role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 15, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

AVIAN EMBLEM ACT, 1989

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

AVIAN EMBLEM ACT, 1989

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

CLEANTARIO

FOLK FESTIVAL

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

HARRY CLASS

APPLICATION OF SCHOOL RULES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

PERINATAL CARE

UNIVERSITY FINANCING

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

RESPONSES

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

PERINATAL CARE

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

PERINATAL CARE

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONDUCT OF CABINET MINISTERS

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

CROWN LAND

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENT

ACID RAIN

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

CROWN LAND

RETIREMENT

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

CROWN LAND

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

DIRECT GRANT PROGRAM

DISMISSAL OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

PETITION

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO MINERAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POLICE AND SHERIFFS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

AVIAN EMBLEM ACT, 1989

Mr Ballinger moved second reading of Bill 27,

An Act to designate an Avian Emblem for Ontario.

Mr Ballinger: The Avian Emblem Act, when passed by this House, will make the common loon, Gavia immer, the official bird of the province of Ontario. Our province already has a floral emblem in the trillium, a tree emblem in the white pine and a mineral emblem in the amethyst. With the adoption of this bill, Ontario will join the other provinces of Canada and name a bird as its symbol.

The common loon was chosen in a very special way. A contest was held across the province involving schoolchildren between the ages of nine and 11. They were asked to name the bird that they would most like to see as an emblem for Ontario. Incidentally, this was not the first such contest in the province. In 1937, schoolchildren in Ontario were asked to help choose the official flower of the province. Their overwhelming choice back then was the trillium, now the pre-eminent symbol of Ontario and one that I wear very proudly on a pin on my lapel.

In the case of the avian emblem, schoolchildren were asked to choose the bird they thought best represented Ontario. They had to research birds and write a short paragraph giving the reasons for their choice. A few restrictions were put on the contest. The bird had to be native to Ontario and birds that were already emblems of other provinces and territories could not be chosen. Nearly 5,200 entries were received, and 1,150 of those entries suggested the common loon. Obviously, it was the overwhelming favourite.

The review committee overseeing the contest then had the difficult task of finding and selecting one winner. That honour went to Matthew Conroy from Walden, southwest of Sudbury in the riding of Nickel Belt. In his winning submission, Matthew wrote:

“We live on a lake, and in the summer we spend time fishing and canoeing. That gives us a lot of chance to hear and see the loons. I love to see them when they have their little loons with them. On land they look so funny when they walk. When we are fishing or tenting, the call of the loon makes me tingle all over.

“I looked up some interesting things about loons that would make it perfect for our official bird. It is the most ancient of Canadian birds. The loon is deliberately designed as a fish-catching machine, and Ontario has lots of lakes and fish. They are a big and impressive black and white bird that almost everyone recognizes when they see it, and certainly when they hear it.

“My dad says that they could be killed by acid rain, since the pollution kills the fish that they eat. Maybe if we use the loon as our bird, it will help fight this pollution.”

Matthew writes, “I hope the official bird for Ontario becomes the loon.” Those are Matthew’s own words and reasons for picking the loon as an emblem for this great province.

As Matthew stated, the loon is one of the ancient birds native to Ontario. Many native people use the loon as a symbol and it has a central place in their mythology. Some native legends credit the loon with helping to create the earth. Others give special magical powers to the bird. One legend has it that the unforgettable cry of the loon is the echo of the call of a dead warrior looking for his beloved; yet others say the loon’s cry is the voice of slain warriors calling back to the land of the living. As already mentioned, native peoples in this province used the loon as a symbol for centuries.

The combination of the bird’s beauty, its grace in the water and loyalty to its mate were qualities that were sacred to them.

It is fitting that we now adopt this wonderful bird as a symbol of Ontario. Few in this province are not familiar with the loon. We know its cry as it echoes in our wilderness. One of the runners-up in the contest, Erica Fowlie of Deep River, was inspired by the cry of the loon and wrote this poem:

“The loon is my choice,

Mostly because of its voice.

He’s one of Ontario’s most ancient birds,

Whose wild yodelling by early explorers was heard.

His call chilled their blood in the dead of night,

But he mocked them by laughing at dawn’s first light.

He’s found throughout Ontario’s rivers and lakes,

His black and white plumage a chequered picture he makes.

