known the minister for these past two or three years, I do not believe it is acceptable to him either. Maybe somebody has decided over there that the government has accepted all the amendments it is going to take from the opposition, that no more amendments are going to be accepted and that it does not matter what the merits of a situation are. "We have accepted a couple of amendments. That is it. We have appeased them. We have thrown them a couple of bones. Now they cannot say that we have not listened to them and that we have been intransigent. Yes, we have accepted those amendments, and therefore that is it. That is all we have to hear as far as the opposition is concerned."

I am sorry, but the minister is going to be hearing a lot more about issues like this. We were told in the Legislature that it is not the money that counts, that this is not the problem. As the minister knows, certain sections of the bill were discussed in committee by some of my colleagues in which money was a problem; that is a fact. But when we get to a section and the minister tells us, "No, it is not the money; it is the policy," then we have every opportunity to change that policy without financially hurting the Workers' Compensation Board and at the same time deliver some justice to someone who has been terribly injured.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Just to clarify the record, I think the member is paraphrasing what I said. I know he is not doing it deliberately. I said I did not wish to discuss this issue on the basis of cost.

Mr. Mancini: Cost and money are the same thing. What is the difference between cost and money?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Again the member is misinterpreting what I said the first time. I said I did not wish to discuss it on the basis -- "basis" is the key word -- of money or cost. He can insert whatever word he wants in there. I did not want to discuss it on that basis; I wanted to discuss it from a policy point of view.

Mr. Mancini: The minister said, and Hansard will show this, that cost or money was not the issue; it was policy. I accept that. Cost is money.

I asked for some figures. I said, "Have your experts at the board tell us how much my amendment would cost." The minister said: "Cost is not the problem. Money is not the problem. It is the policy that is the problem."

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, I did not say that.

Mr. Chairman: We have a point of order here. I cannot get into the debate, but I do recall, with all due respect to the member for Essex South, the comment that the minister did not want to put a limit on that type of figure.

Was the member for Essex South wrapping up his comments?

Mr. Mancini: I have a lot to say on this subject, Mr. Chairman. I have sat through many hours of this debate and I have heard several members put their cases strongly. I believe some of the matters they spoke about were very important and did affect people in a very real way, just as subsection 45(10) does.

The minister says he cannot speak about cost and he cannot speak about money because he does not want to deal with it in those terms. I asked what the cost was and he said cost does not matter. I talked about money and he told me not to talk about money. I thought the gag order was in Ottawa.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think we should probably check for a quorum.

Mr. Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, before the call for a quorum was made, I was discussing with the minister, and through the minister with all members of the House, the situation under subsection 10 as I perceive it. I view it as very discriminatory and unfair and in no way meeting the needs of the working people of Ontario.

I mentioned to the House situations that could take place in the event of scalding. I mentioned what could happen if a person got part of his body caught in some farm machinery and how a person could be disfigured if he was severely injured on a job site. If something were to fall on his body, atrophy could occur.

I was making the point about the entitlement some of these people might be able to receive if they were in the United States. The whole principle of the Workers' Compensation Act is to pay for earnings lost. The whole system of the act is based on that. In some areas, the act has been expanded somewhat. This is one of the sections where the matter of disfigurement has been taken into consideration, whether it interferes with one's ability to earn the same kind of income earned prior to the accident.

Having established in law that a person is entitled to some kind of payment when disfigurement occurs, it seems only logical to ensure that everyone will be treated fairly under this particular amendment. The only way to ensure it is done fairly is to accept the amendment I have tabled with the Chairman, which deletes the words "about the face or head" from subsection (10).

This would create a fair law, a law for which I have tried to ascertain the costs. I wanted to find out what effect this would have on the treasury of the WCB. I asked the minister to have his well-schooled people at the board find out for us whether my amendment would break the bank at the WCB. There is now a dispute as to whether I can or should talk about the costs or the money involved. We are going to get a copy of the Instant Hansard so that dispute is resolved.

