Hansard Transcript 1988-Nov-01 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the memorandum of understanding transferring service responsibilities for the Legislature from the Ministry of Government Services to the Office of the Assembly.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EPILEPSY MONTH

Mr. Laughren: November is Epilepsy Month in Canada. Two per cent of Canadians have epilepsy. I was one of that two per cent, but I am also one of those fortunate ones who are no longer afflicted. Epilepsy is more common than diabetes, cystic fibrosis or multiple sclerosis. Epilepsy is not a disease and it is not contagious . It is a disorder of the brain caused by a temporary generation of excess electrochemical energy inside the brain cells.

There is no single cause of epilepsy. Epilepsy can be caused by a number of events, such as birth trauma or severe head injury, or it can arise without being triggered by any event. Epilepsy is an episodic disability. For most people with the disorder, seizures are brief and infrequent. Between seizures, most people with epilepsy are perfectly normal and healthy. There are different kinds of epilepsy, ranging from convulsive seizures to brief periods where the person loses consciousness and appears to daydream.

For the vast majority of people with epilepsy, medication can control their seizures. Because most people with epilepsy can control their seizures with medication, it is people’s reaction to epilepsy, not epilepsy itself, that causes the real disability. More than any other disorder, epilepsy has been surrounded by misunderstanding, prejudice and fear, attitudes that may block the hopes and aspirations of more than 400,000 Canadians who are afflicted with epilepsy.

November is Epilepsy Month, during which a massive public education campaign will be conducted to combat such a misunderstanding.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Villeneuve: Today’s meeting of the anti-free-trade tag team here at Queen’s Park will likely knock a few more cents off the Canadian dollar, but obviously they like to see the Canadian dollar dropping. It is all part of the Liberal strategy to improve our trade position by undermining our standard of living.

A weaker dollar will be the least of our worries should any government in this country be misguided enough to tear up the free trade agreement with the United States. In my view, those who assume we can tear up this agreement with impunity are whistling their way past the graveyard in which they will have buried the prospects for a more prosperous economic future for Canada.

The Ontario government is acting as the assistant grave-digger in this sorry process. Tear up the free trade agreement, and the next thing to be torn up is the auto pact. Tear up the free trade agreement, and invite a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade challenge to our marketing boards. Tear up the free trade agreement, and let our steelworkers live with the consequences of so-called voluntary restraint agreements. That is the future the Ontario Liberal trade undertakers offer to this province.

What is their response? “Trust us. Everything will be okay.” Any day now I expect the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to break into a chorus of: “Don’t worry. Everything will be okay. And be happy.”

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Legislature the importance of both the small business sector in Ontario and the role of the small business advocacy section. There are currently over 400,000 small businesses in Ontario and these businesses provide the most dynamic source of job creation. In fact, from 1978 to 1985, 71 per cent of net new jobs came from new small businesses. It has also been established that 89 per cent of Ontarians believe the prospects for starting a new business are best in Ontario, as compared to other provinces.

The government, in April 1986, announced the creation of an advocate for small business. This position allows small business a voice in government, giving business owners an open-door policy on issues of concern to them, and acts as a reference point for these issues. Another duty under this position is to act as chair for the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business, to provide a coordinated approach for it to review existing programs, existing legislation and other acts.

As members are probably all aware, the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) was the first advocate for small business. Under his leadership, the committee had many achievements. Two of these: they were the designers of the very successful new ventures program, and initiated and presented the first issue of the annual report on the state of small business.

I would like to acknowledge the major contribution of the member for Guelph. It is a pleasure for me to carry on his work in this area and to work with the small business community in the future.

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am alarmed and dismayed to learn that the Algoma Central Railway has renewed its intention to sever its rail division from the parent firm. This is a plan to abandon a rail line, which threatens the jobs of workers in Sault Ste. Marie and in the communities along the rail line in the Algoma district. Surely this action is not in the best interests of the communities along the rail line or in the interests of the employees.

As a representative of the community of Sault Ste. Marie and the district of Algoma, I and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) have been successfully fighting this ACR application for nearly two years now. Unfortunately, our federal member in the area has not taken any such action. In particular, the Solicitor General, Mr. Kelleher, has not assisted us in the fight against the ACR.

Here in Ontario, I would like to ask that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) take a close look at this action, and I request their assistance in filing interventions with the national transportation agency. The Minister of Northern Development should be particularly concerned because this rail line has a terminus in his home town of Hearst.

We should be insisting on public hearings in Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa and Hearst so that the best interests of the employees and the communities along that line are upheld in this action.

1340

RECYCLING

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the rest of his colleagues on the government side of this Legislature. Last week, the minister and his government had an ideal opportunity to show leadership in solving Ontario’s growing garbage crisis, but they failed to rise to the challenge. That opportunity to show leadership occurred when the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) introduced Bill 89, which was an act requiring all municipalities to establish garbage recycling programs.

The member for Mississauga South brought in a thoughtful and practical proposal that would have contributed greatly to the solution of Ontario’s waste management and landfill dilemma. Granted, this was not the ultimate solution to this problem, but it would have gone a long way towards solving our garbage crisis, and it is certainly more than this government has contributed during its term of office. The minister has closed down 100 sites in Ontario and he has not opened one single new one.

I find it interesting that during the last election campaign, both the minister and his parliamentary assistant indicated their support for a mandatory recycling program in Ontario. Then the parliamentary assistant stood up last week to speak against Bill 89 and the minister voted against it.

The minister’s record indicates clearly that there is no leadership coming from this government in solving the garbage crisis and other problems that are confronting the people of Ontario. The minister had a chance to say yes and he decided to say no to mandatory recycling.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. Miller: For the information of the members of the House, I am pleased to report that the national tripartite stabilization committees have recently approved third-quarter 1988 stabilization payments.

Tripartite stabilization, as my honourable colleagues will know, is a voluntary program contributed to weekly by producers and both the federal and provincial governments under a 10-year agreement signed in 1986. A stabilization payment is triggered when the national average market price drops below the support price. The support price provides a floor for producers under the tripartite agreement.

The official payment figures for the third quarter of 1988 include a total of $19 million for the 5,200 Ontario pork producers enrolled in the program. In addition, a total payment of $8 million was paid to the 2,000 Ontario beef producers enrolled in the program. Enrolled Ontario lamb producers will be receiving $6.83 a head. These payments will provide invaluable assistance to livestock producers who are currently experiencing extremely poor market conditions.

In addition, enrolled Ontario apple growers will receive a $5-million payment for the 1987 crop.

PRAYERS IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Since the court ruling on the Lord’s Prayer in the schools has been brought down, I have continually noticed in this House that our own procedures for opening ceremonies are a little dated and perhaps anachronistic.

Speaking on behalf of a minority of people within this House, I wonder if it might not be time for us to review our own opening ceremonies to make them a little more sensitive to the various views of the minorities within this province for whom the Lord’s Prayer has no particular significance or is difficult for them to have to go through every day without some recognition of their own traditions.

Mr. Speaker: The suggestion will be taken into consideration.

USE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I bring to your attention an advertisement in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary). I bring a number of items to your attention, and surely, they should all be looked at.

This is advertising by the member for Cornwall to come out and join with him and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for a reception and dinner at $50 per person. It is a fund-raiser for the Liberal Party and the big phone number at the bottom is the constituency office phone number.

First, it begs the question why a constituency office is being used to raise funds for the Liberal Party. Second, I think perhaps who paid for the advertisement should be looked at, whether that is being paid for by the assembly as well. Third, perhaps in your deliberations direction should be given to senior members of the Liberal Party about the new rookies, some of whom, if they are here for 20 years, will not be able to figure out what you can do and cannot do. Perhaps the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the House leader and those senior members ought to be informing members of the Liberal Party, newly elected ones particularly, just exactly what constituency offices are for. I will provide this to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order, I will certainly have a look at it and make certain it is placed on the agenda of the Board of Internal Economy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Hon. Mr. Ward: In the past year, it has been my privilege to visit classes for deaf children. I have been inspired and gratified by these visits, as I have watched the enthusiasm and effort of students and staff in these very special facilities.

To ensure that Ontario continues to meet their needs, I believe it is essential to carefully examine our delivery of deaf education.

Last spring, many members of this assembly took part in a debate on a private resolution put forward by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), and I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by all members in that discussion.

Today, I am pleased to announce that my ministry is undertaking a review of programs for hearing-impaired students, covering the three schools operated by the ministry as well as a representative sample of the programs offered by individual school boards throughout Ontario. It will include public and separate boards as well as English- and French-language programs.

It will be carried out in two phases. First, an internal review committee composed of educators of the deaf from boards and from our provincial schools will be established immediately. In addition, an external, independent review will be carried out by experts on deaf education and other educators not employed in our jurisdictions.

Our external review team has been selected to ensure a varied background in deaf education and offers a wealth of knowledge and experience. Its members will include: Dr. Gary Bunch, associate professor in the faculty of education at York University; Dr. Robert Davila, vice-president of precollege programs at Gaullaudet University, Washington, DC; Joseph McLaughlin, principal of the Alberta School for the Deaf; Dr. Carol Musselman, associate professor in the department of special education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and Donald Rutledge, recently retired associate director of the Toronto Board of Education.

One or two additional members will be added to the external review team in the near future. The external review will be conducted in April and May 1989. The final report, with recommendations, will be completed next summer.

To assist our external review, we will commission a research project designed to compile and summarize the most recent findings in deaf education.

In addition, I am pleased to announce today the creation of an advisory group comprised of representatives from groups within the deaf community and the deaf education community. This group will be asked to provide ideas to the internal and external review teams. Information gathered by the two reviews will also be shared with the advisory group, which will be kept fully informed throughout the review process.

Through this co-operative effort, we will draw together in partnership a wide spectrum of those involved in the delivery of deaf education.

These are the areas upon which we are asking our reviews to focus: the appropriateness of identification, placement and review procedures for hearing-impaired children, including an assessment of the availability of various types of programs in different parts of the province; the levels of academic competence achieved by students of programs for the hearing-impaired; the training and certification of teachers for the deaf and identification of any existing barriers to the employment of teachers who are deaf; the policy development process for hearing-impaired programs, including the role of advisory committees; the appropriateness of communication systems employed and taught in programs for the hearing-impaired; opportunities and support mechanisms for post-secondary education for the hearing-impaired in Ontario; the provision of preschool and parent and family services; the use of interpreters, and the provision of programs and services for French-language students.

I hope and expect that our review and advisory committees will provide significant and useful analysis and recommendations within all of these critical areas. It is my intention to use the findings for a single, cohesive purpose: to improve deaf education in Ontario and maintain our leadership in providing the best possible facilities and programs for hearing-impaired children.

1350

ACID RAIN

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The province of Ontario is today petitioning the United States Court of Appeals to order the US Environmental Protection Agency to enforce its laws to prevent acid rain.

I have taken this action because the US EPA failed to respond satisfactorily to a petition we filed last April directly requesting that the agency begin legal procedures necessary to force American acid rain polluters to clean up.

We had asked the EPA officially to publish the findings of its former administrator, Douglas Costle, that acid rain generated in the US endangers the health and welfare of Canadians and that the US government has been granted the reciprocal right to require control of acid rain from Canadian sources.

The US Clean Air Act requires the EPA to act on such findings. If the Costle findings are published, the EPA would be forced to act to require additional pollution controls on large coal-fired plants, especially in the midwestern states, which create the acid rain that has proved so destructive in Ontario and Quebec.

Unfortunately, as I told the Legislature two weeks ago, the US EPA has fallen back on its time-worn cliché that more information is needed. In fact, the agency intends to wait for a report expected in 1990 before it will even consider action.

I find this position to be unacceptable. The devastating effects of acid rain have been predicted by sophisticated air pollution modelling and verified by rigorous testing. Our scientists have conclusively demonstrated that sulphur dioxide emissions from smokestacks in the Ohio Valley and adjacent states fall as acid rain upon Ontario’s lakes, forests, streams and cities.

We cannot afford to hold our breath waiting for the US Environmental Protection Agency to wake up and smell the sulphur. In our petition we have stated our position that the EPA’s response, forwarded to us on October 14, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with American laws. The petition therefore requests that the court order EPA administrator Lee Thomas to institute rulemaking proceedings under section 115 of the Clean Air Act and take the actions we requested in April.

We have also included an alternative request in the case that the EPA’s response of October 14 is not deemed a final action denying our April petition. The Clean Air Act gives the court the authority to review claims of unreasonably delayed agency action under that act. We therefore have asked the court to issue an order requiring the EPA administrator to respond to our April petition within 60 days.

Certainly both candidates for the US presidency have said that they take acid rain more seriously than President Reagan did in his eight years of inaction. But we cannot be content to take a wait-and-see attitude with the next US administration. I will continue to press our case with the Americans until they finally take action to stop acid rain.

SEMINARS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: It gives me great pleasure to share with my colleagues a special project that the Office for Senior Citizens’ Affairs has undertaken to reach out to Ontario’s seniors.

My office is currently hosting a series of seminars for seniors on seniors’ issues. The theme, “Opportunity is ageless,” was suggested by seniors themselves as the theme for our June 1988 Senior Citizens Month. Its message is clear: keep active, stay involved.

The first in the series of regional seminars was held on October 20 in Sault Ste. Marie. On November 29, a seminar will be held in French in Sudbury for francophone seniors. Next spring, five more regional seminars will be held in London, Belleville, Fort Frances, Toronto and, for seniors in eastern Ontario, in Renfrew county. We have chosen some centres that do not frequently host major events because we are reaching out to the grass roots.

These seminars provide seniors with a forum in which they can come together to learn from one another and in which we can learn from them. As one woman told me in Sault Ste. Marie, “When you listen to us, we know you value us.”

These seminars are an opportunity to listen to the seniors of Ontario. I would invite all of my colleagues to attend at least one of them.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for responses, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation from Jiangsu province, China. There are 10 members of the delegation. The leader of the delegation is the vice-governor of Jiangsu province, Madame Wu Xijun. Please join me in welcoming the delegation.

RESPONSES

ACID RAIN

Mrs. Grier: The action that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has told us about today is, of course, the action he told us two weeks ago he was going to take and that I assume he will tell us next week he has taken. It is very appropriate. How could any of us disagree with it?

We have, as everybody in this House knows, a complete abdication of responsibility by our federal government in dealing with acid rain, and it is appropriate that the provincial government should do it. It is, however, very easy for this government to take strong, decisive action when dealing with another jurisdiction on a matter that is not completely within our own jurisdiction.

What we on this side look forward to hearing from this minister is strong, decisive action to clean up the Great Lakes, which affect both jurisdictions; his municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is long overdue; to stop lakefilling, which is contaminating those lakes; and to revise and strengthen our own air pollution regulations in this province. We have a government here that has refused mandatory recycling and has a waste management crisis on its hands.

It is very easy to be strong in dealing with the US. We wait to see him be really strong in dealing with our own problems.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is a great day for the deaf and hearing-impaired in Ontario. It is a rare thing that I get up and make a statement commending the government for its action without any equivocation.

In a minor fashion it is also a great day for private members. This being my 10th year in the House, this is the first time that a private member’s initiative of mine has been followed up by the government with action. I have had one other great success in having the nuclear-weapons-free zone resolution passed, but as to this date we have not been able to find a meeting ground of the minds to follow that up any further.

The last line of my resolution from May 5 was, “That the Ministry of Education report to the Legislature by November 1, 1988, on these initiatives.” My God, I never imagined it would be on time, let alone come through with this kind of review.

There are many people in the gallery today, however, who are the great victors in what has taken place. Sign language is again being used in the Speaker’s gallery to explain to those representatives from the deaf and hearing-impaired communities what is taking place today.

As members may recall from that May 5 debate, there was a real litany of problems, of contradictions in the standards for the education of the deaf and hearing-impaired in the province, and I am delighted that finally a comprehensive review is taking place.

If there is a second really positive result coming out of the May 5 debate, it would be that various groups within that community out there, with varying interests and perspectives, have now come together and had a meeting of their minds and a real capacity to be the kind of advisory group the minister is hoping will come from this process he has announced today. I think that is a major hope for the province.

I am a little concerned about the separate reviews and will talk to the minister later about how they may come together, but I would just like to end by saying that this is a day in which all members in the House can take some pleasure, knowing that, from time to time, our initiatives do bear fruit. This kind of fruit, one hopes, will be a real improvement for the quality of education for the deaf and hearing-impaired in our province.

1400

SEMINARS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Reville: We cannot let the breathtaking initiative announced by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) go by unnoticed. I think it would be wonderful for the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) to have a chance to meet with seniors in eastern Ontario, perhaps at the Wilno church, where they could have some chicken together. “When you listen to us, we know you value us,” it says in this release. I expect that the seniors of Ontario will have a great deal to tell this government, and I certainly hope that it takes time to listen.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr. B. Rae: On behalf of my party, just want to express my appreciation, since it was offered only grudgingly and not in the written statement by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), to my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), who I think has done an outstanding job in educating the House and, indeed, in educating all of us on the needs of the deaf, and who has been a very effective advocate on their behalf. On behalf of my caucus and, I am sure, many others, I want to express my appreciation to the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Jackson: I welcome the statement by the minister and, as well, commend the member for Scarborough West on the announcement today, which is an important first step in coming to grips with the educational problems experienced by hearing-impaired citizens in Ontario. I say this is a first step because it is my view that there is still much work to be done to ameliorate the current state of affairs as it exists for the deaf as they struggle to further their education under the system that is presently in place for them.

As I stated in this Legislature in May 1988, the plight of the hearing-impaired is something that hits home for me personally because of my growing up with a hearing-impaired uncle, with whom I empathized deeply with respect to his struggle to live as an integrated member of our society. I think I speak for many members of our hearing-impaired community when I say that they are tired of having their educational needs determined incorrectly by those who do not have adequate training to do so, and they are tired of having their education directed in an incomplete manner by individuals who appear to the deaf as all the more insensitive because they do not share the impediment of hearing loss with them.

Hearing loss is not so much an impediment as it is a challenge that the members of our deaf community face bravely every day. Having said this, I therefore hope that the minister has taken time to listen to the concerns over education expressed time and time again by the hearing-impaired. In examining the current system of education for the deaf, I believe it is imperative that the particular and specific needs of individuals who have suffered hearing loss not be lumped together under one or two categories as we consider new educational paradigms and programs.

I also believe that it is simply not enough to investigate the overall effectiveness of existing educational facilities for the deaf, whether on an integrated or segregated basis, but that it is crucial to emphasize the central role that individual assessment of hearing loss should play in helping determine educational paths and options for the deaf. By “assessment” I mean assessment by competent audiologists rather than less adequately trained school officers.

ACID RAIN

Mrs. Marland: I am sure the United States will take very little notice of the petition from the Ontario government as addressed today in the statement of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). It is really interesting when we look at international issues and the lack of demonstrated commitment by this government. Two years ago the select committee on the environment in our province had a unanimous resolution requesting Ontario Hydro to bring before that committee its path to meet the emission control limits for 1994: how it was going to do it, an absolute, detailed plan. That proposal was to come back to that same select committee on the environment. However, this minister has not seen fit to re-establish that committee and have hearings ongoing.