This powerful diver winters on coastal seas,

As well as the Great Lakes in Ontario, if you please.

Back home in spring comes our wandering loon,

His haunting call we will hear very soon.

On the Canadian coin for all of us to see,

This bird I do love and is special to me.

I am sure many have, as I have, sat on a dock or by the water of a lake and watched the loon. The bird dives and you sit and try and guess where it will surface in the lake. I am sure many others have been fortunate in seeing a mother loon carrying her young on her back, gracefully floating through the water. This is a symbol of our wilderness, and a fitting symbol for our province and our natural resources.

Joseph Kennedy of Kingston, another runner-up, also had this romantic view of the loon:

“It’s early morning; the lake is calm. You step into your canoe and paddle a few strokes. The canoe is the only thing disturbing the water, except for the wonderful loon. It looks at you and quietly swims away.”

Joseph continues:

“The first ones to notice this bird were the natives of Ontario. They put it in legends and decorative pieces. One legend is the loon’s necklace. The loon’s cry is very famous as well. It has a long, lonesome cry like a wolf’s howl. It also has a short, happy call like a person who is out of breath from laughing.

“The Cree word for loon is ‘makwa.’ This name seems to mimic the bird’s call. The loon is a very ancient bird of Canada, and so it has been around here for a very long time.”

Joseph loves to listen to the loon at his cottage or when he goes fishing.

In fact, the loon is such a great symbol that two of the province’s largest conservation groups, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters recently have chosen the loon as their emblem. They no doubt agree that the sight and sound of a loon truly represents the wilderness of Ontario. I am sure they also see the loon as a symbol of conservation and concern for a quality environment.

Loons are also popular. Loon memorabilia such as carvings, T-shirts and paintings are among the most popular items bought in tourist stores in Ontario and even on the downtown streets of Toronto. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) is known to have an extensive collection of loon souvenirs. I am sure he favours this designation for our avian emblem.

I would like to tell members a bit about the common loon, the bird that I hope will soon be our avian emblem.

The common loon, whose scientific name is Gavia immer, is a member of one of the oldest families of birds. They have been around for some 20 million years. The lifespan of the loon is approximately 15 to 20 years. Both male and female loons have identical markings which are a glossy, black head, a black and white necklace and a chequered back. They are really magnificent birds.

The loon is made for water. It is heavy and muscular with a torpedo shape that can dive to a depth of about 30 metres and can spend a fair amount of time submerged under water. A loon’s webbed foot is about the size of an adult human’s hand. This enables it to swim gracefully and quickly in the water. The feet are positioned at the back of the body for streamlined, effective diving. This makes the loon a bit clumsy on land where it spends very little of its time.

Most birds have air-filled bones to make them light; the loon, on the other hand, has heavy, solid bones that make diving easier. As a result, loons need a run of up to a quarter of a kilometre to get into the air. However, once they are airborne, loons can reach speeds up to 100 kilometres an hour. They are extremely fast.

Loons are extremely loyal to each other as well, and they stay very loyal to their mate but will remate if one dies. Although the loon may be an ancient bird, it does have a bit of a modern outlook, since mates tend to winter separately; they take separate vacations, so to speak. But when they return north in the spring, both members of a pair immediately find each other in the traditional nesting lake they left from.

They are extremely devoted parents. One or the other of the mates will watch over the nest consistently during the incubation period. When the chicks are hatched, they hitch a ride on one of the parents’ backs until they become self-sufficient.

Loons have been around for countless millenia. They are one of nature’s real success stories, but over most of those millions of years they did not have to fight humans and the pollution that humans have left behind.

As Matthew, the winner, said, loons could be killed because pollution such as acid rain kills the fish they need.

Not only do pollutants kill fish but they also foul up the water. The loon needs clear water to see the fish it needs for food. If there are no fish to eat or if it is difficult to see them, many, especially the young ones, starve. An overly curious canoeist or boater can frighten off a nesting loon and cause it to abandon its eggs and affect breeding patterns.

Loons are clumsy on land so they build their nests right by the shore. The wake from one power boat can cause damage to a nest by flooding its contents. As more and more of our lakes are developed, loons are driven out or fail to reproduce because of nest disturbance. They do not like to nest near human habitation.