The fact remains that a person --

Mr. Chairman: I would share with the member the fact that there is no curtailment on your debate. It was just that the minister raised the point of order.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, but every time I talk about the subject, the minister gets up on a point of privilege or a point of order.

Mr. Breaugh: He is harassing the member.

Mr. Mancini: No, I am not saying the minister is harassing me, but I want to deal with the subject as best I can. I want to establish firmly that the amendment proposed will in no way be a substantive amendment as far as costs attributed to the WCB are concerned. We are dealing with policy, with principle and with fairness.

If a person cannot walk on the beach because he has been disfigured, that is just as severe as a person having his face or head disfigured. I want to be told how that is different. I want to be told by the minister, if he chooses to take part in the debate again, how a person whose body has been scalded goes about life in public.

When playing baseball on a Saturday afternoon, for example, most guys take off their sweatshirts; yet one guy cannot because he is embarrassed by his disfigurement. I want to know how that is different from what is already in the act in subsection 45(10). I want to have it explained to me. I want to be able to accept what the minister is saying. Then we will be able to go on with the passage of Bill 101.

We are talking about the possibility of the government accepting a policy change to a section it already believes addresses many of the problems I am talking about. I want the government to ensure that all the issues concerning disfigurement are talked about and can be dealt with by the Workers' Compensation Board in a fair manner. I do not have to repeat that the money is not given out holus-bolus. A person has to go in, apply and be seen by medical practitioners. Their decisions are then reviewed, and a final decision is made by whoever allots the amount of money.

My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) mentioned a lady in his riding who cannot wear a bathing suit because her legs are disfigured. Who says that is any less important than disfigurement to the face or head? Who says it is any less traumatic? Why can we not get through to this government on this matter? I have been told it is not one of expense to the board. It is a matter of policy and a principle the government believes in --

Mr. Laughren: I think the minister is reading a medical journal.

Mr. Mancini: I am not sure what he is reading, but at this stage I do not care. I am speaking to all members of the House. The government will have to live with Bill 101 after it is passed. All the Tory back-benchers, most of whom are absent -- I should say they are probably absent for a good reason -- will have to explain to individuals who become severely disfigured, because of industrial or farm accidents, why they will not qualify for any type of lump sum payment.

We know the maximum is $25,000. If it was a worker in the United States, he would probably get many millions of dollars for such a tragedy, but here we limit it to $25,000. We are not arguing about the $25,000 or the procedure a person would have to go through to qualify for the lump sum payment. We are not telling the minister to make it easier. We are not telling him to raise the ceiling.

5:30 p.m.

As I said earlier, I would be willing to withdraw part of the amendment and change the word from "shall" to "may." That would give the board a very free hand in making these decisions. It would be very easy for a man or woman to cover an ear disfigurement. It might make one feel uncomfortable or self-conscious, but it would be easy to cover up by having long hair. However, a person who burns his body or has a part of an arm torn off by some farm machinery is not going to be able to cover up that to walk on the beach. He is not going to be able to enjoy some of the good things that other people take for granted. We want some movement in this policy area.

I am going to sit down for a moment. If the minister wishes to respond to my suggestion, that is fine. If not, I have some more comments to make.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I guess I am not making my point that the person who is scalded on the legs or loses an arm in a farm accident is compensated for that injury. A while ago, in order to enhance the policy of the board -- and it was also something that is not covered anywhere else in the act -- compensation for pain, suffering or emotional trauma was added to it.

As I understand the honourable member, he has no quarrel with the fact that special compensation was added to the act. He is arguing to extend it all the way now. Is that correct?

Mr. Mancini: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am suggesting that this part of the act is already very advantageous to workers. I am pleased it is in there. I felt it was a very positive step having it in there, but now the member wants us to carry it all the way.