The commitment of the Minister of the Environment to the subject of acid rain certainly leaves a lot to be questioned. I feel that since we are being concerned about what is happening in the United States, and he talks about how the US Environmental Protection Agency has to wake up and smell the sulphur, I wonder what he thinks about the residents of Niagara Falls, New York, who wake up and smell the burning garbage that is now being trucked for the fourth year from Halton to Niagara Falls, New York.

While it is okay to be concerned about the acid rain, obviously we are not concerned about burning our garbage in the United States. Without having a plan in hand for Hydro as far as the scrubbers are concerned, this minister does a great deal of talking but very little action in mandating some of the most important programs for our environment today, this very same government which, no less than four days ago, voted against mandatory recycling in the province of Ontario.

SEMINARS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs. Cunningham: I am very pleased to respond to the minister’s statement on information seminars for seniors, and I am wondering who will be sharing the information. I congratulate the minister on taking the lead of the Conservative caucus. My colleagues hold these seminars across the province from time to time.

I think the real issue is whether we will be listening. “When you listen to us, we know You value us.” We are not sure the government has listened to seniors on housing, on the expansion of integrated homemaker services, on the concerns they have about long waiting lists for hospitals and, most recently, on Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

USE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, if I might, very briefly on an earlier point of order raised by my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), I wanted to inform the House that I have just spoken to the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary), who does confirm that, in fact, the ad that the honourable member has drawn to the attention of the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, did appear with the phone number of the constituency office. The member assures me this was done without his knowledge or information, but he certainly does regret the embarrassment that has caused to the House and certainly wants that to be made very clear at this particular point in time. He has given me the assurance that he will make very clear to his riding association executive that this ought not to happen again in the future, and he will be here very shortly.

Mr. B. Rae: I did not realize that the House leader was a ventriloquist in addition to all his other talents.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. B. Rae: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who I really regret is not able to be with us in question period today, I want to address some questions to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

An hon. member: Here he is.

Mr. B. Rae: My question, in that case, is to the Premier.

I spoke this morning to Ontario Provincial Police officers and York regional officers involved in the investigation of the events in Richmond Hill, and they have informed me that the investigation, in fact, has been ongoing since March 1988 and it is still ongoing; that there are several interviews still to be conducted; that the paperwork is, to use the words of one of the officers, enormous; and that it will be a few months before the inquiry with respect to Richmond Hill is completed, to say nothing of any additional work involved in the Markham allegations. In addition, I asked him about Vaughan and he said, “Nobody has talked to us about Vaughan yet, but if that is what happens, then it will obviously be that much longer.”

My question to the Premier is this: What happens in the meantime to all those questions that the people of Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Markham have with respect to the administration and integrity of local government and its ability to deal with this development crisis in their region? Do they have to wait for months, and perhaps even years, before the completion of a police investigation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable member was quite right in referring the question to the Attorney General in the first place. I think he is more able to comment on this than I am.

Mr. Speaker: Referred to the Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think the honourable member knows that the examination conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police to decide whether criminal charges should be laid as a result of the municipal incidents at Richmond Hill began, as he said, and has been a very protracted one because of the enormous volume of paper, minutes and statements of witnesses that have to be prepared. This is not an investigation just for fun; this is an investigation to see if a criminal charge can be laid and made to stick, and it is important that the police should do that as carefully as they can, not only because law and order requires it but because the interests of citizens require it.

1410

We have in the ministry spoken to the deputy chief of the Ontario Provincial Police -- I think that is his title -- about the mandate assigned yesterday. We have asked them to do a thorough job and have indicated that, within limits, we will do everything we can to assure that resources, through the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), are made available for that purpose.

We are quite conscious of the importance of this, but when there are allegations that amount to allegations of crime, they should be taken seriously.

Mr. B. Rae: Of course they should be taken seriously. The ponderousness with which the Attorney General expresses the most obvious truism is breathtaking and no doubt adds to his sense of the seriousness of the situation, but really it does not bear a relationship to the broader questions.

I am sorry that the Premier has decided not to respond, because the questions really go well beyond the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. If I may quote from the comments made by Scott Sommerville, who is the chief administrative officer of Vaughan, Canada’s fastest-growing municipality, in today’s Globe and Mail, “There’s not a council that can control this type of development.”

The questions involved here extend well beyond the issue of criminality. I would like to ask the Attorney General, since these questions do extend so far beyond criminality, why the reluctance and, indeed, so far the refusal on his part to launch, parallel to the very separate police investigation with respect to a criminal investigation, a major public inquiry that would deal with the adequacy and the capacity of local governments to deal with the extent and rapidity of development at the same time as it deals with the question of the monopoly on land and the extent to which the smaller developers are being squeezed out?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: These are matters of public policy, not matters of criminality.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable leader’s proposal is that, at the same time as we are conducting a police investigation which may lead to criminal charges and a trial by jury in a criminal court, we should launch an investigation by way of committee or royal commission which will consider substantially the very same facts and which would require, for the most part, the very same witnesses to testify.

My honourable friend knows very well, because we have canvassed the issue in the unfortunate case at Inco in respect to the coroner’s inquest, that in a case where a criminal trial and an inquiry, be it a royal commission or a coroner’s inquest, are launched simultaneously, the witnesses are not obliged to attend the commission of inquiry. This is dictated by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What would happen, of course, is that if we did not dispose of the criminal proceedings first, we would lose, after a royal commission or a commission of inquiry, the opportunity to deal with criminal charges.

I believe that if the serious allegations in the Globe and Mail are made out -- and we have only the unsupported statements mostly of unnamed sources -- these are matters that should be canvassed to see whether the sections of the Criminal Code that deal with municipal corruption have been breached. Then, when that process is complete, we will have the opportunity to see what remains to be done, including the important issues the honourable leader raises.

Mr. B. Rae: I could point out to the Attorney General a couple of examples within the last dozen years -- most notably, perhaps, the example of the Royal Commission on Certain Sectors of the Building Industry, chaired by Judge Waisberg -- which took place. There were certain criminal allegations which were involved in that. We all know that much valuable information with respect to practices in the construction industry in this province became public knowledge. Perhaps they were not politically convenient for certain people, but they became public knowledge as a result of that royal commission.

The Attorney General’s colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has already commenced a so-called administrative review, the only difference being that it does not have to listen to the public -- the public does not have any access to that inquiry -- and it has no subpoena powers, it has no capacity to require people to be interviewed.

I would again repeat my question to the Attorney General: What assurances do we have that a public inquiry will in fact be launched that will deal with these broader questions of public policy and that we will not see these questions buried in an interminable investigation which may never see the light of day, which may never become public and which may well get buried in an array of paperwork that denies the public the capacity to ask questions --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: -- which, I would add again to the Attorney General, do not involve allegations of criminal behaviour?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It remains to be said -- it is not a truism -- that we have nothing to hide in this matter. What has happened is that allegations have been made in the press about the conduct of certain municipal officials in York region. Those are serious allegations. We are taking them seriously in order to see that any relevant material that may support a prosecution will come to the attention of the police and lead to a trial, which is the way, in a society like this, that we dispose of criminal allegations.

If there are other questions, and there may be, I simply remind the member that it was my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs who introduced the legislation that made the disclosure of campaign contributions at the municipal level mandatory and allowed the kind of examination that gave rise to this article. That is a positive feature.

We have nothing to hide about this matter at all, and if at the conclusion of the criminal review there remain questions outstanding, I am sure the honourable leader will ask them. If he does not, I will and so will my colleagues.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. B. Rae: My new question is to the Minister of Housing. The minister should know that as I speak now there is a hostel called the Family Residence, which is a Metro Toronto hostel for single fathers and children, which hostel building can accommodate about 25 or 30 families. It has a policy of not turning away the families that come to its doors, as a result of which it is now renting about 100 motel rooms for families, including children who have nowhere else to go.

That is taking place at the same time as we have the information from the latest version of the public accounts that, in fact, when it comes to the ministry’s social housing budget, appropriations are $305.6 million and actual expenditures are $276.8 million, which means the ministry has not spent some $30 million in its social housing budget. How does the minister feel about that incredible contradiction of people having to shuffle between motel and motel when she has not even managed to spend the budget the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has allocated to her?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have in fact just recently -- last week -- visited once again some of the shelters where people who do not have places to live have to spend their time. I am, with everyone else in this House, very aware of the suffering that leads to. It is for that reason that this government has made its commitments to increase the supply of social housing in this province in an unprecedented way; it is for that reason that we are spending our resources in building more nonprofit housing as permanent housing for people who are homeless in this province and for other people with severe housing needs.

Our new program is going to make an enormous difference, as has the building we have already engaged in. At the moment there are about 20,000 units in process of being built in the province right now, and I think they are going to make a real difference for the people of the province who need help with their housing.

Mr. B. Rae: Waiting lists under this government have gone up astonishingly. They have gone up to the point now where there are at least 20,000 children on the waiting list for social housing in this province. Last year the minister did not spend nearly $52 million, which was revealed by my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) in a set of questions. This year the figure on social housing is $30 million. The total figure for her ministry that she has managed to not spend in the last two years is somewhere in the neighbourhood of some $92 million at the same time as she is going around the province saying how much she is doing in the field of social housing.

There is a contradiction here. How can we have a waiting list that is growing, that grows every day, that grows even now as we sit in this Legislature, and a government and a minister that are so incompetent they fail to spend even the moneys that have been allocated to them by the Treasurer?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to talk a little bit about this, if I may. The reason we are moving as quickly as we are is that we know the needs are very great. It is also true that in the past year there have been some problems with building the social housing we are committed to build. It is for that reason that we have a land loan guarantee which has allowed a lot of the projects that would otherwise have had difficulty to get their hands on land and to hold it to make the building process work better.

That is also the reason we have made our commitment to using our provincial lands for the purposes of building social housing. We know that one of the big problems is the supply of land. That is the reason we have made the commitment that we have to use our provincial lands for the building of social housing all over this province.

1420

There have also been some regulatory delays in building some of the housing we would like to build. That is the reason we released our land use policy in August, which will be part of the process of building both social housing and other affordable housing all over the province in partnership with all our municipalities.

Mr. Breaugh: Could the minister explain to us why, since this is the second year in a row she has basically wasted approved amounts of money in a desperately needed area, she did not learn the lesson last year? Why did she not turn this money over to the municipalities, for example, many of which have projects under way and could have utilized that money as soon as it became apparent that ministry staff were not able to approve the projects she had selected? Why did she allow, in the last two years, almost $90 million of approved expenditures to be wasted simply because she could not handle in her ministry the approval process that she herself designed?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Our approval process is working very well. There have been difficulties with land, and we have addressed the difficulties with land in a variety of ways. We have created the land loan guarantee to make sure that more nonprofits can get their hands on land that they can use to build on and use it.

We have made our commitment, which we are acting on every day, for the land that we have in the province to be used for housing all over the province. Some municipalities have agreed to do exactly the same thing. The federal government, of course, has not yet done so, and I look forward to a federal government that will.

The other thing that we have done is very clearly to have made it much more possible for affordable housing, both for low- and moderate-income people, to be built in the province through our land use policy. Our land use policy will direct all municipalities to supply the needs of low- and moderate-income people.

I think we have made an enormous difference in this past year. I am not going to pretend that it is all perfect. There is a lot more work that needs to be done. There is a significant commitment on the part of this government to do that work and to solve the problems as they come along, one by one.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I am going to wait until the applause dies down, Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind.

[Applause]

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Brandt: Is that it?

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will probably be aware at this point, since we have been discussing this subject for the last week in this House, that with respect to the York regional development issue, on October 28, the Globe and Mail reported that “Several experienced planners...said the regional and provincial authorities who vet municipal development decisions also give these men fast-track treatment.”

Will the minister confirm, as a result of that statement, if in fact it is accurate that his predecessor, now the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), did indeed fast-track the Bayview Hill project in Richmond Hill by having senior officials call the regional council and advise them that an approval was being given rather than the normal exchange of documents that takes place in a matter of this size?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I do not believe that any application is fast-tracked over any other application. I might say that there is a process that must be followed, and it is followed in every case. I can assure the member that there is no particular application that is given special treatment. In this particular case, the application the member is referring to took some 16 months and went through the normal process, so there was no fast-tracking whatsoever.

I might say that I receive calls and indications from people asking where their proposal stands, and as far as I am concerned, fast-tracking is not the thing. Let’s get the proposal approved as quickly as possible, but there are no special privileges given to anyone .

Mr. Brandt: On December 5 the assistant deputy minister of community planning took a rather unusual step with respect to this particular development, the 1,000 acres in York region. Namely, after the approval was in fact committed by cabinet, that assistant deputy minister did in fact make a phone call back to York regional council. Why would the assistant deputy minister take it upon himself to call rather than simply to send the approval in the normal fashion? Why was this unusual step taken with this particular set of circumstances relating to that 1,000-acre development?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I can only say that the individual is simply referring to a call he might have received, or a call for information as to where the proposal stood. But there has been no fast-tracking, there have been no special privileges given to anyone, let me assure the member.

Mr. Brandt: In light of the questions that have been raised relative to the way in which this and other developments have been handled in connection with this northern part of the Metropolitan Toronto area, will the minister agree to do what is proper in this particular instance, recognizing that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has narrowed the focus on this matter in a very specific way by limiting the investigation to the Ontario Provincial Police? Will the minister do the right thing and table documents relative to developments in that area so that the members of this House can see exactly what steps were taken at what particular times with respect to this whole matter? Will the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: There is no secret in regard to this proposal or any other proposal. I want to assure the member that Mr. Ferguson of the Globe and Mail had full access to our files. In fact, he was assisted by our own ministry staff. We would be pleased to make available to the member whatever documents are necessary for his information.

Mr. Brandt: My new question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Yesterday the minister indicated that he did not approve the 1,000-acre development in Richmond Hill. Outside of the House, the minister then went on to say that his ministry did not consider the particular application, because the official plan had already been amended, if I am quoting the minister correctly. This morning we have further information on this matter where officials of his ministry have said that they did consider the plan and it was approved because that particular land was serviced.

Would the minister clear the air on exactly what happened? In the first instance, he said that he denied the approval of the plan, that it went on to cabinet. In the second instance, he said he did not have to review it, because of the matter of the official plan being amended. Then, third, we have a ministry official telling still a third story. Which is the correct story? Could the minister advise the House?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This really had its beginning back in the early 1980s, when the municipality was developing a new official plan. At that time, my ministry did express some concerns about some of the inclusions in that official plan. Then, in 1983, the previous administration gave prior commitment to the official plan, which means, really, that what they were doing was giving a commitment that the plan could be amended to allow for future urban growth in that part of Toronto the member is referring to. Once that prior commitment is given, then my ministry, with the Food Land Guidelines, cannot supersede any prior commitment that was given to a plan. As I say, a prior commitment was given by the previous administration.

Mr. Brandt: I am well aware of the fact that servicing was made available to that region and servicing was made available to that particular area to be developed. The York trunk, which was developed by the previous government, enlarged the capacity so that area could grow. I am well aware of that.

But the minister’s official said that because one of the main stipulations with respect to this whole approval process -- that the servicing be available for the land -- had been met, that was the reason there was not any necessary approval from his ministry with respect to this whole matter. Can the minister quote from the Food Land Guidelines what section specifically states that when servicing is available, Food Land Guidelines do not apply? Could he enlighten the House on that?

1430

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I cannot quote at this time. I do not have the Food Land Guidelines with me. But again I have to reiterate that prior commitment was given by the previous administration that the official plan could be amended to allow for future urban growth provided that certain conditions were met, one of those conditions being that there be adequate services available. The municipality apparently did establish the fact that the services were available.

My ministry cannot comment further on a previous commitment that was made. It is just as simple as that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: They cannot. The Food Land Guidelines state --

Mr. Sterling: You might as well throw it out the window.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: When a prior commitment is made by a previous administration --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to the Food Land Guidelines, let me read to the minister from those guidelines. It states in section 3.12, under “Evaluation of Alternative Uses” on page 11, “Where the municipality consists of predominantly good agricultural land, estate development will need to be restricted in location and amount, or possibly prohibited.”

Under section 3.14 it states: “Documentation of need for the land use must cover each of four basic issues: the necessity for the land use, the amount of land needed, the reasons for the choice of location and the consideration given to alternative locations on lower-capability” or lower-quality “agricultural land.”

Given that this was prime agricultural land, that it was not to be developed, in spite of what the minister has said with respect to capacity being made available by a previous government, until the year 2000 and that it would be used solely for estate housing in this particular instance, could the minister -- and my question is coming forward now -- tell us why the ministry, in its collective wisdom, approved this project when it is so obviously contrary to its own guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Again I have to come back to the fact that the previous administration granted support to an amendment to the official plan, provided that certain conditions were met. When they granted that, I do not think they suspected in their wildest imagination that the services would be available for some period of time. The services did become available, and it would be absolutely redundant for my ministry to make any comment, because if the matter did go to the Ontario Municipal Board, my ministry would have no grounds to stand on, because the Food Land Guidelines do not supersede prior commitments that are made, and that were made, by the previous administration.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is waiting patiently to ask his question.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. In the statement that was released jointly in August of this year by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) and herself -- which, to remind other members, is the one that, among other things, requested municipalities to take a minimum of 25 per cent of affordable housing -- she outlined a process that both of them laid out for municipalities to comment to the various ministries, on making changes to the planning process itself.

Of course, from the municipalities’ point of view, there were a number of concerns raised about how these projects would be financed, how the ministries would respond to the needs of various municipalities. Essentially, it was to take submissions until February and then, after that, announcements would be made of any changes that would be made.

Could the minister update the House on what plans have been made, since I know there have been submissions to various ministries from the municipalities but we have not seen a public response from any of the ministries as to changes that are under way? Yet we do see, in the allegations that surround all of the York region development, that some developed plans for development do proceed faster than others, whether there is a fast-track process or not.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Breaugh: The ministry itself is now introducing what it calls allocation systems. Can the minister explain those processes to us?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked. Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Indeed, last August at the annual meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I released our land use policy guidelines. What we told people then, and what is still true, is that we would be working actively with the municipalities and other concerned people to take their suggestions, on the basis of which we will have a final land use policy statement.

What is going on right now is a series of meetings that have been organized around the province jointly with my and the Minister of Municipal Affairs’ people. The municipalities are coming forward, as are people in the development industry, as are interested and concerned citizens all over the province. We want to hear from them their reactions to our suggestions for the guidelines and also how we can work together to make sure the two major goals are met.

The major goal is to have open communities in which people of mixed income can live together. The ways of reaching those goals in particular are the 25 per cent guideline for affordable housing in the new developments and also intensification in the building of communities and redevelopment of communities that are already there.

Mr. Breaugh: I really am, in a sense, bothered by that kind of response. Very bluntly, the rules on how plans are approved appear to be changing. No one quite knows what the changes are. There are allocation systems being put in place that no one has heard of before. There are some that are being given, it is rumoured, a fast track, but there is no explanation as to what that fast track is. In other words, the ministries appear to have changed the rules by which plans for development are approved, but no one knows what the rule changes have been. Could the minister explain that to us?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: There are no changes in the rules at this point. What we are doing is working to get the official plans, in particular of the municipalities and areas in which the pressure of growth is so great, organized to meet our guidelines. In the spring, there was a series of meetings of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten), the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself with mayors and regional chairs of some of the major regions of the province facing pressures of growth.