By choosing the loon as our avian emblem, it will become more than a symbol of our province; it will become the symbol of determination to keep our land and our natural resources clean and healthy so that they, like the loon, will survive for millions of years .

Another runner-up, Chris Murray of Owen Sound, wrote this bird represents clean water and a clean environment:

“The loon is well distributed throughout the province of the inland lakes in the spring, summer and fall. It is well recognized by its distinct call across the province. The loon is sensitive to a clean environment and by having it as a provincial symbol, helps people understand the need to improve our natural environment.”

Jeff Birch of Rideau Heights, another runner-up, also noted that the loon is an ancient bird:

“It has been around for thousands of years. The Cree believe that the loon’s cry was the voice of slain warriors calling back to the land of the living. I think we should have it as our bird because Ontario has many, many lakes and almost everyone has seen or heard a loon.” Jeff ended his letter by stating, “It is a pretty bird and Ontario should be very proud of it.”

Charlotte Lillian Matz of Bluevale, another runner-up in the contest saw the loon as a perfect symbol for Ontario:

“I choose the common loon as Ontario’s official bird because it stands for Ontario’s meaning. Ontario is an Indian word that means ‘beautiful water.’ The loon is big and powerful like the province of Ontario. It is easily recognized by its large size, call and distinctive black-and-white colour. People who seldom notice other birds often know of the loon. The call of the loon makes you think of lovely, peaceful water and nature.”

These children and many others feel that the loon will be the best emblem to show this concern and love of our land. With the passage of the Avian Emblem Act, the common loon will become an official symbol of Ontario. It will not only be a symbol of our great wilderness, but will become the symbol of our concern and dedication to maintaining this wilderness not only for ourselves and our children but for countless generations to come.

Mr Morin-Strom: I am pleased to support this bill as presented to the Legislature today asking that the loon be named the official bird of the province. This is an initiative which has really come from a grass-rots level, in that a province-wide contest was held asking children to submit their recommendations in terms of which bird should be selected as the symbol of Ontario. I think it is indicative of the concern and care that residents of the province, particularly children, have for the loon that it has been selected as the bird for the province.

I know that for those of us from northern Ontario, particularly those who have spent many years in cottage country, the sound and the sight of the loon, particularly at dawn or in the early morning, are one of the most wonderful experiences that we can all experience in our magnificent province. The loon is truly a symbol unique to our northern woodlands, one that brings fond memories to me and to many of us, particularly from northern Ontario, who have spent many summers at lakeside. This bird has really been a symbol of the wilderness that we all want to promote in northern Ontario.

The loon has been endorsed as an appropriate symbol for the province by a number of other organizations as well. For example, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has strongly endorsed this selection. I quote Doug Ogston, past president of the OFAH, who says, “We are delighted with the selection and we know the Ontario public shares our views that the sight and sound of the common loon symbolize Ontario wilderness.”

It is also interesting that the same organization had itself selected this magnificent nongame bird as its official logo in 1987 to symbolize its conservation efforts because the loon is so sensitive to environmental change. In many areas of North America, particularly in most states in the United States, the loon has either disappeared or is on the verge of disappearing, with extremely low numbers left. This has been primarily the result of environmental damage and, in particular, acid rain. It has caused decimation in Ontario as well. However, we are fortunate to still have reasonably sized populations throughout our province to this day.

However, concern has to be expressed regarding the future of this bird and many other species of wildlife in Ontario with respect to their future if further controls on our environment are not implemented in the years to come. The breeding success of this bird has been particularly hurt by acid precipitation in our northern lakes, but we are hopeful that controls and regulations on levels of acid rain -- and, hopefully, with significant progress to be made in the United States as well -- will lead to further recovery of this important symbol of wildlife not only in Ontario but in other regions of North America as well.

As well as supporting this initiative today, I would like to express some concerns with respect to the priorities this government has when it comes to our natural resources. This bill was presented by the member for Durham-York (Mr Ballinger), parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, and I suppose this gives an indication of the level of interest and the priorities this ministry has concerning initiatives with respect to our resources in the province.

Unfortunately, the ministry with which the parliamentary assistant is involved does not have the funds to be able to undertake new initiatives to improve our resource base in the north, both when it comes to natural resources and the wildlife resources as well. We wish this ministry could come forward with substantive legislation and action for Ontario but unfortunately, in the most recent budget, the ministry’s budget was slashed quite considerably.