Mr. Laughren: To make an improvement. We are supposed to be making improvements in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am prepared to listen to the honourable member just as long as he wants to discuss this and wants to debate it, but I am afraid that for the moment I just cannot go any farther than we have gone. As I said earlier -- and I really hesitate to repeat myself -- this is a matter that could well be discussed by the new corporate board and could well be taken under consideration by the new appeals tribunal, because there will be worker representation and labour representation on the corporate board.

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the minister's comments. As the minister mentions, he is happy, and I am sure all of the committee is, to listen to the member as long as he wishes. However, I would remind the member with all due respect that we do have our standing orders about redundancy and repetition.

Mr. Mancini: I have not been redundant.

I have to accept, of course, what the minister says. He says there has been improvement in the bill and that my suggestion would go beyond any type of improvement he wishes to make at this time. He suggests that this new corporate board would look at it. The new corporate board is going to have its hands full dealing with Bill 101 and is not going to have much time to deal with whatever is not in Bill 101.

I think we were left with the feeling that some of these people could appeal these things. One cannot appeal anything that is not in the law. One cannot appeal anything that is not appealable. To suggest even in a slight way, to say that some time in the future someone who has been disfigured in the way I have described earlier may have the opportunity to appeal, is just not right. We will never have the opportunity to appeal until we extend subsection 45(10). When we extend that section, then they will have the right to appeal.

That is fine. I have made my case. I am not here to filibuster; I am not here to waste the time of the House. I have explained to the minister as best I could the situation the way it is and where people will find themselves when they do have their bodies permanently disfigured in these types of industrial accidents. They will not have the same rights as other people. They will be denied the right of a lump sum payment and they will not be able to be compensated as other people will.

That is fine. That is how the bill is going to pass. My amendment stands, and we will divide on the amendment the way the minister has suggested.

Mr. Lupusella: I am going to make my comments in three minutes.

Mr. Barlow: Three minutes? Is that a promise?

Mr. Lupusella: Three minutes; no more than that.

I think the amendment makes sense. I brought to the attention of the Chairman and the members of the committee that I was once faced with an injured worker who was seriously disfigured around the legs. He was married and was on the verge of divorce. Social agencies got involved to save the marriage. He was seriously disfigured around the legs as a result of an explosion that took place many years ago; I do not remember which company he was with. He was forced to fight many times and to present appeal after appeal before the board to get the 30 per cent disability award as a result of the disfigurement issue.

The amendment before us makes sense because it takes this case into consideration, a case I brought to the attention of the minister even at the time the committee was engaged in clause-by-clause debate. It makes sense, but we are unable to convince the minister to change his mind about that. We exhausted the arguments he was supposed to take into consideration when trying to amend the verb "may," which is worse.

The minister might say the new corporate board might come out with new policies because, from now on, under the authority of Bill 101 there will be a new corporate board. If the law is the law as it has been drafted, it talks about "face or head." Unless the minister shows us otherwise, how can legs or any other part of the body be taken into consideration in relation to the lump sum issue?

In the past the board, to justify its bureaucratic approach to the whole system and the lack of sensitivity -- sensitivity does not exist in any part of the present Workers' Compensation Act -- was telling us, when appearing before the standing committee on resources development to review its annual report, that there was no way the board had the power to do certain things because it did not have the legislative mandate.

What the minister is telling us is that eventually the new corporate board, in the forming of policies, will have the authority to increase, for example, the ceiling on a yearly basis; they can do that. Either the minister is trying not to give proper weight to the concerns raised by the Liberals and by us, or he is kidding us about this section. When we talk about "face or head," there is a meaning to the words. One cannot incorporate legs or other parts of the body.

The minister is going to say the new corporate board will solve the situation and the injured workers will have representatives sitting on the board. He is wrong. He is asking for more bureaucracy, which will be set up when Bill 101 is passed by this Legislature. He is looking for more lack of sensitivity on the part of the board. It will have the ammunition not to be sensitive to the problems of injured workers, because such sensitivity is not reflected in the content of Bill 101.