What we said at the time, and I think we were very explicit about this, was that we would work with them to smooth the processes and to deal with the problems they are facing in the whole development process. What we are trying to do is speed up the time of approvals of what takes place inside our government and ask them to speed up the time of approvals of what takes place in their level of government, in order to make sure that our affordable housing goals are met.

We are working with them in partnership. This is an ongoing process. I believe it is a very important one, because what it will do is make sure that the goals of affordable housing across this province are met and that we speed up the process for meeting those goals, because the needs, as everyone in this House acknowledges, are very great. People should not have to wait as long as they have been. One of the ways we will make this happen is by working actively --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: -- with the municipalities to make the changes required.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome is one of the most serious issues facing our society today. It is absolutely imperative that this government take a leadership role in combatting this deadly epidemic, but because of its lack of leadership, doctors in this province are now having to take matters into their own hands and make decisions to distribute syringes to drug users.

This is a decision, quite frankly, that the Minister of Health should have taken. This is not a decision which belongs to individual physicians and it is not a decision which belongs to the chief of police of Metropolitan Toronto. With all due respect to the minister and her ministry, it is a responsibility that the Minister of Health should adopt. While AIDS is spreading, through intravenous drug use, at an alarming rate, the minister appears to be doing nothing. She is vacillating about this very important decision. When is she going to make a decision and when is she going to take a leadership role in this issue?

1440

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, I am very proud of the leadership position that the Ministry of Health in Ontario has taken in this country. In fact, we have been significant in bringing people together to address the many important issues about AIDS and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

As the member would know, I journeyed to Sweden to the AIDS conference in Stockholm this June, where we were at that time informed of events in other jurisdictions.

I am pleased to hear that the member is offering his advice on needle exchange programs. This is one thing which is presently under review by the ministry. We are hoping to discuss this issue and are in the process of discussing it now with the Addiction Research Foundation, with pharmacy, which has a key role to play.

We acknowledge that in Ontario we have a different milieu from other jurisdictions where it is perfectly legal for pharmacists to sell syringes without prescription. In Ontario, however, there are some legal implications and pharmacy itself has some concerns about the way pharmacists control the sale of the syringes.

At the present time, I believe it is very appropriate for physicians to dispense to their patients. I would not want to interfere in a physician-patient relationship. This issue is currently under review, and I thank the member for his advice.

Mr. Eves: Those are all very nice platitudes that the minister is telling us here in the House today. Metro Police Chief Marks has changed his opinion and asks why about this particular issue.

In many western countries, street-level needle clinics are already dispensing clean syringes -- I think the minister knows that -- and the results of those are as follows. The spread of AIDS has either stabilized or decreased in those countries, there has been no increase in the number of people who use needles and many people have come forward for treatment for the very first time.

The minister and her ministry already know what the Addiction Research Foundation thinks about this very important matter. She knows that 75 per cent of needle users in Canada repeat and use the same needle or use needles that other people have used. The Addiction Research Foundation provided the minister with those statistics many, many months ago. She knows that this year that same foundation will tell her that there are over 17,000 high school students in Ontario who will use needles.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: She knows all those facts. She and her deputy minister were over there in June. She has been sitting on the sidelines. When is she going to make some decisions and act on this information?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would describe the spread of AIDS and HIV infection as probably the public health challenge of our generation. Our goal is to prevent the spread of AIDS and of HIV infection and to make sure that people have the advice and the information that they need to protect themselves against this deadly disease.

At the beginning of December, the Ministry of Health will be hosting a working conference to address many of these important issues. We are bringing people together to discuss them and to help us as we determine the next step in the challenge in Ontario.

At the present point in time, we are spending more than $20 million in the combat of this deadly disease. I am pleased to have the member’s advice, because I can share with him the concern I have that when we give this information and assistance to intravenous drug users, one of our goals must be to help them get off the drugs that they are on and ensure that there is public safety when we talk about the kinds of programs that will stop the spread of AIDS.

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Last week, the Toronto Star reported the minister’s concern that the federal government is using political criteria to shut Ontario out of a series of multimillion-dollar defence and aerospace contracts. From what the minister is saying, there is a distinct bias towards Quebec companies.

May I ask, first of all, whether the minister can give this House some details about this matter; and second, what initiatives he and his ministry are taking to protect the legitimate interests of Ontario aerospace industries?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question. He has brought up a very, very serious matter. We know that 52 per cent of the aerospace industry is located in Ontario, with 40 cent in Quebec. Notwithstanding that, since 1985, 88.2 per cent of all government funding under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the defence industry productivity program has gone to Quebec and only about eight per cent to Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We have a situation where there is a definite tilting to the disadvantage of Ontario-based companies in order for them to get defence business.

Mr. Daigeler: I am very concerned about the potential for serious friction, especially between Ontario and Quebec. I, as a member of this House, do not feel this is in the best interests of Canadians.

I would like to ask the minister whether he has any proposals on how to avoid these kinds of problems which the federal Tories got us into, and how we might place contract awarding on the basis of economic merit rather than political calculation.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If members are interested in this subject, and they should be, I can tell them -- because many of them represent areas in this province that have a very significant aerospace component and if they would only be listening to their constituents, they would have an idea of the problem --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: -- we have no problem with our Quebec or any other provincial counterparts. Our dispute is with the federal government which has taken this particular position.

We have a situation where ministers meet on a regular basis, dealing with government procurement, dealing with such areas as interprovincial trade barriers, and we are resolving those. What is happening is that we have a federal government that has taken a political decision to fragment the Ontario industry and divert it to Quebec.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier. It concerns a proposal that was released by his office a couple of weeks ago called Bold Concept II, a massive redevelopment of the Toronto waterfront.

Just a year ago, in the speech from the throne, the Premier called for coordinated planning of the Toronto waterfront and set up an intergovernmental waterfront committee. We also have the Crombie commission looking at the Toronto waterfront, and just a month or so ago, the city of Toronto passed a central waterfront plan.

Can the Premier explain to the House how this proposal, Bold Concept II, commissioned by his office and paid for by his office, contributes to coordinated planning of the waterfront?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was desperately hoping that the member would ask me a question I could refer to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). Unfortunately, I cannot, and I am very happy to respond to the honourable member.

As the honourable member will be aware, a year or so ago, perhaps a year and a half ago, in response to some of the concerns that I and others have had about the development of the waterfront in Toronto, we put together an ad hoc group comprising a federal representative, Mr. Crombie at the time, who was then a federal minister, the Metro chairman and the mayor of Toronto to make sure we were harnessing the resources that we had most effectively to provide a vision for the waterfront over a long period of time.

Frankly, there were a number of outstanding questions -- even the size of the planning area, whether it was just downtown Toronto or whether it extended out into Etobicoke and other areas -- because everyone has his own view of the situation. My honourable friend will be aware there is just a myriad of agencies that have influence some way or other.

Interjections.

1450

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, your honourable friends are making a lot of noise over there and may not have the same keen intellectual interest that you do in the subject.

So we put together an ad hoc group. Subsequent to that, the federal government decided to create a royal commission, headed by Mr. Crombie, who is now devoting full-time to that. I turned over the chairmanship of this ad hoc group to Mr. Crombie, because he is putting in full-time on it, and I can say that we are working in a very co-ordinated way.

I know there is lots of discussion about this, particularly during the municipal election and at other times, but it is our view and it is my view that we have to make sure we use every single resource that we have to develop a vision for the waterfront over the next 40 and 50 years. There is a wide variety of individual ideas that have been presented. The mayor of Etobicoke is very keen on waterfront development. As the member knows, he has some very specific ideas, as do various other mayors.

Mrs. Grier: Almost as bad as yours.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know my honourable friend probably thinks she has the only good ideas on this, and there are other destructive elements that do not want to do anything. There is an awful lot of turf in this, as she knows. I can tell my honourable friend that there is no specific plan that is going forward at the moment. A lot of dialogue will go on, a lot of discussion and a lot of rationalization of the existing jurisdictions that are --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs. Grier: I am very familiar with the activities of the intergovernmental waterfront committee and this Premier has just outlined them.

My question was, how does the unilateral initiative of his office in commissioning, for $35,000, a rehash of a plan that was current 20 years ago and that only succeeded in producing the Leslie Street Spit, an environmental problem ever since, contribute to coordinated planning? Does the Premier want to emulate Premier Vander Zalm, who has Fantasy Gardens, and have a Harbourfront Haven or something?

Who is doing the planning, the intergovernmental committee that is established or Duncan Allan in the Premier’s office? Where does the responsibility lie? That is my question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I honestly do seek out and search out the best advice I can possibly find in all areas of my endeavour. I can tell her we are not looking to create another Fantasy Gardens on the water here.

There are no universal, impositioned plans from anyone. I want my honourable friend to be very clear about that. There are a number of committees going on, as she knows, that are discussing the matter. Public hearings will be held in the not-too-distant future with respect to ideas n the waterfront, and then the difficulty will be to bring all the various jurisdictions into play on the matter.

I think we have to be fair about this. There are some wonderful things along that waterfront, but I think a lot of people looking at it say some planning mistakes were made as well. You can now see the assertion of turf by certain people over this particular matter. What we have to do, in my view, is to build a vision that everyone can buy in, and use our strengths collectively. Really, that is what we are hoping to do, and the federal government is working on it --

Mr. B. Rae: Everyone can buy in. That’s it; that’s the Liberal vision. Buy into our dream. Put up your money.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, my honourable friend is against everything, but I say that I think we can develop a vision that will be supported by the federal government, by Metro, by the city and by the various other cities that will be very constructive along the way.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. On the first day of this fall session, the minister told us his ministry would commit $5 million to ensure that 5,000 apprentices who really want to take training in their chosen trade field would receive that training.

Many of these apprentices in fact were already participating in programs that were postponed, and since June these people have been left in limbo, unable to complete their programs, while employers look to other provinces and south of the border for skilled labour. A call to the ministry just this morning still did not reveal when these programs will be reinstated. Surely the minister understands how important it is to quickly reinstate them.

When will the 5,000 apprentices and 3,000 employers throughout the province know what is happening to these deferred programs? What programs will the minister be supporting and how soon will he make his announcement?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If members recall, just recently I stood in the House and made a statement about committing $5 million to the apprenticeship shortfall that was done by the federal government. I had hoped that all honourable members were listening, and I am quite sure the honourable member was listening at the time.

I just want to bring members up to date about what caused this. It is the federal government that did not come through with its portion of the money. This government decided it would not stand by and see those apprentices not getting their training. We came through with $5 million. I hope, with the strong co-operation of our colleagues across the floor, to get the federal government committed to apprenticeship programs again and to put more money there so we can train all people in Ontario.

Mrs. Cunningham: That was such a simple question: When is the minister going to spend his $5 million he so valiantly put forth for the apprenticeship programs? The minister has an opportunity to answer it in the next question. He can answer that one or he can answer this one, my supplementary question. He has a choice, one or two.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. it is very important that the minister hear the question.

Mrs. Cunningham: We would like to offer some suggestions here if the minister is having trouble spending his $5 million. Another way of dealing with this is to involve our secondary schools.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There seems to be some unnecessary noise. I remind the member for London North that I asked for a supplementary question.

Mrs. Cunningham: I would love to ask the supplementary question if I could have the floor.

Mr. Speaker: Are you going to ask a question?

Mrs. Cunningham: Yes.

It is common knowledge that there is a growing mismatch between the number of unfilled job vacancies and those seeking work, due to a lack of training, and we should be using our secondary schools to implement these programs. What steps is the minister actively pursuing to integrate apprenticeship training and co-operative education programs in our secondary schools?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I must thank the honourable member again for asking the question nine minutes before question period is over because it will take me about that time, Mr. Speaker. I have all the time to answer that, as you said,

She said I have two options here. Let me state again that I stood and made a statement in the House about the shortfall the federal government made in regard to apprenticeship programs. I am telling all the community colleges that offer apprenticeship programs to go right ahead and tell those students who were waiting for that federal government money to come that we have put forward our $5 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the duty of the chair to make certain that every member has the right to speak and the right to be heard.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me take a shot at the second part of the question. I want to tell the member, and she knows it, that the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), the Minister of Education, is working co-operatively with the Minister of Skills Development to get co-op programs going. If there is any concern at all that we are not spreading the message of training, it is being spread within the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and also the Ministry of Skills Development. I am telling my colleague that we are right on target in developing apprenticeship programs and training within Ontario.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Health. This province provides free prescription drugs for seniors and welfare recipients in order to ensure they have the medication that is necessary for their health. I understand that when at all possible, the pharmacists fill their prescriptions by way of the less expensive, generic drugs. Sometimes the physician -- I understand almost always when at the insistence of the patient -- will prescribe the brand-name drugs at considerably greater expense to the taxpayer. Obviously, the generic drugs are satisfactory or they would not be available to be filled.

Can the minister consider paying for only the generic medication, leaving the extra costs of a brand name to be borne by any consumer who wishes to have the brand name?

1500

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is important for the member and all members in the House to know that physicians are required by legislation to provide the lowest-price drug in a group of interchangeable drugs. The Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee in fact determines which drugs will be determined as interchangeable, based on research and analysis. A pharmacist will dispense a brand-name drug where the prescribing physician has clearly written “no substitution” on the prescription.

Mr. Owen: Doctors tell me that as high as 90 per cent of the time that they prescribe brand-name drugs they do so at the insistence of the particular patient. This amounts to a sizeable difference in how much the taxpayers are out for generic drugs as opposed to the brand-name drugs. Can the minister give us any facts and figures to show how much the taxpayer is out, how much her budget is out as to generic drugs as opposed to when we have had to provide and pay for the brand-name drugs?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: For the information of the member, it is a medical decision to determine which drug will be prescribed for a patient. At the present time, “no substitution” prescriptions account for about one per cent of the Ontario drug benefit plan. I think this is an issue, and I would be pleased to refer the member’s question to Dr. Lowy and the Lowy drug inquiry, which is reviewing all aspects of the government’s role in the design of the program and the prescription drug marketplace.

I share his concern because I think all of us want to see the very best possible therapeutic results for the people in this province who receive their drugs from the Ontario drug benefit program.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DETENTION CENTRE

Mr. Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Correctional Services. Two hundred and forty-six workers, as many inmates and about 60 young offenders inhabit and work in a sick Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre that is making them sick. The matter has been studied in the past somewhat. There have been a couple of air quality control studies that have yielded quite inconclusive results, yet the human symptoms persist. I have talked with various persons on that staff , some of whom do not want to be identified, but they all agree with reception officer Russ Selkirk, maintenance mechanic Paul Gibson and guard Frank Preston, that widespread in the building are the symptoms of sore eyes, sore throats, burning lungs, headaches, cramps, rashes, and in individual cases sometimes more severe symptoms than those.

Inasmuch as the studies to date have not yielded results with regard to this problem, what is the minister prepared to do to get to the bottom of this persistent problem at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am quite glad to respond to the member for Hamilton West. The member is right that previous tests by the Ministry of Labour have shown that there is really no factor that can be pinpointed as to why the conditions are as they are. As the member knows, yesterday we hired an outside consulting firm, Acres International, to carry on a new set of tests. Also, part of that contract with the consultant is that the consultant meet with the workers, committee in the detention centre in order to set out the parameters of that test.

We will be awaiting quite anxiously the results of that test and we will proceed from there.

Mr. Allen: I thank the minister. I appreciate the response to date. It is obviously a move in the right direction, but notwithstanding, the tests of the same kind having been inconclusive, one is not necessarily hopeful.

The minister may well know that the whole question of sick-building syndrome is a very complicated one. The science that attacks it is relatively primitive. The government to date has not responded, for example, to the sensitivity studies done by Judge Thomson in the past, and the issue remains very much one at the beginning levels of an issue.

Will the minister take a further step and appoint an independent inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act that would include the specialists who would have to be involved, not only specialists in air quality but also industrial hygiene specialists, clinical ecologists and allergists, climate control specialists and building design specialists, in order to get to the bottom of this issue and hopefully to tackle the more widespread problem facing us in many of our urban centres, in particular with sealed-building sickness?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would say to the member I think that step right now would be premature. I think it would be fair to take this one step at a time and I hope the member would agree with me that we should take a look and see what the results of this testing are.

We have a company with up-to-date and very modern equipment that is supposed to be some of the best in the world. We think we might find something with this set of testing. Let’s take it one step at a time. I would like to assure the member that I will make sure resources are dedicated to resolving the situation if we can find out what the problem is.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Harris: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing a question concerning John Sewell. Mr. Sewell had five major objectives he worked on with the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority: repairs and maintenance, and actually hiring superintendents was one of them; new steps in financial management was a second one; improvements in tenant relations was a third; improvements in security within the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority was a fourth, and an undertaking to expand and build new units was a fifth.

I wonder if the Minister of Housing could tell us which ones of those five she disagrees with. I think she would agree that covers the major reforms Mr. Sewell put forward. If she does not disagree with any of those five, could she give us one good reason why she fired John Sewell?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am glad to reiterate the agenda for reform that the Ontario Housing Corp. and the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority share. What we want to do is improve the lives of the tenants in our buildings in every way possible. For that reason, we are committed to improving the maintenance in those buildings, to working on security issues in relation with our tenants and to working on the whole question of eligibility.

One of the things I am very proud of, in fact, is that we have extended eligibility to Ontario Housing Corp. to all the people in the province who have housing needs. Among the things we have been working on in tenant relations are race relations, and also extending eligibility to battered women.

The other thing I think we have done is to extend fairer access to the working poor at the Ontario Housing Corp. I believe our commitment to improving the quality of tenant life in the housing is very genuine, the kind of work we are doing. Our new chairman, who will be coming on board on November 24, will extend and build on that agenda for reform, and I am very pleased about that.

PETITIONS

NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY

Mr. Sterling: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“On the issue of the location of the federal space agency:

“We condemn the present Liberal government for doing so little to convince the federal government to locate the national federal space agency in Ottawa-Carleton while Quebec pursued this matter with vigour; and

“Further, we oppose the stand of John Turner, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, to locate the space agency in Montreal, Quebec; and

“Further, we believe that the space agency should be located in Ottawa-Carleton and not in Montreal as Mr. Turner has suggested.”

That is signed by three other members of this party and myself.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Kozyra: This petition is on behalf of the Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group. It contains 364 signatures and reads as follows:

“We care about injured workers. We protest the Minister of Labour’s proposal to change the law that would take away injured workers’ rights to permanent disability pensions when they are permanently disabled; that would do almost nothing about the miserable compensation of existing injured workers and their widows and that would leave the injured workers of the future worse off. Workers who are killed or injured in their work deserve much better treatment than this.”

1510

USE OF TIME FOR MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under standing orders 27(a), 28(a), and 29(g): Earlier today during members’ statements the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) rose to make a member’s statement on the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s tripartite stabilization program. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to carefully review the statement of the member Norfolk with standing orders 27(a) and 29(g) in mind. After you have reviewed the statement, I would ask you, sir, to determine whether this matter should be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for further review and recommendation.