It was the only ministry in the province to have a reduction in its budget, a reduction of $15 million, which certainly does not indicate a level of support for the development and encouragement of both our wildlife and other natural resources in Ontario.

This three per cent reduction in budget, while most ministries were receiving inflationary increases in the range of five to seven per cent, really indicates this ministry is losing its capability to manage all the resources in the north. This ministry has not been able to take the actions needed to protect jobs in northern Ontario. We have lost 1,700 jobs in the forest industry; in particular, in the lumber

section of that industry where this government has not been able to do anything with respect to the 15 per cent export tax that was imposed. We have already seen 1,700 job losses.

In the ministry itself we see serious job cuts under way. When it comes to forest firefighting, the sizes of crews in northern Ontario were cut from five-man crews to three-man crews, resulting in a loss of more than 200 jobs. I think approximately 230 jobs have been lost in our forest firefighting crews and we certainly have to hope this is not going to have serious consequences for our northern forests during the fire season this summer.

When it comes to reforestation, this ministry continues to be totally inadequate in its initiatives to protect our northern forests and, in particular, to regenerate those forests that are being used. The replanting of our forests continues to be well below the levels at which they are being cut down, and this has to be a serious concern for the future of all of us, particularly in northern Ontario.

As well, when it comes to protecting our natural environment, this ministry really has not done the job it should have in terms of protecting wilderness areas and developing and expanding our provincial parks. The Temagami example, I suppose, is the worst illustration of this government’s utter incompetence in being able to protect a very valuable portion of our northern heritage for future generations, a case where not only have those resources not been protected, but also the very valid and serious claims on those lands from our first peoples, the native population of that area, have not been respected at all by this ministry.

I think there is a lot that has to be done with respect to this ministry. This ministry has not been getting the budget it needs to carry out what its real mandate is, which is to protect and provide for resources for Ontario and the protection of our wildlife and natural wilderness beauty.

The loon is an important symbol. It has been a symbol to residents of Ontario who have enjoyed our wilderness areas. I would hope that this ministry takes the action needed so that the loon can be not only a symbol but also actually a flourishing and expanding one, so that more and more of us throughout the province can enjoy that wonderful sound in the early morning at dawn.

Mr Cureatz: As we stagger forth at 1027 in the morning, with the public galleries thronging with interest and curiosity as to what is taking place, I want to take a little different tack in terms of the --

Mr Wildman: I thought you were for seagulls, not loons.

Mr Cureatz: Exactly, and that is why I want to take a little different tack, or might I say flight, in terms of the proposed bill that is before this assembly.

With the limited time that I have, and unaccustomed as I am to speaking, I want to bring to members’ attention, if I may, a quote. This is really good. All the Liberals backbenchers over there, especially the two ministers way at the back, will appreciate this. Listen to this; this is a good one: “I read the bill in its entirety and was somewhat puzzled by it.” Then:

“Ontario has had more than its share of trouble, more than its fair share of unemployment and of all the other ills we have suffered in this province over the past few years. It surprises me that when a colleague from...Ontario brings forth a bill in the Legislature the most important thing the bill addresses itself to is regarding a bird.”

Continuing on: “I am well aware of who proposed this bill.” It was a member of the House. Now, one would ask, who of the learned colleagues who have participated in these chambers in the years gone by would take on such a nasty attitude about a piece of legislation concerning a bird? Do members know who?

Mr Ballinger: Tell us.

Mr Cureatz: This is great. One Don Boudria, back here in 1983 in the Legislative Assembly when he sat there and I was Deputy Speaker -- I have got the Hansard right here -- when my friend and colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr Pollock) brought in the legislation proposing the blue jay to be none other than the official bird. Do members know what we got from the rascal Liberals back then? Condemnation. Do members think I would do that? Do they think I should do that?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cureatz: Let me just read on. This is really good stuff. I really like this quote; this is just terrific. Just sit on the edges of your seats up there, the four, five, six or seven of you in the gallery. This is really great stuff.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will address his remarks through the Speaker.

Mr Cureatz: Mr Speaker, here is another quote. I forget the date -- let me take a peek. Yes, 24 November 1983, six years ago.