5:40 p.m.

He is calling for more demonstrations by injured workers as a group in front of Queen's Park. The bureaucratic approach will increase because more injured workers are going to be forced to appeal and to bring their cases before the new appeals tribunal to show that the board was wrong in the initial stage in denying a lump sum where a serious and permanent disfigurement took place as a result of the accident.

That is what he is looking for. He is looking for more demonstrations. He is looking for more bureaucracy at the board level and for a lack of sensitivity in the decision-making process that is going to take place down there on Bloor Street when the board is supposed to deal with eligibility for the benefits that must be given to injured workers.

I just wonder why the appeal system is already becoming bureaucratic under the present act. It takes four or five months to hear an appeal. Representatives of the board might show me the opposite; they might disagree with that. But that is what is going to happen under the new law, Bill 101. It might even take years to hear an appeal because the board, as a result of its discretionary power, will commit more injustices towards injured workers across Ontario.

More appeals, more anger from injured workers, lack of sensitivity, an increase in the bureaucratic approach of the board and more demonstrations: that is what the minister is supporting today by refusing this reasonable amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Before the minister responds, if it were the unanimous will of the House --

Mr. Mancini: He is not going to respond.

The Deputy Chairman: Just to change the subject, we have a stacked vote at 5:45 p.m. There are also plans to continue debate on this bill tonight. Would it be the will of all parties to have one vote at 10:15 p.m.?

Mr. Laughren: No.

The Deputy Chairman: I thought I would try.

Mr. Kerrio: It is a good idea. Why not? Are you not going to be here?

Mr. Mancini: It is okay with me.

The Deputy Chairman: There is some desire to have one vote, but not enough.

Mr. Mancini: As the Labour critic for the official opposition, I can say that it is okay with our party.

The Deputy Chairman: It is okay with the Liberals.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, we disagree with that approach. We have further amendments that we are going to move this evening, and I think it will be useful to go through the voting process before the House rises.

The Deputy Chairman: Whatever the House wants. You could still put your amendments forward, but we could carry on and have more chance for a debate on this important bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House that subsection 45(10) carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

I am sorry. Let me just repeat that. I think there is some confusion. This is an amendment that has been put forward by the member for Essex South. It is the one we have just been debating and it is to subsection 45(10).

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Just so this does not happen any more, when you are reading the amendments, would you please name the mover of the amendment?

The Deputy Chairman: I thank you for that counsel and guidance. I will endeavour to do so. Remind me any time I fail to do so.

This is an amendment by Mr. Mancini to subsection 45(10). All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: Are we going back to subsection 45(9)?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, that is exactly why I was on my feet. The member for Dovercourt had asked me a question, and we stood it down until I got the answer on how the scale would be determined.

The board will be conferring with the federal government about the exact method to be used. It will deduct a proportion of the Canada pension plan received in relation to the worker's compensable injury.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, we were favouring the improvement that is contained in the bill and now we are talking about a scale that will not be known. I think the full process should be explained to us before we take a position on whether we should support or reject the principle.

We have to evaluate the situation. We do not know whether at the end of the application of the scale the injured workers will eventually end up the losers as a result of that amendment. So unless we are going to get a clear indication of exactly what is going on in relation to that scale and how it will be implemented, I have reservations about whether the amendment should be supported.

The Deputy Chairman: It is now 5:45 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Can you give me a second?

The Deputy Chairman: No, it is now 5:45 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I was just trying to save the committee some time.

The Deputy Chairman: We have a lot of time tonight and the rest of the week and over Christmas.

5:55 p.m.

On section 11:

The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 45(5) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 28; nays 45.

The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 45(6) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 13; nays 60.

The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 45(8) of the act, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Mancini's amendment to subsection 45(10) of the act. which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 28; nays 45.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

December 10, 1984