Specifically, when you review the member’s statement, I would ask you to keep in mind that the member for Norfolk is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). I believe the member’s statement today fits the following definition, and I am quoting standing order 28(a), “A short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed.”

This is the definition of a ministerial statement as defined in the standing orders, and that is what I believe the parliamentary assistant for Agriculture and Food read during members’ statements -- a ministerial statement.

My concern is that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food is abusing backbench members’ time to make ministerial announcements. Members’ statements are intended for the use of backbench private members. During the negotiations for the current standing orders, we agreed party leaders and ministers of the crown would not be permitted to use members’ statements, because they had the forum of ministerial statements and response was available to them.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a standing order, 29(g), which does not permit a parliamentary assistant to ask questions during question period of his or her own minister. The reasons for this are obvious, and I would suggest the same logic applies for members’ statements. If the minister had made this agricultural announcement during ministerial statements, we would have been given the opportunity to respond. As the parliamentary assistant has made this announcement during members’ statements, not only has time been taken away from private members, but it has robbed us of an opportunity to respond to what I believe is clearly a ministerial statement.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to review the Hansard of the statement from the member for Norfolk and, if you agree with me that this statement clearly falls into the definition of standing order 28(a), then you should refer the entire question of the use and abuse of members’ statements to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly listened to the point of order very carefully. I will look at all the relevant matters suggested by the member, because I am fully aware that members’ statements may be made by all members other than leaders of parties or ministers. But I will look at it.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 87, An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved second reading of Bill 180, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am delighted to lead off this debate on second reading of Bill 180. As I mentioned when I introduced this bill, the workplace hazardous materials information system, the system Bill 180 puts into place, will play a major role in preventing workplace illness and injury.

The WHMIS concept is built on three elements: a label to alert workers as to the hazards of the material and the precautions to be taken; a material safety data sheet to provide more details of the hazards and the precautions, and education and training to ensure that workers understand and can use the information being provided to work safely with the material.

The WHMIS project was started in 1982 because there was a general recognition by provincial and federal governments and by industry and labour that a problem existed across Canada in terms of health and safety information available on hazardous materials used in the workplace.

Specifically, the information available varied in quantity and in quality. There were no uniform requirements on the suppliers of hazardous materials used in the workplace that specified how much and what kind of information they had to provide to their customers about their products.

Employers have always had an obligation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to provide information to their workers about hazards relating to the handling of hazardous materials in the workplace, but employers often had difficulty in obtaining health and safety information about these materials. Even if they did get the information, it was not clear how much information should be passed on to workers. What WHMIS will provide is information to users in a more consistent and uniform manner.

There must be a label on the containers of hazardous materials under WHMIS. The label is intended as the first warning. The label from the supplier must be within a distinctive border so that workers will know immediately that this is a hazardous material and will know to act accordingly. The supplier label will also have hazard symbols which will alert workers to the hazards presented by the material. The label will contain a short statement of the risk and the precautions that a worker will take, as well as first aid information.

The label will indicate that a material safety data sheet is available, and workers will use the product name, which must be the same on the label and the material safety data sheet, so they can find the right data sheet for the product.

The material safety data sheet will have to contain a minimum of information no matter who produces it. The categories of information to be provided are as follows: product identification and use; a list of all hazardous ingredients; physical data such as the boiling and melting point; fire and explosion data; reactive data -- for example, conditions under which the material is unstable; toxicological properties -- that is, health hazards; preventive measures, which include the personal protective equipment required to handle the material safely; first aid measures, and last, the name and telephone number of whoever prepared the data sheet and the date the information was prepared.

The information provided is expected to be comprehensive and should include all that can reasonably be expected to be known about the material and its hazardous properties.

Finally, data sheets have to be updated every three years or sooner if new information on the hazardous material becomes available.

These two elements, the label and the material safety data sheet, together make up the information requirements of WHMIS.

The third element of the WHMIS triad is education and training of workers using materials meeting the WHMIS criteria of hazardous in the workplace. The responsibility for ensuring that workers are trained to understand the WHMIS system, the information being provided and the procedures to be used at that workplace to protect workers’ health and safety falls upon the employer. The workplace education program required under the WHMIS regulation has to be developed and implemented in consultation with the joint health and safety committee, if one exists, and be related to any existing training programs currently being undertaken in the workplace.

The worker training has to include the following:

First, what information is required on the label and material safety data sheet and the purpose and significance of that information to the worker, that is, what does it mean to workers if the data sheet says the material is carcinogenic, and what has to be done to ensure that the worker is protected.

1520

Second, the training must include procedures used in that workplace for the safe use, storage, handling and disposal of the material. This means the employer must have control procedures in place for each material to ensure proper worker protection.

Next, although employers have always had a duty to train workers about hazardous materials in the workplace and the proper precautions to be taken, we are aware that not all employers have complied with this duty. To assist employers, and especially the smaller employers, the WHMIS partners, that is government, industry and labour, felt a responsibility to ensure that Ontario workers and employers have access to a comprehensive training program which could be adapted to any workplace.

As a result, the employer safety associations and the Workers’ Health and Safety Centre of the Ontario Federation of Labour have jointly developed a high-quality, low-cost training program through the co-ordinating efforts of the Occupational Health and Safety Education Authority.

The Ministry of Labour has funded the development of these materials, as well as the training of some 400 trainers who will deliver the program across the province. In addition to conducting in-plant courses, these trainers will run community training sessions for those workers whose place of employment is too small for a full-scale training session. This training package has been used by many large employers in Ontario, as well as by small and medium-sized employers. In addition, it is being used by employers outside of Ontario, such as BC Hydro and Power Authority.

One aspect of WHMIS that was not intended but which can be anticipated is that if workers are provided with information about hazards of chemicals they encounter and are trained in the proper precautions to be taken, those workers will take this knowledge outside of the workplace to their homes or their hobby areas and apply their knowledge to the use of similar materials at home and elsewhere. As legislators, I believe we may therefore face increased pressure from the public for more and better information on hazardous materials used in the house, in the hobby room or in the garage.

I would like to emphasize that the WHMIS project represents a unique co-operative approach to problem solving and to the development of legislation in which all the major stakeholders were involved from the very beginning. Needless to say, achieving a consensus among industry, labour and the government can take a long time. In fact, it took almost three years of tripartite consultation before an agreement was reached on how WHMIS should work.

The model for how WHMIS is to work was developed by a tripartite steering committee which was put together in 1982 to develop a nationally consistent system for communicating information about hazardous materials used in workplaces to the users of those materials.

The steering committee consisted of three federal regulators, Labour, Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Health and Welfare Canada; three industrial representatives, one each from a major chemical producer, from a major chemical product user and from a manufacturers’ association; and three labour representatives chosen by the Canadian Labour Congress.

Additional ex officio members of the committee included the chairpersons of the various working groups, representatives from provincial and territorial occupational health and safety agencies, other interested industries or labour organizations and other interested federal departments. Membership on the committee totalled approximately 36 persons over the three-year period required to accomplish the mission.

The steering committee presented its report to the ministers across Canada with responsibility for occupational health and safety in July 1988. It is interesting to note that of the 87 recommendations in the report, 84 were consensus recommendations, despite the differing interests of the groups represented.

The consensus achieved was carried through in development of the legislation as well, both the federal legislation and the provincial legislation, so that we could implement the recommendations of the steering committee. Industry and labour were full participants with the federal and provincial regulators.

The impact of this consensus approach is truly remarkable, I believe, and has led to a greater awareness of this important initiative because it is being advocated not only by government but by industry and labour groups as well.

As an occupational health and safety initiative, the workplace hazardous materials information system has achieved a greater acceptance than any other occupational health and safety program in our history. The WHMIS hotline, established at the ministry, is receiving some 700 calls a week. It is hoped that we can build on this consensus and use it in other areas of occupational health and safety to match this truly unique and remarkable exercise.

WHMIS will strengthen the internal responsibility system on which Ontario’s occupational health and safety system is based. It will provide workers and management with the information about chemicals and hazards in the workplace that they need. It will ensure that workers are trained to understand that information and apply it in their everyday working situations. By providing information and training, it should ensure greater and more effective participation by workers in decisions that affect their own occupational health and safety.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Are there any questions and comments on the minister’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate?

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill 180. The amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act are amendments that labour welcomes, generally speaking, and seem to be ones that they basically agreed with, really to allow the introduction and enforcement of the WHMIS legislation and its national legislation coast to coast. They are amendments that meet many of the commitments made to labour and the national requirements.

However, there is, as the minister knows, at least one serious problem that most workers had hoped would be dealt with. It is a problem that makes one of the amendments -- and it is a key one -- pretty well meaningless. The act is to be amended in subsection 22g(2) to require worker training to be developed and implemented in consultation with the joint committee of health and safety representatives, if any, for the workplace.

The word “implemented” was welcomed and an improvement as far as most of the worker reps were concerned because it ensures their involvement in both the development and delivery of implementation as directed by the national agreement in their model occupational safety and health regulations. The operative word here, however, is “consultation.” Despite several attempts at interpreting this word, the bottom line remains that the Occupational Health and Safety Act does not compel the involvement of workers and their representatives in the delivery of training. No amount of rhetoric suggesting that agreement between the workplace parties or workers training workers has merit alters the basic problem that consultation essentially means an employer can do exactly what the employer wants to do and the ministry cannot force the involvement of workers in the agreement.

The concern over this, as I think the minister well knows, is that it makes a bit of a mockery of the internal responsibility system. It is something that we in this party have argued about for a long time, where workers are supposed to share in the responsibility; and I might say questions the minister’s own rhetoric stating that stakeholders must be totally involved and that a true consultative and co-operative process is evolving in Ontario among government, labour and management. We have a little way to go on some of that as yet.

Sandra Glasbeek from the ministry has stated that it is the word “consultation” that represents the problem, and she is dead On. Clearly, the act must be amended to compel the involvement of workers. Fortunately, the word “consultation” was agreed to in the national model OSH. We understand what is going in across this country but, certainly on our part, we did not expect, and hoped we would not have, this limited interpretation. Either the ministry must undertake to produce the interpretation that compels the employer to involve worker members on joint committees to reach agreement over the development and implementation of the worker training or it must amend the act to provide for such involvement and agreement.

It is our hope and our understanding that the minister at least is willing to take a look, and I know he has been talked to on this particular matter by officials of the Ontario Federation of Labour and other groups that were involved in this safety and health legislation to take a look at amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that might deal with this particular problem in the future.

1530

We understand that we are dealing with a national bill they want in across the country, and this is the wording that is going in in most of the provinces. It does not mean, however, that this minister could not deal with what is a very serious shortcoming in the bill.

The amendments also provide that the employer can have his or her material safety data sheets available on computer. We have raised the problem, and I believe this has also been raised with the minister -- I am not totally sure what his response was -- that computers cannot always be available in the workplace, if you know a little bit about them, because of the dust and dirt there which can foul up computers very quickly.

We have to be assured of access on any shift, not just on a day shift, where it might be available in the manager’s office. We need hard copies of the information available out on the work floor in many of the plants in Ontario and not just in a computer location, which, as I said before, is not necessarily secure, because we tend to have problems with computers in dusty or dirty workplaces.

The ministry is proposing to provide a regulation under subsection 22c(6) which would require the employer to furnish an inventory -- I think they are still working on the regulations to prescribe what would be in the inventory -- and up-to-date material safety data sheets to the medical officer of health, the fire department and the director in the ministry no later than October 31, 1990.

In the meantime, the wording of subsection 22c(6) provides for all of these authorities to request such information and to provide it for a community right to know. That is a regulation I know they are still working on. Both environmentalists and I know the city of Toronto are willing to accept “upon request,” but they feel a time limit should be required -- say, 30 days -- for the employer to forward the requested information.

Also, many medical officers of health and fire departments do not ever want all of this information automatically forwarded, since by October 31, 1990, they would have no way, really, of processing it.

I am not going to go into the notes I have on the meaning of consultation. I know there has been a considerable amount of work on that, but it is certainly the question that has to be resolved to make this legislation effective. I want to alert the minister to concerns that are already there. They back once again, I guess, on the concerns over whether “consultation” means serious involvement of the workers in the training programs and the other aspects of this right-to-know legislation on hazardous materials.

“Don Fraser, the field representative for the Hamilton Workers Health Centre, says the basic component of the legislation -- worker training -- is ill-defined.

“‘The legislation doesn’t set out the length or quality of the worker training, so there’s no doubt you’re going to have uneven levels of training in the country.’

“The national program requires hazardous materials to be labelled and accompanied by material safety data sheets (MSDS) with more detailed information. Mr. Fraser says there are specific guidelines for the sheets and labels, but not for the length of worker training.

“The workplace hazardous materials information system was initiated by the federal government, and the provinces will enforce it. Critics fear there will be difficulty with enforcement of worker training.”

We are going to have to see what happens with this, but I can tell members it is a very genuine concern.

“‘There are 200,000 workplaces, they’re not going to be able to check every one. Nothing will be done unless the worker complains to the Ministry of Labour and they come in to check it out.’

“Bob DeMatteo, health and safety officer of the union representing the provincial inspectors, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, agrees.

“‘The inspectors will come in and review the education activity and, since there are no hard-and-fast guidelines...the inspector will be asking himself, “Should I write an order?”‘“

I know the minister says the inspectors are trained in WHMIS and this is not going to be a problem. If he will forgive me for being a bit of a cynic, it is because of the problems we have had in terms of enforcement in the whole field of health and safety, something the minister knows very well. We are entering a new field here.

“The federal bill, passed in June 1987, governs suppliers and importers of hazardous chemicals. Complementary provincial amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act spell out the employers’ responsibilities.

“Linda Jolley, director of health and safety for the Ontario Federation of Labour, is confident more employers will make an effort to comply with the program because they had input.” I think she may be right on that.

“But she says the program is only a first step in the greater quest for information about long-term effects of chemical exposure.

“‘We want to know what these chemicals are doing to people in the long run. What good is the right to know when there’s nothing to know?’

“If there isn’t information about the long-term effects of a chemical, the supplier isn’t required to test it to find out.

“‘There will be a lot of material safety data sheets with blanks where the information isn’t available,’ said Mr. Fraser...” when he was commenting on this.

“Don Hall, the WHMIS coordinator for the Ontario government, says testing was just one of the concessions made when the program was being planned.

“‘Look, you’re going to put everybody out of business if you’re going to require every one of those substances to be tested. Some of these are going to be long-term tests. It’s not something we can put into a machine and read out.’”

That is an easy answer. It is a general answer that we have had on so many things. Most of us feel very strongly that testing should be done on the large number of new chemicals that will be hitting the workplace in advance of their entrance into the workplace.

These are concerns that I am well aware have been articulated with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) on this particular issue and that the labour people are certainly looking to for quick, not slow, action on some of the amendments that will be needed to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that will correct some of the shortcomings in the national legislation. In particular, I cannot overemphasize that the consultation process in setting up the training programs is what is required.

There is one other comment that I want to make about this particular bill because I think it is important. I will not go into it all, because it is a sideline, I guess, but it deals directly with the WHMIS legislation. It is my concern over the wire that we raised in this House that was sent from Washington to American embassies in this country where, in effect, they were complaining about the WHMIS legislation that we were proceeding with in this country.

I know the minister has said here provincially that it is not a concern, because -- I am not sure what his comments were -- it is not going to stop us from proceeding. I am convinced that the federal government could not have backed off at this stage either in this legislation, given the eight or nine years that we have been involved in putting it together. I think it is a clear indication of what is going to happen, particularly in future, when we decide we want to take an initiative that is not necessarily exactly what business welcomes with open arms.

There are, I think, a few paragraphs out of this particular wire that was sent to American embassies in Ottawa, Brussels and Geneva:

“Subject: Implementation of Canadian labelling regulations known as WHMIS.... Call for technical consultations.

“1. Action requested:

“A. Ottawa: Please transmit the following message to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of Labour, the chairman of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and other appropriate government of Canada officials.”

If that is not bad enough, they go on to say:

“B....Please bring contents of this message to the attention of...Garvey and Von Osvath...Del Bino, and note that European countries exporting to Canada will face the same problems as US companies.

“C. London: Transmit to health and safety executive Don Rolt, and note that British companies exporting to Canada will face the same problems as US companies.

“D. Other posts: Deliver a copy of these comments to the appropriate host government or international officials dealing with exports to Canada.

“E. Please report back to...Fuller, USTR, Washington, the date the message was delivered and to whom (name, organization, address and telephone/telex numbers).

1540

“2. The government of the United States presents its compliments to the government of Canada and wishes to call attention to the serious concern it has with certain aspects of the new Canadian workplace hazardous materials information system (WHMIS) which GOC will implement on October 31, 1988. WHMIS, which is in some aspects similar to the US hazard communication standard, establishes a system of hazard communication for chemical products and mixtures manufactured or imported into Canada, based on labelling, material safety data sheets (MSDS) and worker training. Components of these regulations were proposed in September 1987 and published in final form on January 30, 1988. Other major components affecting the filing of claims for the protection of confidential business information, trade secrets and the operations of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission will not be published unt11 July 1988, at the earliest. This will not give US manufacturers and exporters adequate time to understand and comply with these new requirements.”

There are a number of other paragraphs, all of which are very interesting, that I will not cover, but I think probably one or two more would be useful to put on the record.

“3. A Canadian MSDS must be created when the product exhibits one or more of the hazard characteristics and/or contains any of the more than 1,700 specific and nonspecific controlled (listed) products. The specific identity of the chemicals and their concentrations would also have to appear on the MSDS. This presents a special concern with regard to the trade secret provisions of WHMIS, since prior substantiation of trade secrets is required even if no challenge is made to the claim or if no outside request is made for the information.

“The potential here is for the burden of proof to substantiate trade secret claims on hundreds of thousands of products to fall on manufacturers of products being exported to Canada as well as on Canadian manufacturers. These claims would have to be resubstantiated every three years. The internal costs associated with developing the materials necessary to meet the unique criteria established under WHMIS could be prohibitive for many speciality mixtures produced in small volume.

“There is also a proposal to impose a fee structure for the government’s review and processing of the original and any reassertion of each trade secret claim, plus a significant additional fee to appeal an unfavourable decision or defend against any third-party appeal, no matter how frivolous it may be. We understand that figures currently being discussed are in the range of a $1,000 base, plus $100 per additional ingredient or MSDS and $2,000 per appeal. Many industries, such as the flavour and fragrance industries, rely heavily on their abilities to maintain secrecy of formulas. They routinely have several hundred ingredients in a formulation, some of which they may have obtained from outside vendors themselves. The costs of pulling together the necessary documentation and filing a single claim will be significant. Multiply this by the hundreds of thousands of compounds formulated annually, and the cost could be...a...nightmare for the Canadian government.

“H. The WHMIS labelling requirements are very precise and rigid in their detail and contain some unique symbols. All symbols, including those that resemble existing UN or EC agreed symbols are required to be enclosed in a circle. This requirement is unique to WHMIS and would require the relabelling of all containers. The standards (i.e., what is flammable, reactive, carcinogenic, irritating, etc. and what specific test methods are required) for defining hazardous products are not always consistent with current US and EC standards.”