“Notwithstanding my personal liking for the member for Hastings-Peterborough and my support for the principle of Bill 67, surely we as eastern Ontarians -- particularly, as my friend from Stirling will know,” that was Norm Sterling way back when he represented the other riding, “...have more pressing concerns on our public agenda.”

Continuing on: “I thought we might have had a ballot item today dealing with the matters of urgent and pressing concern that affect so many farmers.”

Mr Ballinger: Who said it?

Mr Cureatz: You know who said that?

Mr Ballinger: No, who said it?

Mr Cureatz: The drum rolls: none other than one of the four pony people of the calamity.

Mr Ballinger: I bet it was Nixon.

Mr Cureatz: No, it was not Bob Nixon -- it was not the Treasurer. It was not the Attorney General (Mr Scott); he could not get himself elected way back then; he had to try two or three times. Nor was it the esteemed now Premier (Mr Peterson), when he was the Leader of the Opposition. Who does that leave?

Mr Ballinger: We do not know.

Mr Cureatz: None other than the House leader, Sean Conway, who stood up and condemned my colleague way back then about wasting the assembly’s time bringing in legislation about what the official bird of Ontario should be. That is what he said. Do the members see me making such condemnations? Do they? That is the kind of attitude that is over there in the Liberal government; when they were the opposition, the Liberals would not tolerate such items, but you do not see that taking place.

I do have one or two thoughts and concerns about whether it should indeed be the loon. I was wondering if it should be the chicken, because we had the opportunity of spending time on Sunday shopping, and my friend and colleague the honourable member for Cambridge (Mr Farnan) continually said this government is taking the “chicken way out” on Sunday shopping.

What about the duck? That would be a good one for this nasty government, because they are ducking the issues.

How about one of my favourites? I call it the seagull. I was reprimanded by the member for Peterborough, who said there is no such thing as a seagull; there is only a gull. Whatever the case is, maybe in terms of the recognition of the fact that the gulls are all over the province – more particularly, this government, through the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), has yet to do anything about the garbage crisis in southern Ontario and we have not yet seen what his overall plans are for solving the garbage crisis. Maybe it should be the gull.

What about the buzzard? I like the buzzard, particularly since the Treasurer, Bob Nixon, brought in that new budget that picks the bones of the taxpayers of Ontario.

I really like this one. How about the ostrich? The ostrich would be symbolic of the cabinet, which buries its head in the sand over the great issues that are concerning the people of Ontario. I was really worried, I say to my friend and colleague the member for Durham-York.

Mr Ballinger: Don’t call me your friend.

Mr Cureatz: We are all cognizant of the red tie and how proud they are. I thought it might have been the red-winged blackbird. How about the red-headed woodpecker or maybe the cardinal?

Mr Wildman: Or the yellow-bellied sapsucker?

Mr Cureatz: In connection with my friend and colleague the member for Algoma, I was thinking of an issue more up to date. How about the starling?

And how about, as time progresses on, the way this government is performing now that we are in the final two years of operation, maybe it should be the swan, in recognition of this government s swan-song that is taking place.

The poor loon always seems to be in second place but winds up winning. I remember my friend and colleague the member for Algoma stood up and in a very impassioned speech indicated that the metal dollar coin was supposed to have a canoe on the back, but they lost it -- where else? -- in the mail. So they had to scurry around -- I think the artist is from the member’s riding -- and they came up with the loon on the dollar.

I was thinking I would rather have it be called a loonie than a canoeie. But, once again, the loon was second best and winds up first.

How about when my friend and colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough brought in a similar act which proposed the blue jay on 9 June 1983? It met with some repercussions, none other than from Prince Edward Island, where officials said the Ontario bill should be shot down. “PEI declared the blue jay its official bird six years ago.” I guess that is nine years ago now. “The bill has passed first reading in the Legislature.” That was here. “Yesterday, surprised officials from the island said they were unaware that Ontario was aiming to take their emblem.

“‘It sounds like we’ve got a conflict here,’ said PEI government spokesman Frank Arsonel. ‘If Ontario will give all islanders free tickets to see the real Blue Jays, they might be able to settle the issue.’”

Lo and behold, we could not get the blue jay to be the official bird emblem, and now, second best again, it is the loon. Time marches on. I happen to have come across a book by Terry Degler. That is D-e-g-l-e-r, to all the fine Hansard people who are always phoning me and asking, “How do you spell those fancy words you always say, like ‘churkel’?”