I will leave the next couple of paragraphs. I think this is the last one that is of some importance in this particular wire:

“‘...Loss of international competitiveness and a loss of jobs.’ If US exporters do not meet the new WHMIS requirements this forecast could become reality in Canada. Some US manufacturers have already indicated that they may choose to eliminate exports to Canada rather than risk divulging trade secret information or investing significant funds in substantiating trade secret claims or developing new MSDSs.”

I think this one is key:

“Chapter 6 of the proposed Canadian-United States free trade agreement (FTA) extols each party ‘to the greatest extent possible...[to] make compatible its standards, related measures and procedures....’ The ‘standstill’ provisions of that agreement commit us both to exercise discretion in the period prior to entry into force so as not to jeopardize the approval process or undermine the general spirit and mutual benefits of the FTA. The pending implementation of WHMIS will unfortunately not be consistent with the standstill provision of the spirit of FTA.”

Now, I am not sure that that is factual. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is a problem, because of when it started under the standstill provisions. The point I am making in all of this is that if we had not reached the stage where it is passed, where it is now being put in effect as of yesterday in every province in Canada, that kind of pressure exerted a little earlier might have given us real problems; and it is a clear indication of what we can expect from the US under the terms of the FTA, not only the pressure from the United States but efforts to clearly line up governments and other nations to put the pressure on us so that we do not bring in basic legislation that protects the workers’ right to know what kind of hazardous materials they are working with, something we have been eight years in working on in this particular country.

I raise that wire only to alert all members of this House. If they had not already realized what some of the consequences of the FTA are, I think you get a classic example in that wire, which was shot out just a couple of weeks ago to US embassies all over the world.

Once again, Linda Jolley of the Ontario Federation of Labour tells me that she thinks she has an assurance from the minister about the problem I referred to, and that is the fact that sometimes the computers do not work too well in a dusty or dirty workplace, and hard information sheets are going to have to be available, not just locked into the office of the general foreman, who may work only certain days of the week or certain hours. I believe that commitment has been given. It is necessary in order to give any meaning to this legislation, and I trust that is going to be the procedure the minister will follow and that he can assure us of.

The other thing is the point I made in some detail at the beginning. We are going to have to have additional amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that take care of some of the concerns, particularly just what is involved in worker training and the consultation process, which are not clearly defined now. Even his own ministry people say that that is a bit of a problem at this point in time. I hope we will see that legislation and see it in this House very, very quickly.

With those kinds of understandings, we recognize the long fight for this and the necessity of this kind of labelling information, and we are pleased to support this particular bill.

M. Pope: Monsieur le Président, cela me fait plaisir de faire des commentaires au sujet du projet de loi 180. En tant que membre du caucus du Parti progressiste-conservateur, cela me fait plaisir d’indiquer au ministre du Travail (M. Sorbara) que nous sommes d’accord avec ce projet de loi. Les membres du caucus ont donné leur approbation à ce projet de loi la semaine passée.

On connaît les détails de ce projet de loi à cause du fait que nous, en tant que membres de l’ancien gouvernement progressiste-conservateur ici en Ontario, nous avons participé à des assemblées, à des réunions où tous les gouvernements provinciaux et fédéral ont discuté de ce projet de loi et du principe selon lequel on devrait avoir un tel système dans chaque région du Canada.

J’aimerais noter surtout que ce projet de loi est vraiment une politique nationale, avec la participation de chaque gouvernement provincial et du gouvernement du Canada avec d’autres projets de loi dans chaque province. Ici, c’est un projet de loi national. J’aimerais souligner qu’il est important d’avoir des règlements et des dispositions dans ces projets de loi qui soient semblables dans chaque province du Canada.

Alors, pourquoi le ministre du Travail a-t-il stipulé dans ce projet de loi que seul l’anglais sera la langue de notification? Pourquoi ne pas utiliser les deux langues officielles du Canada, si c’est vraiment un projet de loi national, avec les deux langues officielles du Canada et les mêmes détails que dans le projet de loi du gouvernement du Québec, en français et en anglais, et le même projet de loi dans chaque province canadienne?

J’aimerais avoir la réponse du Ministre au sujet de cette suggestion que nous avons faite en tant que Parti progressiste-conservateur. Je pense que les ministres ont peut-être discuté de ce problème dans les assemblées qu’ils ont eues avant l’introduction de ces projets de loi.

1550

It is a great pleasure to rise and support in principle this bill the minister has introduced. Truly it is the product of a national consensus and a lot of hard work over a number of years. I have to say that provincial governments, organized labour and major employer groups have all had a role in this. Not only that, I think the project is needed for individual workers.

I have a younger brother who works in a resource company in my home town of Timmins and who on a daily basis works with chemical substances. He was concerned about this project when we discussed it yesterday, as are many other individual workers on a nonorganized basis across Ontario who see this as a sign of progress we should all applaud.

I would indicate, in giving our general support to this project of the minister, that we are aware of the general support of major industrial groups in this province. We are aware of the fact that many major employers in this province have already started to implement WHMIS and have been doing so for some months and are committed to making it work. We have verified that over the past week and a half.

We are also aware that organized labour, while suggesting some improvements, as the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has raised today, are generally in a co-operative spirit of trying to make this work or look upon this as a good beginning to needed improvements in the workplace.

We are also aware of some concerns raised by the small business community as to how it can catch up with the major employers who have already begun to implement this program and what the cost of that catch-up and implementation will be to the small business community across Ontario. I think it is something the minister may have alluded to but which I think bears more amplification by the minister when he replies to our comments.

We are also aware of some concern by some Canadian companies about the effects of this legislation across Canada on the issue of patents, intellectual property and trade secrets. We think that matter can best be handled by representatives of those firms with some expertise in the intellectual property field and that they can indeed protect themselves through the normal legal channels. However, we perhaps will be hearing more about that in the coming months as this system is fully implemented.

I am aware of Mr. Yeutter’s telegram or concerns with respect to the trade issue. This is not the first time, both before and after the trade agreement with the United States, that the US government has passed comment on provincial and federal programs and proposed laws. It has happened before with respect to stumpage fees, it has happened before with respect to agricultural legislation and it will happen after the trade agreement is implemented.

Nothing has changed whatsoever. The American government in the past has made comment on these kinds of things and will do so again. The trade agreement has no bearing one way or the other on the ability or the desire of any other government anywhere in this world, from time to time through its embassy, to pass comment or pass on messages of concern to provincial and federal governments. Anyone who has been in provincial government for any period of time knows that to be the case.

I remember when we were putting in a daily fishing fee in the international waterways in northwestern Ontario that the United States embassy in Ottawa contacted us expressing concern over the regulations we were passing. I remember discussion in the United States Senate about it. This was well before any trade agreement. Do not tell me that because there is some trade agreement, magically these concerns are going to stop or magically these concerns are going to start. It is neither here nor there, and what is wrong with our best customer making comment from time to time on matters that do affect --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I call that more than comment.

Mr. Pope: The minister may call it more than comment if he wishes; that is up to him. The fact of the matter is it happened well before the trade agreement and it is going to happen again, with or without the trade agreement.

I am glad the minister is nodding approval that it will happen with or without the trade agreement in the future, which is precisely the point I was making. Since the minister has agreed with me, I can leave that point.

I hope the Ontario government is taking, and quite rightfully taking, the position that we in this province and other provinces and the national government obviously consider their opinions, but we are moving anyway to set a national system of standards, a national system for the workplace that we think is right for our country, for our province, and we intend to continue.

If the effect of putting that program into place is that some US manufacturers decide not to import their product into Canada, so be it. That is their economic decision to make as companies, whether they wish to participate in the Canadian market or not. That is their decision. I do not see how that is affected one way or the other by the trade agreement either.

I look forward to the day when we have North American standards that we find acceptable to all of us, including having some American jurisdictions match our improved standards in this province and in this country.

In fact, I look forward to the day when we have worldwide standards that will benefit every worker in every workplace around the world to provide the kind of protection that we find is necessary; and yes, I thought it was a visionary process when we first began it as a provincial government in the early 1980s.

With respect to the issue of trade secrets and patents and franchise issues, which I know have been raised on the commercial level as being of concern, these things, in spite of the contents of the telex to the embassies, can be protected by paying attention to the legislation or the jurisdictional requirements of Canada, the United States and the European Community, by putting the necessary resources into guaranteeing or protecting your proprietary interest in intellectual property, be it patents or trademarks or whatever, and it is up to participants in the marketplace to engage the necessary professionals to make sure that happens.

I have checked with the various federal departments. They are aware of Mr. Yeutter’s opinion. Nevertheless, they are anxious to proceed with this matter. They are anxious that we expedite passage of this matter through the Ontario Legislature. I have discussed this matter with people in Mr. Crosbie’s office and with the federal Department of Labour office and they are anxious to support the Ontario government in this initiative, to pursue it vigorously, to get it through the Legislature and meet their national commitment that they gave to the working people of this country and to the provincial governments.

Therefore, I am pleased to stand and give, on behalf of the members of my caucus, our support in principle to this legislation, knowing that the minister will answer some of the inquiries we have raised with him.

Mr. Mackenzie: As I said, I do not think the federal government at this stage would have dared back off, but my friend and colleague from Timmins underlines a mistake you make when you do not read the entire wire -- and I presume from his comments he has seen the entire wire -- because the wire also very clearly asks for a hold or a delay of the legislation for at least six months, and also no proceeding without further direct consultation with the United States.

He may call that friendly advice. I call it much closer to a little bit of blackmail.

1600

Mr. Pope: I understand what the member for Hamilton East is saying. I think any government, as I say, has the right to comment and we have the right to consider its comments. The federal government, from my understanding, has considered the comments. I presume that the Minister of Labour has considered the comments and that everyone is proceeding. They are proceeding because we are committed to this as a national program.

The American government has been made aware of our intentions to proceed, and even in the context of a trade agreement between the United States and Canada, we feel it is necessary to proceed and we are proceeding. This consultation and expression of opinion is not unusual before or after the signing of a trade agreement and will continue in the future. Obviously, we consider the opinions of our trading customers important to us, but we also put them in the context of advice.

When there is a national will to proceed with a program, we will proceed with it. I think the federal government has taken the reasonable approach that will be the guideline or the guiding light of how these issues are going to be treated in the future. In other words, occupational health and safety and the concerns for the working people of this country will not be abrogated or subject to any provisions of a free trade agreement. So some of the nonsense the federal Liberals are spreading is obviously nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It behooves me now to wrap up this debate on Bill 180. I have a very few comments to make. I hope my colleagues in the House will bear with me. if members have listened to the tone of this debate and the remarks that have been made by both the member for Hamilton East and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), behind their remarks we understand when we hear them say, “We support this initiative, we’re in favour of this initiative, we look forward to the development of this initiative.”

I think one really captures the dynamic of WHMIS, that above and beyond all the politics that we bring to this place and the politics that must be part of issues relating to the workplace, we have seen in WHMIS that governments, industry and working people, through their representatives, have come together to solve some problems.

We have heard about the telex from Clayton Yeutter. Those who have paid attention to the debate about WHMIS have heard about all the roadblocks. What we are celebrating here today as we pass this bill is a system of giving workers the right to know about what they are dealing with, which is, as the member for Cochrane South perhaps suggests, a model for the entire world.

The co-operation that has existed in this project is something to emphasize once again as we proceed to wind up this debate on second reading, move the bill forward and put in the statute books, because that co-operation can really be a model as we take on other issues that challenge us, not only perhaps in the area of health and safety, but other workplace issues as well.

Just to respond to the comments of the member for Hamilton East, I remember him asking me to forgive him for being a cynic. I can appreciate that as he has watched this process develop, there were times that might have given rise to cynicism, particularly from his perspective, but I am glad that in this particular instance he is not allowing himself to be cynical. I know that his friends and my friends in the trade union movement have worked very hard to ensure we have put in place a system that will be to the advantage of all workplaces in the province and in the country.

He has asked me, and has reiterated it on a couple of occasions, about the issue surrounding the definition, the understanding of the words “consultation” and “implementation of training.” I have said on more than one occasion that I understand that is the problem representatives of workers have with training right now. I can tell him I hope we can resolve that problem as we have resolved all the other problems that have confronted the WHMIS partners. For my part, I can tell him my directions to my own officials will be to take the same approach.

There was an issue he raised relating to the use of computers in the workplace. He suggested that I had made a commitment to Linda Jolley from the Ontario Federation of Labour. I do not recall a particular conversation, but once again we are starting down the WHMIS road. As of yesterday, WHMIS becomes a reality. We are not at the end of the process. We are at the beginning of a process that I think will be characterized throughout the years by co-operation dealing with these very problems that Linda Jolley, who I know has spent so much of her career on health and safety issues in the workplace, raises as WHMIS comes to be implemented.

I listened very carefully to the speech of the member for Cochrane South and the matters he raised in that speech.

Monsieur le Président, je veux simplement dire, au sujet de la langue du Système d’information sur les matières dangereuses utilisées au travail, que toutes les dispositions de la loi fédérale sont bilingues. Les étiquettes sur les matières dangereuses seront en français et en anglais. En Ontario, les fiches techniques santé-sécurité seront disponibles ou en français on en anglais.

C’est un système pour tout le Canada. Au Canada, on parle anglais et français, et je suis sûr que nous pouvons répondre aux francophones, en Ontario et partout au Canada, en français. Je veux assurer le député de Cochrane-Sud (M. Pope) que le développement du SIMDUT est un processus qui respecte très bien et très fortement les dispositions bilingues partout au Canada.

My friend the member for Cochrane South also talked about questions relating to the free trade agreement. I think I did see him acknowledge that perhaps the free trade agreement will not be a reality after November 21. I am glad he is acknowledging that because those who are fighting this agreement in Canada and trying to keep this nation from going down that route seem to be meeting with greater success with each passing day, working towards November 21.

But all of that stuff aside, what we are here to celebrate today is a great accomplishment by working people, a great accomplishment by industrial leaders and a great accomplishment, I should say, by legislators as well. I want to end on the note that we have great accomplishments by legislators. My friend the member for Cochrane South mentioned that this initiative had its origins during, as we call them, the bad old Tory days. That is correct. There was a lot of work done during that period, developing the foundations for WHMIS. I think within my own speeches on WHMIS and the speeches of other legislators, we have perhaps forgotten to acknowledge that on behalf of legislators, people within ministries of labour all over Canada and the federal Department of Labour and other federal departments and other provincial ministries have worked very hard to make this a reality.

I want to end by offering my heartfelt gratitude and by expressing my deep gratitude to people within the Ontario Ministry of Labour who really are the ones who have worked so hard to make WHMIS a reality. Those of us who are legislators, those of us who are politicians, often take far too much credit for accomplishments of governments. These are great accomplishments, but they have been accomplished because so many people have worked so hard to make this day a reality.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

1610

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Mr. Pope: I began my speech the other day by adjourning the debate, so I would like to begin --

Mr. Dietsch: That was the best part. Don’t start again.

Mr. Pope: One of my better efforts; I know.

There are a number of issues I would like to discuss, as the newly appointed Labour critic for our party, with respect to Bill 162. I do not claim to have the experience of working for the Workers’ Compensation Board, but I do claim to have experience, over eleven and a half years, with constituents, many of whom have had problems with the workers’ compensation system.

In fact, I have over 4,000 workers’ compensation files in my constituency offices that I have worked on from time to time; on many, two and three times over the course of years. From the point of view of working with claimants, men and women who have problems obtaining compensation that is due to them, and from the point of view of my experience of how the workers’ compensation system has worked and is now working in the field, I think perhaps I can add something to this debate.

First, with respect to our party, for which I am proud to be the Labour critic, we are anxious to have a full and detailed response from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) with respect to the questions and issues raised by previous speakers on this bill. The position of our party with respect even to support of this bill in principle will depend on the response of the minister to those issues and those questions.

I can say to the minister that so far we are not satisfied with his answers. We do not think enough detail has been provided to the members of this Legislature. We do not think enough assurances have been given to working men and women in this province with respect to how the new system that is contemplated by Bill 162 will affect them as claimants or as potential claimants in the future. We think the working men and women of this province have the right to have things answered now and not have to rely on general assurances or general clauses in legislation.

Because we all know so much of the detail of the problems people have when they are injured in the workplace and when they have diseases or sicknesses arising out of the workplace, and the problems working people have with the system in getting answers, we think the minister owes it to them and to all the people of this province to give full, detailed and complete responses to the kinds of things members of the opposition, and I trust members of the Liberal Party will be raising during debate on second reading. We look forward to hearing them, and we expect them to be forthcoming, from the Minister of Labour before we vote on second reading.

We agree with the request that has been made by the members of the New Democratic Party for full public hearings on this legislation. That has been the tradition when amendments have been made to workers’ compensation legislation in this House. There have been full hearings and study, with everyone being given a full and complete opportunity not only to talk directly to the minister and the members of this Legislature but also to address the points of view given by others who have expressed opinions on this legislation.

Specifically with respect to the consultation process that the minister has engaged in to date, we are not yet convinced by the minister’s words or actions that the consultation has been as full and complete as we were first led to believe. We would like the minister, prior to a vote on second reading, to give us full and complete details of what consultations took place, what meetings took place and what written communications took place with representatives of groups or organizations for injured workers, with individual organized labour organizations and unorganized labour groupings, with respect to employers small and large and their various organizations; what meetings were held, on what dates, who was present, what was the agenda for the meetings; and please produce the minutes from those meetings so we can review in detail exactly what consultations took place with regard to what aspects of Bill 162.

We think that is necessary and appropriate for the minister, in proposing these kinds of major changes, to produce for the members of the Legislature. We are told by some representatives acting on behalf of the injured workers of this province that there were not meaningful consultations with respect to certain key issues, that there was no opportunity to address what ultimately became the contents of this bill, that there was no opportunity to address the points of view being raised by other organizations who were making submissions. We are told by representatives for injured workers that there was unequal access and involvement in the discussion of the principles of this bill and how this bill would affect or impact the compensation system in this province. We ask the minister to please provide, before second reading is completed, the details of these consultations.

Quand j’ai discute de ce projet de loi vendredi dernier, à Mattice et à Hearst, avec les membres des familles Fillion, Germaine LaRouge et tous les autres travailleurs de Hearst, de Timmins et de la circonscription de Cochrane-Sud, ils ont indiqué plusieurs fois les problèmes avec l’administration du système de compensation des travailleurs de la province de l’Ontario.

Ils ont indiqué que les problèmes sont pires maintenant qu’avant: il y a plus de délais pour obtenir des réponses, par écrit et par téléphone. Il y a eu un manque d’informations, d’ordinateurs et de systèmes d’ordinateurs à la Commission des accidents du travail, ici en Ontario. Nous avons des dossiers dans les bureaux régionaux de Sudbury, des dossiers à Toronto et des dossiers qui n’existent dans aucun des bureaux de la Commission des accidents du travail. Nous avons des bureaux régionaux qui sont vraiment la source de confusion et la source de problèmes pour les travailleurs. Nous avons des bureaux régionaux qui sont plus difficiles d’accès que le bureau de Toronto.

Nous avons des problèmes d’ordre administratif, et il en reste encore, avec l’hôpital de réhabilitation à Downsview, des problèmes qui n’ont été résolus ni par le gouvernement ni par le Tribunal d’appel des accidents du travail. Nous manquons de programmes de réhabilitation dans quelques régions de l’Ontario, et certainement on manque de programmes de réhabilitation pour les travailleurs à Downsview.

Nous avons un conflit de notes de service et de papiers entre les bureaucraties du Tribunal d’appel et de la Commission des accidents du travail, un conflit qui s’est accentué au cours des deux dernières années. Nous avons maintenant des délais dans le processus d’obtenir de la compensation, avec les officiers ainsi qu’avec le Tribunal d’appel. Tous ces problèmes, les travailleurs de l’Ontario l’ont bien indiqué, existent et continuent toujours pour eux; il n’y a aucune résolution du tout, et vraiment, il y a beaucoup de travailleurs en Ontario qui pensent qu’on a plus besoin d’une amélioration de l’administration que d’un nouveau projet de loi.

1620

All of these issues for injured workers in this province are the real concerns being expressed on a weekly basis to me as a member of provincial parliament, and to every single member of this Legislature from all political parties: trying to find the file that is in transit between Toronto and Sudbury; trying to get Sudbury on the phone; six-month delays in getting answers; confusion and bureaucracy; confrontation between the Workers’ Compensation Board and the appeals tribunal; the continuing inadequacies of Downsview; the lack of a meaningful regional rehabilitation strategy that exists still for the people of different regions of the province; a computer system that no longer even tells local employees where the file is located, let alone what decision has been made on it; delays from even local staff of the Workers’ Compensation Board itself in getting answers with respect to rehabilitation programs, assessments and payments of compensation cheques to people who months ago have received a positive decision from the board.

These things have been enunciated time and time again by members of this Legislature. The minister has been written to about them time and time again and the problems continue unabated.

The minister has received mail on this. Here is a letter, September 29, 1988, from a Toronto law firm. It talks about a hearing on a matter being held on July 27, 1987. It was an appeal from a decision of the board to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. The panel hearing the decision reserved its decision and requested the medical liaison officer of the tribunal to obtain and submit a medical report to the tribunal to assist the panel in reaching a decision.

The medical report was obtained on January 5, 1988. A further report was sent on January 18, 1988. Then there was some discussion of the findings on March 4, 1988, and no decision and no communication from the appeals tribunal since that date, despite repeated calls to the tribunal. We are talking about a lady who needs that compensation pension to survive and who has not had an answer from a hearing that was held 15 months ago, when medical information was provided 10 months ago. In the meantime, this lady gets no pension, no satisfaction from this system, no help.

The minister and Dr. Elgie, chairman of the board, have received letters from employers’ representatives and workers’ representatives about the inefficiency, about the cancellation of appointments two and three times, including cancellation of appointments for permanent disability ratings, and rating interviews that are cancelled while the people are waiting in the outer offices of the board for the actual interview to take place.

There are delays of five and six months with respect to hearing officers’ decisions, and then there are the integrated service units, on their own, reviewing hearing officers’ decisions, delaying the issuance of hearing officers’ decisions and trying to overrule hearing officers’ decisions when they were not present and when it is the hearing officers who, under law, are to interpret the policies of the board.

After the hearing has been held, after the hearing officer has made a decision, the decision is not given to the claimant. That claimant has to wait while the internal bureaucracy of the Workers’ Compensation Board fights it out.

That is why more and more people in this province think that, more than an amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act, we need changes in the administration of the program and a real political commitment to roll up the sleeves of the minister and get him right in there into the nuts and bolts of the operation of the Workers’ Compensation Board to make it work better.

I have had the same complaints from employer groups that cannot get answers about reassessments, cannot get explanations about work histories or accident histories that are leading to reassessments and cannot get answers on specific claimants. They get no co-operation at all when they try to have a review of their assessment rating or the experience rating or the classification they are put into.

One lady, in fact, wrote to the minister and indicated that her compensation payable for a live-in babysitter was 735 per cent more than the compensation assessment rating for workers who worked in a nursery school and in day care centres. There was no answer at all to this very tough economic problem some employers are facing with respect to assessment ratings and with respect to work histories.

It is not all one-sided. It is on both sides and the minister knows it. He is deluged by letters. I am not trying to indicate that it lies on the shoulders of this minister, that all of these problems magically appeared in the last six months. Some of the problems are endemic in the system. They go back for years. They have to be addressed.

The frustration out there is growing. The delays are growing. They are greater now, I can tell the minister. I represent injured claimants in Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal hearings and in hearing officer hearings. They are greater. They are growing greater every month. It is getting impossible to get anyone to come up to Timmins to have a hearing. We have been waiting for more than a year for appeals tribunal hearings and hearing officer hearings with respect to lung cancer claims and there is still no indication of any potential future hearing date.

The system is sinking in bureaucracy, in memos, in internal confrontation and controversies, in people studying one another over there. In the meantime, injured workers and employers are watching it all and seeing their assessments go through the roof, and seeing the economic consequences on working people and employers not being addressed by this government.

During the course of this debate, we in this party and I suspect the New Democratic Party would like the minister of the day to address in detail these kinds of issues and indicate clearly the principles and thoughts he has, not only about this amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act but how he is going to make it work better for all participants in the Workers’ Compensation Board.

We know from the amount of mail he is getting that he must have addressed this, that he must have contemplated these issues as minister, and that he must have contemplated his personal involvement in resolving these issues, not leaving it only to the chairman of the board, not leaving it only to the chairman of the appeals tribunal, not leaving it to a department of his ministry, but addressing it directly and personally as the minister who must be responsible for this system in the Legislature of Ontario and ultimately, as Minister of Labour, to the people of the province.

There is no doubt that in the consultations the minister had with representatives and injured workers and representatives of employer groups and small business, the minister has been told by all of the growing concern over the unfunded liability issue with the Workers’ Compensation Board.

1630

According to the minister’s own 1987 annual report, the Ontario Workers’ Compensation Board unfunded liability has increased from the mount of $518,018,000 in 1975 through to a $5,380,802,000 in 1985 --

Mr. Fleet: You mean we inherited the problem.

Mr. Pope: -- growing to $6,690,658,000 in 1987, and estimated by the minister -- listen to this Lord Fleet of Swansea -- estimated by 1989 to go to from between $9 billion and $10 billion.

An average rate of assessment, which in 1975 was $1.65 per $100 of assessable payroll, going up at an average rate of 10 per cent per year, is now $2.88 for every $100 of assessable payroll.

I think the minister should be addressing these issues that have been raised with him. If he wants to give the assurance to the people of this province, to the employers and workers of this province and to this Legislature that the unfunded liability next year will not be $9 billion to $10 billion, I presume he will rise in reply and read into the record the number he has been given by his staff as the prediction for the unfunded liability.

Which reminds me, I would ask the minister prior to the vote on second reading for this bill to table with this House all of the economic impact studies which I know he has at his disposal, which were considered by him when he was preparing this legislation, and brought it before cabinet and introduced it in this House. I say that because from my own experience every legislative initiative brought through cabinet for introduction contains an economic impact study. Therefore, it must exist for the minister to have proceeded to introduction of this bill.

I think we are entitled to see that, because I am told that the minister has given the assurance to certain employer groups that the pension provisions of this legislation are neutral. They are neutral in terms of their economic impact on contributors, and I presume in terms of their economic impact for injured workers. I would like to see the economic impact studies vis-à-vis the employers of this province and the economic impact studies vis-à-vis the injured workers of this province. Let us see the detail and variations of estimates that have been given to the minister, which he considered when he introduced this legislation.

For the minister to say that it is economically neutral to employer groups, I presume that he would have some background or some basis for saying it. So far I understand he has not shared it with anyone.

Injured worker representatives are expressing some concern about whether or not there will be a reduction in pension benefits as a result of the amendments proposed by the Minister of Labour.

I am saying that the economic impact is an issue out there. There is some unease about the economic impact of this legislation from both sides. The minister owes it to everyone involved, including the members of this Legislature, to give more than vague assurances. I think we have the right to examine the economic projections or predictions that his experts have given him, on the basis of which he introduces this legislation.

As I said when the minister was not here, we would like the minister to address these issues with respect to administration, with respect to the financial impacts of this bill, with respect to the administration of the compensation system under this bill. Even without this bill, we would like his assurances that he is going to get involved in this and clean it up, make it more efficient and ensure that injured workers get proper benefit coverage. We would like to have his assurance, and some detail to his assurance, that it is neutral in terms of economic implications on the employers of this province.

With respect to the pension issues, we are aware of the concerns with respect to Bill 162 that have been brought to the minister’s attention by representatives of the Employers’ Council on Workers’ Compensation. We are also aware of the concerns that have been addressed to this minister in a document entitled Bill 162: A Major Attack on Rights, Benefits and Services for Injured Workers.

We are aware of the concerns that have been expressed by both groups to the minister about the economics of his dual award system, of his pension reform, as he puts it. We are aware of the concerns of some employers about the problems for small businesses in adapting to these changes, whether or not reinstatement is a feasible option for them.

We are aware of the concerns of the injured workers whether or not we have a meat chart reborn under a different name called “noneconomic loss benefit.” We are aware of the concerns of both employers and injured workers over the lack of sufficient definition in section 45 for noneconomic loss benefits. We are aware of the concern of younger workers and older workers over the calculation formula contained in the minister’s proposal.

We are concerned over the fact that the Workers’ Compensation Board will determine the degree of permanent impairment, over the rights of an injured worker to apply for reassessment of the degree of impairment, over who ultimately will make that decision and on what basis, over the fact that noneconomic loss may be payable by lump sum and what that means with respect to future assessments of a noneconomic loss.

We are aware of the concerns, under loss of future earnings benefit, over the fundamental concern of injured workers or claimants under the workers’ compensation system as to whether or not they are giving up the basic security of a permanent disability pension for something that may be reassessed every two and three years, at the discretion of the board, throwing them into a constant round of reassessments, delays, cancelled benefits and appeals.

We are aware of the problems employers have with the uncertainty that system can create in terms of the availability of injured workers for re-employment and rehabilitation. We are very concerned, and I am most concerned I must say to the minister, with respect to his rehabilitation programs. I do not think it is right or appropriate that the only requirement of the board is to have an assessment done in 45 days.

I have dealt with the rehabilitation branch of the Workers’ Compensation Board over 11 years. I know what an assessment report is. I know the process. I have seen the results. An assessment does not rehabilitation make. What is required in this legislation if there is a real commitment to rehabilitation, which I hear employers’ representatives and injured workers groups express support for, what is really required is a statutory provision for a rehabilitation program, to be implemented fairly on a regionally equitable basis, considering all the limitations the board has refused to consider in the past in terms of re-employing an injured worker back in the workforce.

I am talking about assessments that say that someone is not capable of rehabilitation because he lives in a single-industry town, how someone is not able to participate in the rehabilitation program because he is a unilingual francophone or because he is too old or because his doctor says that he cannot sit down for eight hours at a college class. I am aware of these so-called limits that have denied injured workers in this province the right to be trained, to be upgraded and to be employed to become properly functioning members of our society, running their own livelihood for themselves and their families with some sort of economic security.

1640

I am aware of how the system has worked. I do not see anything in this legislation that is going to change that. I think there has to be a statutory requirement for a rehabilitation program that is equally available in every region of this province to every Ontarian, irrespective of linguistic background, irrespective of whether they come from a one-industry community or a major metropolitan centre.

I do not think it is good enough to tell people from Ramore that the rehabilitation program means they have to leave their families and work in a canoe factory in Wawa. I do not think it is appropriate to tell a miner, who even the board medical experts say has a lung condition indicative of silica exposure but he is not disabled enough not to work, that he will not have a rehabilitation program in place for a year and a half because the board has not sorted out its internal problems, and it does not know whether or not it can upgrade him in a community college and get him employed in the office of the same mine that he worked for, even though the mining company wants him to.

I could go on, as could other members from all sides of this House, about how time and time again the rehabilitation program has fallen down, how services and sympathetic counselling are not available equally in the various regions of this province, how there is only one rehabilitation counsellor who can speak in the French language, how people do not get the same quality of upgrading because they come from a rural community and how people are not given transportation assistance and support to take basic upgrading courses in community colleges or through Employment and Immigration Canada. Case after case must be coming across this minister’s desk on that. They must be.

Now, at a time when we are amending the Workers’ Compensation Act and the workers’ compensation system, there appears to be a strong consensus about the obligation of a pre-accident employer to re-employ and a strong consensus about our obligations as a society and as employers and as fellow workers to involve injured workers, not just in assessments, not just in a paper chase, but in meaningful upgrading and rehabilitation programs which will result in full-time employment at a fair salary, at a pre-accident salary, for injured workers in this province. At a time when that consensus appears to exist, I do not see it reflected in legislation. I think it is time it was reflected in legislation.

If the minister wants to add a rider that it is 45 days after an assessment is taken or a permanent disability rating has taken place, or 45 days after the accident has taken place or 45 days after the injured worker has been discharged from hospital -- those two, 45 days after an accident and 45 days after hospital discharge -- if that is the criteria he wants to use, provided it is not Downsview rehabilitation centre, so be it. But make it the criteria for the implementation of a rehabilitation program, including the upgrading of community college courses, apprenticeship courses, re-employment and on-the-job training if necessary; a definitive, well-planned, current rehabilitation program that will immediately go into effect to start to rehabilitate the injured worker, getting her or him back into the workplace and earning a just and full salary that will allow her or him to become a contributing member of society.

Again, I have to say to the minister that I have seen too much of the opposite and too many agencies circling around each other or referring these people, not for resolution of the issue within the workers’ compensation system, not for addressing directly the issue to the federal government, not for contacting directly the Minister of Labour; too many agencies in all communities of this province, including the local offices of the Workers’ Compensation Board, that say: “We cannot get anything out of the system. Go and see your member of provincial parliament.”

After 12 years, 4,000 files and at least 10,000 contacts in my own riding, it is time for the minister to stand up and make some statutory changes that will bring true reform to the rehabilitation programs that are not working.

I am aware of the morale problems of the staff; I am not going to get into those. It is up to the minister to exert leadership, resolve some of these turf wars and disputes, lay down clear guidelines as to how the different branches of the Workers’ Compensation Board are going to interact with one another. If he has day-to-day problems, Dr. Elgie and the minister have to sort them out -- that is just the way it is when you are a minister of the crown -- and get on with a true explanation of this bill, a true reform of the system, if he thinks it is necessary, by legislation, but more important, a true change in the administration of the system so that it will serve the people we all want to serve.

I know the minister wants to serve the injured workers of this province. He wants the system to work. The member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) wants the system to work. He has spoken on it often. All members of all parties want to make it work.

It has been frustrating over a number of years for all members of all parties. I am not denying that and I do not claim to have any magical answer. All I know is we have this amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act. It is an opportunity for us as legislators once again to hear the people who are concerned about how this system is now operating and to try our level best to make the changes in law and in practice, to try our best to satisfy and resolve these problems.

It is in that spirit that I approach the legislation. As I said when the minister was out, our position with respect to second reading of the bill depends on the efforts of the minister, in good faith, to try to address the issues that have been raised, to table the documents we would like to see in reviewing the principles of this legislation.

We are prepared to face this with an open mind. We understand the genuine concern of the minister to improve the system. We want to make sure that we are actually improving the system with this series of amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act. We hope the minister takes our remarks in this context and provides us with the answers. We look forward to a further debate on second and third reading of this bill.

Miss Martel: I want to commend the member for Cochrane South on his remarks, particularly his remarks as a member of this Legislature for 11 years who has had to deal with compensation on a daily basis. I certainly hope other members in this Legislature who are newer to this place will take some of what he said into mind when they consider this bill.

I do want to make a comment on the important point he made concerning rehabilitation, if I can go back to it, and say to the minister as well that he has had a golden opportunity here, in the light of the recommendations that came from Majesky and Minna to make some major changes in rehabilitation as it is presented at the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Members will recall that the task force was made up of both employee and employer representatives, not just the workers’ side of it. That group, representing both employers and employees, made major recommendations on how this system had to be changed in order to make rehabilitation meaningful and correct at the Workers’ Compensation Board.

1650

We do not see anywhere in the bill the type of commitment that Majesky-Minna said the board, and indeed the Legislature of this province, had to make if we were going to make rehabilitation meaningful and not just a poor second cousin of the Workers’ Compensation Board system.

I go back to the problem that rehabilitation is not guaranteed as a statutory right anywhere in this bill. That has been the major cause of the biggest problems and concerns at the Workers’ Compensation Board for years now.

Certainly, when the minister had every opportunity, when he was going to be backed by employer and employee groups in this province on that basis, that should have been in this bill. There should be a statutory right for every worker who has suffered a serious injury and who is 30 days off the job to have total and full rehabilitation, and I certainly hope when the minister is looking at this section again he will give every consideration to that request.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just a brief comment on the comments of the member for Cochrane South. I am glad to hear that he and his party will be giving due consideration to the support of the bill. As he and his caucus colleagues undertake a further and closer examination of the legislation, I think they will see that the legislation is designed and will, when implemented, achieve the overriding objective of any fair, equitable system of worker compensation; and that is, to the greatest extent humanly possible, by such a social system to put the injured worker in the place that worker would have been in had the accident not happened.

All of our initiatives, and indeed the restructuring initiatives that are currently being contemplated by the board on vocational rehabilitation and the statutory provisions that are there in the bill are designed for that objective. Our statutory obligation on employers to re-employ are for that purpose. Our determination to raise the ceiling to a fair level so that all of the earnings of workers can be protected is for that objective and the new dual award system is also for that objective.

He does raise questions of administration, and I can tell him that although obviously I am not tackling real, substantial issues of administration in this bill, I have made a commitment and we are in the process of developing the questions that we need to be asking and a green paper will be presented by my ministry next year, in due course, to answer some of those questions as well.

But I tell him that we must get on with this reform so that we can make this process better and better for workers in this province.

M. Pope: Je sais que le docteur Elgie, le président de la Commission des accidents du travail de l’Ontario, a mis sur pied des programmes de réhabilitation qui datent du 12 septembre de cette année. Cela inclut des cliniques dans des communautés partout en Ontario. Cela n’existe pas encore dans quelques régions du Nord pour les travailleurs du Nord de l’Ontario. Il reste des problèmes de transport et le besoin des travailleurs du Nord de l’Ontario de se rendre à Downsview pour leur réhabilitation ainsi que pour des examens médicaux.

Ce n’est vraiment pas nécessaire, ce n’est pas juste et cela coûte cher. Nous avons des facilités de réhabilitation dans notre hôpital à Timmins et dans tous les hôpitaux de chaque communauté du Nord de l’Ontario. Il existe maintenant, dans ces communautés, des facilités de réhabilitation, mais il n’existe pas de système de réhabilitation dans le monde du travail pour donner des emplois aux gens qui ont été blessés au travail. Cela, c’est nécessaire; ça, c’est la priorité à laquelle nous avons demandé au Ministre de s’adresser dans ce projet de loi: une garantie dans la loi non seulement d’un système de réhabilitation mais d’un système qui permettrait aux travailleurs de retourner au travail. C’est ça le plus important.

Mr. Haggerty: I rise today to speak on Bill 162, as I have in the past number of years in the Legislature, concerning workers’ compensation and the amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act.

I want to thank the minister, first, for bringing in amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. If I can recall, back in 1970 on the revisions of the Mining Act, I had presented a motion to committee at that particular time to establish a workers’ occupational health team, you might say, appointing the same number of persons from the industry and from employees so they would be able to sit down and discuss some of the areas of occupational health and injuries in the mining sector.

That resolution was carried to a certain degree and then it was opposed at the stage of third reading in the Legislature. But that was the beginning of my introduction to a new occupational health act for Ontario to cover persons who are working in a hazardous area in mines or any workplace in Ontario. Even at that time, I said that all hazardous chemicals should be catalogued so that even municipalities would be aware of the serious problems in case of an event. It also would provide some protection to, say, the firemen who had responded to an event at any time but also give protection to the worker in the workplace.

In 1976, I introduced a motion in committee dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the Ministry of Labour, and that motion was passed. It dealt with establishing a comprehensive study relating to the Workmen’s Compensation Board to deal with Canada pension plan benefits, with accident insurance, with criminal compensation and, taking all into consideration, even with liability insurance, particularly in-home liability insurance which covers a person if he is injured; even when you have a passenger in the car, they are insured and compensation is provided.

That resolution was accepted in committee. It was to reduce the cost of overlapping; in other words, a person would not be paying into about seven or eight different schemes and then, when he is down and out through injury, have to fight the whole system.

That was carried by the minister at that time, Bette Stephenson, and then she appointed two groups in this particular area to give this study. One that came out was the Wyatt Co. report, dealing with the financial difficulties facing the board and the financial administration of the board. The other was the Weiler report, and today Bill 162 follows many of the recommendations of the Weiler report, particularly the white paper of 1980, which was discussed in some detail by certain committee members dealing with it in standing committee. At times, I had the opportunity to fill in for other members who could not be there, so I do perhaps have some understanding of the intent of it.

This is what Weiler said: “Funding for the functions and the operational costs to carry out the intent of the Workers’ Compensation Act....” It goes on to say, “The structure of benefits in the act should compensate for actual income loss as closely as is reasonably possible, in recognition of the fact that the statute denies workers the right to sue their employers for damages from occupational injuries.”

I do not think we should lose sight of that fact, that the injured worker has not the right to sue the employer. You can have negligence within industries on the part of management that has neglected the responsibility, and there are many serious injuries that follow because of the negligence on the part of industry. In fact, some of the occupational health committees have suggested that changes be made in certain industries to reduce the number of accidents.

1700

I was interested, not too long ago, in a matter where they have these jogging switches in industries. Usually you will find them in some of the larger industries. When you are using a jogging switch, if I can put it that way, it is a touch-and-go switch so that you can start a mill up, for example, and stop it as quickly as you can start it.

It is okay if it works that way, but someplace along the line workers and persons responsible in the industry, the supervisors, will get their signals crossed. Sometimes it has happened where you have had the whole mill start up when it should not start up and, whether employees in a hazardous area are trapped in a machine or something of that nature, it can become a very serious problem.

There was an incident in Welland, a serious accident. After the event had occurred, it was not too long before safety inspectors came in from the ministry and changes were made in the operations of these switches. You have to lock out the main switch, so that you can jog it only at a certain time. I suppose it worked out very well, because there had been a number of injuries in this particular industry.

I called a friend of mine who is with the Ministry of Labour. He is in London right now and he is a good friend of mine. We both worked in industry a few years ago. He was president of the union and I was chief steward. I was asking him if he has had any problems with it. He said: “Yes, we’ve got one that happened near London, in a quarry operation.” He said the same thing, using a jogging switch. What happened here is that the signals got crossed up too. As the employee went in to change the plates in the crusher, someone had pushed the main switch just as he stuck his head in. It was like a guillotine.

These things still happen today in Ontario, even with safety committees, because perhaps the inspection is not out there, there are not enough of them around. I do not know. But anyway, I bring that to the members’ attention, that I had some major concerns about it. But I want the members of the House here to look at what Weiler had said. He said they lose the right to sue their employers, even in negligence cases.

Sometimes, as in this particular case, no doubt about it, charges are laid by the ministry. There will be a fine of $2,000 or $3,000, whatever it may be, but it does not help the family that has lost a breadwinner or the person who has received a severe injury. Really, when I look at the $65,000 there and the numbers that come up and, “This is what we’ll pay in case you have further difficulties over a period of a year,” if you had a right to sue, you would probably go to the civil courts and win an award where $100,000 is given for pain alone.

This happens in almost every liability case that is taken to the courts. I suggest that when you look at the $65,000, is it really high enough for the period and the cause of grief, for the person who may have to give up certain community activities and even part of his family lifestyle? When you look at it, $65,000 is not much when you lose the right to sue. That is the point.

The second point is that Weiler said, “Because compensation is at best a poor substitute for the prevention and only a temporary and partial alternative to being re-employed, the board efforts in this area of accident prevention and rehabilitation should be expanded.” I am glad that in this bill it is being expanded, but the question is, who interprets the act? The act may spell it out here, but when it gets down to the Workers’ Compensation Board it is a different story, because you probably have 500 or 600 persons down there, all with different interpretation of the act. I think a previous member who was speaking indicated that the minister should outline these in detail to the House, to get a clear understanding.

Back in 1968 or 1967 when I came into the House, I was representing my first case in workmen’s compensation -- a matter where a volunteer fireman had lost his life; he was just going to a practice -- and it was turned down, so I went back into the statutes and the act and the intent of what the minister had said at that time. The minister was Charles Daley, and he said as long as the volunteer fireman was commanded to attend a certain event in regards to fire practice or to a fire, he should be covered. When I went back with that, the case was won, because the volunteer fireman was ordered to be at a certain firehall by radio communications -- good thing they had it at that time -- and he was covered then.

In 1968, working for a problem of occupational health -- and we can talk about silicosis, asbestos and cancer, a carcinogenic material used in the workplace -- I was one of those responsible for bringing in the first claim for sinus cancer in Ontario. It was a tough task, but I got some good expert help from the medical profession on it, which helped me quite a bit.

We talk about injuries that we see today. I think of a young policeman in Niagara region. His claim number is 13229845. I will not give the name, but he passed away in just the last two or three months.

I will tell you, it was not that major an accident. He was directing traffic and somebody with a small car ran over his foot and it was a little bit sore, so he went to the St. Catharines hospital and had X-rays taken. The doctor said there was nothing there. He said, “A big guy your size should have no problem with it at all.” He had a tear in his trousers and there was a slight contusion there, just a fracture of the skin. The doctor said there was no problem there.

Six months after that, the policeman could not work. He did not have the strength to do anything. He was short of breath and experts in this area -- we have the good Shaver Hospital for Chest Diseases in St. Catharines, one of the best known in respiratory diseases -- said it was chronic bronchitis. That was the diagnosis .

He felt a little bit better, they had given him some medication, and he went back to work. He could not handle the motorcycle any more, but they tried to get him something behind the desk. He could not even do that. His health just started to go down. Finally, the family had a Christmas party and he was there at home and he did not feel too well, so he went to the bathroom and passed out and hit his head on the sink or something. Anyway, he was rushed to the hospital.

Good thing his family physician was there. He looked at the colour of the person and he said, “This is no place for him here. Take him right out to Hamilton,” the McMaster Medical Centre there.

There was a good doctor there, Dr. Turpie, one of the best haematologists, one of the best in blood diseases. Examining, he knew right off the bat what the cause of his health problems was. Through nuclear medical science, they found out what the difficulty was. He went back to him and asked him, “Did you ever have any other injury to your leg?” He was under heavy medication and he said he could not give him the answer, so he talked to his wife . She said “Yes, remember your trousers were torn and you had the black and blue spot on the calf of your leg?” He went back and told the doctor and he said, “That’s where your problem is.”

That caused a blood clot and it wedged right between the lung and the main artery. If you looked at the medical reports, you would see that he was a living time bomb -- a matter of time. The case was established then, when he had good medical reports, but what a struggle, what a harassment and what difficulty it was to get through to the board on it. At least his wife has a pension now, whatever it may be, and the two children are protected under workers’ compensation.

The point I am trying to drive home is that no matter how small that injury is, it should not be neglected by the board or by the plant doctors or any of them, because you never can tell what it will lead to.

1710

I could go on and on, but we are dealing with this particular section of the bill. We talk about the loss of wage versus disability percentage. If you look at it, that white paper -- this is from the Weiler report -- goes on to tell you about full-time employees and the disability. It gives the average all the way through. As a person gets older, advances from 10 years to 20 years, the rate goes up. The wage loss can run anywhere from 13.7 per cent to as high as 40. 8 per cent.

Then it comes to the part-time employee. At 10 years, the average wage loss is 62.8 per cent. That is the first one and then it goes down. The average breaks out to as high as 81.7 per cent wage loss for part-time workers.

This means that persons who do go back into the workforce are paid much less than they would have been before, even receiving compensation benefits, this supplement. They are paid far less going back.

That comes to the point here. When we look at the new recommendations in the act for lost-work time and vocational rehabilitation, I have two or three persons who just recently -- this is carrying out the new Workers’ Compensation Board policy established in 1987. If members want to take a good close look at it, they should take a look at it, because it is the same thing that is in this bill now.

Claim 15197698H is a young fellow, 23 years of age, who worked in industry. He had three days to go and he would have been on permanent employment. He had the first temporary employment days there. He just had about three days to go. He was involved in an injury in a plant, a compound fracture of his leg.

He was treated, got the leg set, and the board members from the rehabilitation centre came in and said he was ready to go back to work. One thing happened. He was at home and he slipped and fell. The leg had to be set again. They set it again. He was trying to get compensation to cover it. They said: “No, it happened at home. What was the cause of it?”

He came in the office and he was talking to me. He said the leg was set, after the first accident -- or the second accident because he had it set again in between -- 35 degrees off what it should be. There were steel plates in it.

I said to him: “You’d better get back to your family physician. Is he aware of this?” When he went back to his family physician, he raised hot air over it. He got a good letter from him and went back to the board. He ended up having to go back in. They sent him to a specialist in Hamilton first, and he recommended the changes that had to be done back to the local surgeon who had performed the leg setting before, putting the plates in there to stabilize it, and changes were made.

If a person goes up for medical assessment and gets to the stage where he is in an appeals system, the new suggestion here is that he can:

“(9) Upon receiving a request for reconsideration under subsection (8), the board shall provide the worker and the employer with a list of at least three medical practitioners, selected from a roster established under subsection (16), from among whom the worker and the employer, by agreement and within 30 days after receiving the list, may select a person who shall conduct a medical assessment.”

I have difficulty in following that. If you take in Canada pension and it is included in the worker’s compensation, they have three medical advisers to make a decision whether they consider a person totally disabled or disabled to some degree. To take one doctor and say we are going to let him be the final judge of it, I do not think is the right step to go. I would like to see at least three doctors there, because you are going to get different opinions from each one. But then again, in the long run, you are going to get a compromise that is probably going to be more acceptable to either of the parties involved.

It is rather difficult. I suggest the members take a good look at that. I do not think one is enough. From what I have seen over my years of dealing with worker’s compensation claims, and I have been doing it for a number of years, I really have some difficulties.

Getting back to the rehabilitation of these two, I have written a letter to the minister. In the reply I got back, he said, “Your letter also raised the issue that it is a common practice to terminate wage-loss supplements after a specific time period without having consideration to the worker’s individual circumstances.” This is true. I think any member will stand up and say, “I can agree with that,” because that is what I put in my letter to the chairman.

He said, “I wish to advise you that in claims where wage-loss supplementary benefits are paid in accordance with the new section 45(5) policy” -- that is a policy, not the act; they can interpret it the way they want -- “which became effective November 9, 1987, each worker is written to advise them of the new policy.” Normally, when the board sent it this way, they had their supplements cut, and the duration of benefits.

“In addition, it is suggested that the contact be made with the vocational rehabilitation counsellor for assistance.” This young man, 22 years of age, picked up a job. He could not go back to the original plant, because they would not take him back. He did not have seniority, but I doubt even then that they would take him back, and he is out doing some job searching.

The minute he goes for a medical examination and they take a look at his knee, and perhaps further surgery -- he is wearing a knee brace now to assist him in working. He is a plumber’s helper and he has been doing it for about 14 or 16 months, climbing a ladder, bending and getting into tight crawl spaces. But even then I suggested to him that he has 16 months in employment there. He should have that applied against the apprenticeship program with the workers’ compensation, so that the experience he gathers there can be helpful for future employment.

If he got his licence in plumbing, he could perhaps go out and work to his own rules of working. But he tells me, “I have difficulties with my leg right now and the pain,” in that he is putting up with pain. So he takes a wage cut from about $14 an hour -- $13.86 or something -- down to $7 an hour. That is what they are paying him now and under the new policy they have cut him right off.

Do members know what they tell him? “You should be out searching for another job or upgrading your education.” They suggested to him, “Go to Niagara College for two nights a week and we’ll pay for it.” Here he is in a training program that could be considered as an apprenticeship program. That is not good enough for them.

The other one is another person, claim C-14580768H. It is the same thing, an injury to the knee, two operations on it and ready for the third one. He has gone back into the workforce. The vocational rehabilitation officer helped him locate a job at Canadian Tire, at minimum wage, less than $5 per hour. He was earning $13 and something and he is down to $5 an hour. They cut him off his supplement just like that. “Yes, we notified him, ‘You’re out.’”

It is the same excuses. “If you’re not satisfied with that job, go out and look for another job.” The guy has been all over the place. He does not want to work for five bucks an hour. He will never get out of the rut. He is into that rut, put there by the workers’ compensation. There is no way he can get out of it. I am sure the minister is not aware of these things that go on over there, but this is a fact; that goes on.

Under the new policy setup and the new act that is here, I can see a number of injured workers who are going to go through the same hassle and harassment by the board on the interpretation of what it is. You can have it in the act, say they have got to do this, but they come back and they have a little green book that says, “This is the policy the board carries,” and it is far different from the intent of the legislation.

1720

I suggest that someplace along the line we have to take a good look at that. When I think about this, I think about the large layoff at Inco back in 1977. I am sure the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) is familiar with that, as I am in Port Colborne where Inco was one of the best employers you could think of. With persons who were injured, with a degree of disability, and some were severe enough to cause a problem, they always found work for them.

But in an economic downturn, all those persons were turfed out. If you walk in the city of Port Colborne now, you will see them down on the main street on a Friday -- any time, every day, you might say -- young persons of 45, 50 and 55 with a disability, who cannot get a job and are living off just a small pension from the workers’ compensation and the plant pension. They are lucky, with a total, to come up with $1,100 or even $800 or $600 a month with the combination of the two.

In the Weiler report, they did follow the suggestion of a combination with the Canada pension plan, but if you look at the board on this, it has piggybacked that on to its benefits. Really, the person does not get any more increase; he gets cut down further.

You can look at the death compensation section. Instead of paying the full shot in the case of a serious accident, they only pay about -- what is it? -- less than $2,000, and burial costs you $4,000 or $5,000 today. They say, “Let the Canada pension pay for it,” which is totally irresponsible of the board in this particular area.

If we are going to go to that approach, then we should go all the way and make compensation a universal thing, so that regardless of where the accident happened, you are covered. You are paying into so many different disability schemes now that when a person is down and out, he gets nothing. He has to fight the whole system. He has to fight that.

Sickness and accident insurance is another one that is included in that. Unemployment insurance, sickness and accident; it is a compensation.

If you put them all together, you could come up with a program of a compensation plan that would be a benefit to society. You would not have them go back on welfare. There is a cost to that. All the newly elected members in the House now are advocates here. They bring in the legislation, but they have to go out and fight it.

If you look at the system of workers’ compensation, if you do away with all the boards and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal with the number of people working there -- you have legal aid as an advocate in the picture of time and cost. You have the workers, advisers, an army down there. You have employers’ advisers, an army there that is looking after them too. They are all complaining about the same thing, the functions and operation of the board. Can we see fair settlements? In most cases, you cannot find them. There is the odd one that can be found. If you are fortunate enough to get good medical information there, you can probably beat the system.

What I am saying is that even there, if you look at the bill, and I want you to take a look at the bill, it says, “Protection against civil liability is extended to members....” I want a clarification from the minister in this area. Is that members of the Ontario Legislature? If it is, why is the staff not included?

It goes on to say, “...officers and employees of the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, to officers and employees of the office of the workers’ adviser, the office of the employer adviser and of accident prevention associations, and to medical practitioners conducting assessments in specified circumstances.”

They are all protected from liability, but the question is, does “members” mean members of the Legislature or employees in their offices? Staff should be covered too, because they are doing much of the work for the members right now.

I do not think the dual award system is a complete answer in the compensation system. It will make a considerable improvement over the existing outdated system, and this is what I have said for years, “outdated system,” on almost every amendment that has come before the Legislature for consideration by all of us as to the right direction to go.

We talk about persons returning to employment, and I agree with the minister in this area: as soon as you can get them back in vocational rehabilitation, that is the way to go, but they have to get moving in that area and make sure you get the person trained for the right job in vocational rehabilitation.

I have seen in the past where they have sent a person to some school. The person with an injury to the knee or leg ended up as a dump truck driver. I do not have to tell members the problems that happen there. If anybody needs a good leg, it is those persons driving a truck or a vehicle. This is some of the treatment some of the injured workers have had in the past in vocational rehabilitation.

It is going to cost money to do it and do it in the right manner. I do not see anything in there that is going to be something that will give the direction so that we are going in to see this massive retraining that is going to take place.

You have a language barrier out there. That is going to be difficult right off the bat. I do not think that when we come to some of these persons -- I think of many of the Italians who have received severe back injuries and the difficulties they have in this area because of the language problem. Perhaps they came over from Italy with a grade 6 education, but you could not find better tradesmen in the area of cement finishers or blocklayers or bricklayers. Nobody else wants to do that heavy manual job because it does take work.

I think about the problems I have had with the board when someone would make a sly remark, “Italians are great for complaining about back problems.” Boy, I tell you, if you had to go out and do the work those fellows do, even in industry -- because, perhaps, of the lack of education, they know nothing better than the pick and shovel or the heavy bull work in industry. I have been offended a couple of times by comments made down at the board over the years in this area.

I suggest that when we talk about retraining, they are going to have that much more pitch than what we see in the act. The act is good, but the question is, who is going to follow it up and go after it to see that these things are taking place, as we look at the reshaping of the Workers’ Compensation Act?

I suggest to the members I could perhaps go on with my comments. I said it would be a half-hour or 20 minutes. I have gone past that. I suggest to the members when they are looking at this thing and get into third reading of it, take a look at the caseworkers’ guide to workers’ compensation, where they talk about vocational rehabilitation.

You look at it and they talk about chronic pain disorder. That is an area I have been concerned about. I have mentioned it at different times in different debates in the House. When you look at some of these persons, one of the problems you find in getting them back to work as soon as possible is that the heavy medication that is taken to relieve pain often works to the disadvantage to the persons going back to industry, because nine times out of 10 they go back to the same job that they were injured on.

The problem is that when you take too much of the heavy medication to relieve the pain, particularly in the back, that person’s body is numb to a degree. He does not know the limitations, where pain should be noticed and where you have to slacken up a little bit. So he goes in there back to the same job under heavy drugs, prescribed drugs. Then the first thing you know, another back injury occurs. There is recurrence, another injury.

If you get into that area, you could take up an hour in the House talking about recurrence. I appreciate what the minister is trying to do. I have flagged certain areas of concern here, as I have done in the past, and I hope he will respond to me. As much as you may have some misgivings about the amendments to the act, you still have to support them because there is something good in them. It puts a person in a difficult position.

I could get into a personal matter. Maybe I should tell members about it. I make reference to looking at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I had followed the father of the member for Sudbury East two years ago, I guess it was, with an amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The letter was sent out to every businessman. It may as well have said, “Don’t vote for this guy because he is going to break the province.” In that area, I supported it because if there are any improvements in occupational health that are going to reduce accidents, the government should be moving in that direction.

The personal matter I am going to talk about is this. My son-in-law was involved in an accident last year, a severe accident. They ended up amputating his leg. In talking to the surgeon at the time -- it was hectic. It had a traumatic effect upon the family, two young children.

1730

Talking to the surgeon, he said, “It is a severe injury, but we are more concerned about the infection that may follow.” I got to thinking, “What do you mean, infection?” He said it was a dirty wound, caused by improper use of a jogging switch. He was caught in this machine, and as the person threw the emergency switch, big hydraulic fingers came up and seized the pipe, like that. Just about where he was, that is where the hydraulic fingers came up and caught his leg. You might say in one case it was a blessing that it stopped there, because two feet from there was the huge cutoff saw. I do not have to tell members what could happen there .

He was in the operating room three times, in and out of there. They tried everything to save the leg. I remember the orthopaedic surgeon who worked on him said he did a good carpenter’s job. I looked at the X-rays. You could see the mass of metal in almost all the foot and the plates in the leg itself below the knee. It was all shattered. I looked at him and I said, “I can tell you this much, it is going to take more than this carpenter to resolve the problem there,” or to make sure that every effort was gong to be made to save his leg.

That failed through infection. He was and still is in and out of hospital with that infection problem. It could be caused by the hydraulic oil that was on the machine. I do not know what effect that may have on a person, but it is a foreign body entering the human tissues and it could cause any problem. I do not know. I never got into it that deeply, because I kind of kept out of it. I thought I would just let the course go. He was in and out at different times for treatment, trying to get the leg to heal right because of the infection that was in it.

Lo and behold, last spring, they got him enrolled in vocational rehabilitation at Niagara College, which I thought was great, because it gave him some spirit. There was something hopeful down the road. He has responded well in that area. He got about two months behind him at Niagara College and, lo and behold, somebody from the Workers’ Compensation Board visited the doctor and gave instructions that he could go back to work in July of last year.

He terminated his vocational rehabilitation at Niagara College, knowing full well that he would have to be in for a further checkup by the physician looking after him to see if the infection had cleared up under the present medication. It was not clearing up. He went into the hospital again, on intravenous, and he was given an injection of a new drug to try to clear it up.

That went on for a little. bit and then in September it got critical again. The question was, “Have they got something that is going to clear this infection up?” If not, he would have to go in for further surgery. You are getting into an area that is really getting pretty touchy. So, in September, he went back into the hospital for two weekends under this special drug. It was expensive -- the board paid for it -- but finally I guess there are signs that it is starting to heal. Next week, he will be back working. The prosthesis worked very well with him and he has responded very well that way.

When you look at the act, if it applies here, as it is indicated here, a person will receive compensation for one year for a disability and then he has to go back to the employer. He is guaranteed one year of employment with the employer.

It may not work as well as it has with my son-in-law, but I will tell members this much: When you look at that alone, for one year he is guaranteed a job with the employer. In an economic downturn -- and when you look at competition in the workplace today, I hope it never happens -- you will see it coming that they will say: “We have done our responsibility under the act. He is no longer required.” He is kicked out to the wolves again to find out where he goes from there.

That area should be looked at. I think industry has an obligation to maintain that person on the payroll. There are many jobs in industry that they can find for that person.

I suggest to members that is my area of concern in that. I will support it in principle, but I think there is lots of room here for the minister to take another look at it and some of the issues I have raised. I hope other members will take my comments, review them and talk to the minister or talk to anybody in the area. I have had plenty of experience with workers’ compensation. It has been educational for me. I have helped some people, and other persons I have not been able to help, but I have opened the door for many of them. I guess that is one of the things you, as a member, can say, “I’ve done something good.”

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to thank the member for his comments. I know of his experience. He and I have discussed a number of cases he has handled and he has brought them to my attention. I think his comments were truly from the heart. He has had experience with the system, particularly helping out individuals within his own constituency, and perhaps sometimes beyond, in a way those of us who have less experience in this House have not yet had.

The one thing I would like to say to him is that, from my perspective, so many of the situations he has described and so many of the really difficult cases he has had to deal with in his years representing workers who have had problems, so often what we are dealing with is a situation where the very rules themselves that apply to those cases have been unfair. I am glad to hear that after all of his experience with the system, he, as a legislator, as an MPP who has true experience with the system, supports the principles behind this bill.

I want to tell him that in so many cases we have dealt with the very cases he has described. We are talking about a system whose arbitrary rules simply have not been large enough and responsive enough to the workers he has represented. I hope, as we move this bill forward, that in his experiences in the future under better rules in a system that takes a far better stab at helping workers get back to work, that in his future work with injured workers, once this system is in place, he will see the positive result in his own very good constituency work.

Mr. Breaugh: I was working in my office and I came down to say to the member for Niagara South that this is about the best speech I have heard him give in here, and I have heard him give many good speeches. It was good because it was about him and his role as a member.

I listened to the minister respond to him briefly and I am not quite sure the minister heard what he had to say. I would like the minister to review it just a bit, because he had a senior member of the Legislature, as many of us who have been around for a while are, point out that it is not the system on its own, it is not the personnel who are there, it is not exactly the rules that are there; this process does not work. Like the member for Niagara South, many of us have seen people try to reform the system many times.

When I first became a member here, one of Oshawa’s most distinguished citizens, Michael Starr, was named to head the compensation board. He comes from an industrial community. I know him personally to be a man of great integrity, I know that he had great enthusiasm for his task; and he, like many who followed him, did try to change the way that process works there -- unsuccessfully.

I think the member for Niagara South put on the record this afternoon that, as a government member, he wants to support the bill in principle. I do not agree with that, but I certainly understand that. I think he also put to the minister some very real problems that are not going to be resolved by word changes. I would hope that the minister would listen to him. It is not particularly a partisan matter. In a strange way, the Workers’ Compensation Board affects all of us, particularly those of us who have industrial ridings, where the case load is particularly heavy.

The plea has been made, and it will be made again during the course of this debate from all sides, that word changes are not enough, that this process does not work.

1740

Mr. Fleet: I would, first of all, like to very much commend the member for Niagara South. I have talked with him privately on occasions about workers’ compensation and I know how close it is to his heart. I was touched by some of the stories. I know that there are many more in his memory and his experience, and I certainly commend the comments he made to the minister. I would hope and expect that, in fact, the minister will be able to consider closely all his comments as this bill proceeds.

I also join with the member for Niagara South in supporting the principles behind the bill. We do know that there are lots of improvements needed, that the system is arbitrary, it is bureaucratic, it is slow and it has historically been unfair because of those and other complicating reasons; but the principles that are contained in the bill are certainly a positive step forward.

I do not think anybody thinks they are a solution all by themselves but the fact that in the future we are getting rid of the meat chart, I think, is highly desirable. That was clearly inadequate. For workers who are currently receiving permanent pensions, they will, in fact, be protected. Those pensions are not going to be eroded. The fact that people on those permanent pensions, those on the most inadequate pensions are going to get an additional supplement -- approximately 20,000 injured workers. All of these benefits will continue to be increased annually in accordance with the cost of living and will continue to be tax free. Those are very desirable principles.

I would like to see, frankly, more done in terms of rehabilitation, and I certainly urge the government to do that. Once again, I thank the member for Niagara South for his very meaningful comments.

Miss Martel: I want to thank the member for Niagara South for getting up to express some of his concerns on this bill. It is nice to know that he has read it, he has gone through it and does have some of the concerns that we do, although he will be supporting it and we will not.

In any event, I want to look at two things. The first is his comment concerning the Workers’ Compensation Board roster of doctors. He said he is a little concerned by the fact that there is only one doctor who is going to be appointed who will be looking at reassessments and he would like to see three. I guess the point I would like to make to the member is that I would like to see it taken out of the WCB internal system, because what we have here is a complete roster of doctors appointed by the WCB to do assessments.

The role of the family doctor, the treating physician, whether he be just a general surgeon or a specialist, is taken out of this completely. The family doctor has no say in a permanent disability assessment or a reassessment, and we can no longer use his medical reports to appeal to the WCB.

I must say I am extremely concerned that the system of appeal has been internalized and, indeed, that appeals on permanent disabilities cannot go to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

The second concern that he raised, and I was extremely glad that he raised it, was that concerning the supplements policy on pensions which is now in place at the board -- policy, not legislation, coming from members of this Legislature. He went on to say that the people who are getting cut off under the supplements policy now will continue to be cut off under the new bill. That is exactly what both my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and I have been trying to say, and I am certainly glad that he made that point in this House today to members as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Niagara South wish to reply?

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to go back to my first days in the Legislature here and making my appeals to workmen’s compensation. I did talk about the sinus cancer that established the first claim in Ontario, as one of those responsible. I cannot take all the credit for it because there is one person perhaps that I should give much of the credit to and he was the former chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Bruce Legge. I will tell members that where the board was establishing new grounds for compensation, he was always at that appeal.

Since he has gone, I have gone to the highest appeals for the board, but I never see the chairman there, really to see how things are functioning. I can tell members that I was down to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal and I had never seen injured workers being harassed and badgered by cross-examination. When we talk about the adversary system, that is something that I think all of us should be looking at, to get rid of it. In any changes that we see, amendments coming, hopefully those are going to remove the arbitrary system that is there instead of building up another army of bureaucrats, if I can put it that way.

I appreciate the comments from the members who have responded to my views expressed this afternoon. I will continue to work in that area for the benefit of the injured workers and to reduce the number of accidents in industries.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Breaugh: We will be a little abbreviated this afternoon, but I would like to speak a little bit about this bill and about the principle. I think that essentially I could not suggest to members any piece of legislation that will affect them more directly than this bill.

I know there are some ridings where the number of compensation cases is not what it would be in a place like Oshawa or Hamilton or Windsor or Niagara or Sudbury, where there is a very heavy industrial component to the community. I know that it is sometimes difficult for members to grasp how a bill can affect your life and the lives of the people you represent, but I have noted, in talking to the many new members who are here in this chamber now, that it did not take very long for them to get some grasp that there was something drastically wrong with the Workers’ Compensation Board. I think any member of this assembly is not a member for a very long time before he has people coming into his constituency office on a regular basis in a way that is unusual.

It is unusual, for example, for people who are in pain to be visiting members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We deal with all kinds of people who have problems with government bureaucracies, but it is rare to find a group of people who are consistently in front of you in the same way. It is frustrating and, in part, our opposition to the bill is an expression of that frustration.

About a week or so ago, the injured workers were here again, as they have been at least once a year, every year since I have been a member. On this one occasion, unfortunately, the demonstration was not confined to the exterior of the building, as it usually is. There was a demonstration inside the building. Some of us, a small group of us, did not know these injured workers personally, but we certainly knew the kind of people they were, because in our own constituencies we have people just like them and, on other occasions, our people would have been demonstrating too.

I went to the front door, and I must confess I have never seen anything like that in or around this chamber. It was frightening, even though the people who were demonstrating were ones who would normally be friends of mine, whether I knew them or not, who would normally identify my party as being one of the political parties that is interested in their problems and has struggled, as many members have in all parties, to see that they got fair and reasonable treatment.

But they were angry. They were very angry. And in a strange way, as I walked among them -- and it was not a very comfortable feeling, because the security guards here were under siege, without question -- I think what many of us were concerned about, and I am sure members on all sides were, was not that they do not have the right to demonstrate but that when the demonstration gets to the front door of the chamber itself and you have injured workers involved in it, people who would be susceptible in a crowd to even more injury were here trying to make their argument, their political point, in a sense, that they put themselves in a position of great vulnerability. As I walked among them, the one thing they said consistently was something that I have heard many, many times. What they want from a government is not really money, although that is a basic problem that they have, just plain economics; what they want is some respect.

It is very difficult for members of the government, I am sure, to admit that they are running an agency which does not offer to people who are injured the basic respect that any decent society would give them. I do not mean to lay this on the government and I do not mean to lay it on any government that has been here previously. I know personally people who have been chairing the compensation board. I know a number of people who work there. I deal with them on a regular basis; so does all of my staff. They are not evil. They do not intend to cause people pain or suffering, they do not intend to cause the problems that they do with injured workers. They are many of them reform-minded, much like the reforms contained in this bill.

1750

This is not the first occasion when this assembly has been presented with a bill of this kind. One could argue that the reforms being proposed in this particular bill are unique, are different from what other people have said. In my caucus, for example, our research people have gone through it with a fine-toothed comb. I am sure that every member of our caucus has read this bill in a way that you do not normally read legislation that is not your specific responsibility. I also would put to members that many of us have canvassed our consultants.

These are not consultants in the normal way that a government would have a consultant, but I am sure every member here has somebody in his riding who comes to see him on a regular basis about the compensation board. They tend to be injured and they tend to be older rather than younger. An amazing number of them are women, although I would suppose that many of us would make the wrong assumption, that injured workers are generally men. They carry with them packages of paper -- notices and letters from the compensation board, from their employer, from their family doctor, from other doctors they have been to see, from injured workers groups they have talked to, from their union, from other people in their community. The ones who come to see me on a regular basis carry all of this information all the time, every time I see them. Wherever I meet them, they want to talk about the compensation board and what it has done to them and to their lives.

It is not an uncommon thing for many of us to sit in our office and, not like the crowd scene we saw at the door, but on an individual, very personal, face-to-face basis, have to try to explain this process to someone. That is very difficult. It would be difficult for a person who was trained, skilled, well-educated and could handle a government bureaucracy. It is difficult for someone who is familiar with the idea of filling out forms and doing assessments.

Is there anybody here who has not had a doctor or a lawyer come to him about the way the compensation board works? People who are professional, people who are trained and skilled in writing assessments, in writing opinions, in appearing before boards and tribunals, in gathering up specific information to make an argument are unhappy with this system. There are some who have looked at the compensation board and simply said: “Well, let’s put the lawyers to work. It’s a quasi-judicial thing. It’s like many other tribunals and appeal boards that we have at work in Ontario. Simply fund a legal process which does that.”

In my community, as in many others, there is a legal aid clinic which essentially does provide that assistance. Many of our unions have tried to develop in their own ranks expertise on how to deal with this particular law, on how to advise their members on just how to get through the process. Many of us spend a lot of hours advising our constituents on how to do this -- appearing before the appeals boards themselves, gathering information. There is a lot of energy and a lot of expertise put into coping with this one system.

I wish the minister was right, frankly. I wish that it was simply a matter of changing some of the words in the law. But I do not believe it is.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I didn’t say that.

Mr. Breaugh: I wish it was simply a matter of the Minister of Labour introducing some new concepts, but I do not believe it is. It may be somewhat cynical, but I think many members in here who have been around for a while would share that cynicism that this is going to be the most difficult agency of the government of Ontario to reform.

There are some principles in the bill itself which bother me. Any time I hear someone, whether that is the federal Minister of Finance or our Minister of Labour say that this is revenue neutral, I am aware that if they have to reach for that kind of language, there is something that should be looked at. Because if we wanted to say revenue neutral, why do we not say it is not going cost anybody any money?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Any more or any less.

Mr. Breaugh: Any more or any less, as the minister says. For many of us, we can play these word games and it makes no difference. It is a nice argument. For the people who appeared at our front door, they do not appreciate the nuances of this. They have been around too long. They have been before the Workers’ Compensation Board too often. They have seen their friends injured. They have seen their friends die in the workplace.

Many of them, in a sense, after a while develop an instinct for whether something is right or wrong. I must say that I took my own guidance, personally, not from my research component here at Queen’s Park or not from other members, but from people I know who have developed an expertise over the years working with the board.

I sought their advice about whether this new bill would be an improvement or not. I want to report simply that unanimously they said no, that the wrong choices have been made and that the structure will not be improved but worsened by these changes.

I would hope that the Minister of Labour would defend his bill vigorously. I expect him to do that. I expect the government that has already made the cabinet decision, and this is the option it chooses to exercise, would put forward its arguments as best it can.

Let me also put this caution to the government. There was a reluctance initially for this bill to go to committee for public hearings. That seems to have been --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is not true, Michael.

Mr. Breaugh: The Minister of Labour says it is not true, but I have to admit that I stood in this chamber and I watched his performance on the day when we pressed for public hearings. It took the government House leader to stand in his place and to come as close as I have heard any minister of the crown to saying, “Yes, we want public hearings.”

Before the minister gets all that defensive, it would do him good this afternoon --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It’s just not true.

Mr. Breaugh: It would do the Minister of Labour the world of good this afternoon, if instead of sitting in his seat yelling that it is not true, he would listen -- listen to his own members and to other members of the assembly who have an opinion on the matter that did not come about casually.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am riveted to what you are saying.

Mr. Breaugh: I have several people who have suggested to me that the minister should be riveted in many other ways, but not to what I say.

I think it would do this government the world of good to open this process up now. If he is right, if the bill he is proposing, if the changes which he thinks will do some good for some people will stand the test of the public examining that, then perhaps he is right.

But I sense that he is not. Worse than that, I sense this afternoon that he is prepared to go through the process, but he is not prepared to listen. Let me tell him that that is going to be an extremely difficult situation. The people who want to appear before a committee of this Legislature to say what they have to say about this bill are not in a mood to be bettered by a speaker. They are not in a mood to lose a verbal argument. They are not about to stand around and let the minister play with nuances of the language.

What they have to say to the minister is going to be very straightforward. It is going to be that they have been treated unfairly for a long period of time. I think there is not a member here who would disagree with that. They demand what they said at the front door of this chamber -- respect.

If the minister offers them that measure of respect, he cannot do that and say they are wrong. He has to listen to what they have to say and see if he can accommodate some of that. I have not heard the minister say that so far. He is going to have to at some point in time.

The hearings on this process will be difficult, but they are going to have to be done. They are going to have to be done with a very open attitude. I sense that the government, at least so far, does not have that attitude. I hope it reassesses its position on that.

I think the minister will be taken aback by the ferocity of the arguments. They will be, if I am correct, emotional arguments. There is no way to avoid that. They will also be arguments from people who have spent a lot of their lives dealing with this one bureaucracy.

They will look at his bill and how it will be interpreted, but the minister will never get away from the fact that these are people who are not innocents. They are innocents in the sense that they did not chose to be injured, but they are wise people who have been around for a while, who have dealt with this compensation board for many years.

I will conclude my remarks tomorrow, but I want to finish today by simply saying to the minister that the public hearing process for this bill is going to be more critical and more difficult than anything he has ever seen before, but it is also going to be necessary

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.