Here is what Terry said in Straight from the Horse’s Mouth and Other Animal Expressions:

“To anyone with a little imagination, the cry of the loon at nightfall on a lonely lake sounds very much like the laugh of the proverbial madman. Indeed, this is the image that most of us have, somewhere in the back of our minds, when we use the word ‘loony,’ especially when we tell someone, just in jest, that he belongs in a loony bin.”

My friend and colleague in his own way expressed, during the time period that he had, along with my friend and colleague from the official opposition, the member for Sault Ste Marie (Mr Morin-Strom), the maybe more serious aspects of bringing forth the legislation concerning the loon and why it should be the emblem of Ontario.

Let me just conclude by saying there is another aspect, as indicated by this author’s thoughts and concerns and serious investigations about where we get expressions from animal behaviour. If it is, as she has said, that it sounds very much like the laugh of the proverbial madman, all I can say is, what more appropriate place than in these sacred halls, from all of us fine politicians, to approve the loon in Ontario as our official emblem.

Miss Roberts: I am pleased to stand today and speak in support of the bill, and l am very pleased to follow my honourable friend from that area that is known as Durham East, because he gives a new dimension to the loon and to his particular position with respect to an emblem.

He shows that there are two sides to this particular bird and that there are two sides to any animal or person. I think it is very important that we recognize that. I also think it is important to hear another view from someone who has been here for a period of time and we always enjoy the great oration of the member for Durham East (Mr Cureatz).

I would like to point out a few things that are extremely important for the rest of us to consider today. One is the economic impact of having an emblem. Whether that emblem is the loon or anything else, it is important that we know that it is going to become a very important feature in our communities.

Members will note today that I am wearing particular earrings and those earrings are loon earrings and they were made in Canada. They provided jobs for people in Canada and I am proud to wear those earrings.

I think it is important to look at the process that we used for choosing this particular emblem, whether it is the blue jay, which has already been chosen by another province, or whether it is the loon. The process to choose the loon was to use the schoolchildren in Ontario. We did use their input and the loon was chosen above more birds than any other in Ontario. I know that the children in Elgin enjoyed participating in that process and putting forward the names of birds to be looked at.

I think the other reason that the loon is an appropriate bird emblem for Ontario is that indeed this bird has been in Ontario for millions of years. Although the bird itself is in the northern part of Ontario or mainly in the northern part, we in the south still support it. Contrary to popular opinion, we in the south at certain times do go north and enjoy the opportunity to hear and to see the loon.

I do not know if it is correct to describe it as the laugh of a madman. I often have heard it described as the laugh of a madwoman as well. We can certainly look at it both ways, but it certainly is a cry that is known in Ontario.

I am going to be very brief in my comments today, because the honourable member for Sudbury (Mr Campbell) also wishes to speak concerning this. I would like to just point out that indeed the use of the loon as an emblem will bring pride to many of the people in Ontario. I also think it is important that we, as legislators, make the choice. We must go ahead and develop this particular emblem.

The honourable member for Durham East made some comment that it might be another type of bird, or other birds for other reasons. I think it is important that even he realize there is a necessity to have a bird emblem. I believe that bird emblem should be the loon, as brought forward by the honourable member for Durham-York. Two people so close together seem to have different views on this bill. Maybe they are close together on other points, but on this particular view they are not.

The importance of the emblem to Ontario will be seen in the future. The fact that the trillium was chosen many years ago has certainly been an important adjunct. The fact that the loon is going to be chosen now will have impact in the future. I think the point brought up about the conservation of lands and of wetlands is extremely important. I think the fact we look to the loon as a barometer for our conservation is very important as well.

I hope we understand exactly what is occurring today in choosing the loon. The other thing I find extremely important is that we must take the step whether or not there is other important legislation. That will be heard at other times. This is a private member’s bill to be brought forward to choose a particular bird and I support the loon. I know we in southwestern Ontario support it as the official bird emblem for Ontario. I will give the rest of my time to the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) or other speakers.

Mr Wildman: I think it is really appropriate that we be discussing this morning in this House what my friend the member for Durham East in full flight referred to as a “loonie debate.” I am not sure how many members here realize what this location at Queen’s Park was before it was a Legislature. For those members who are unaware, it was a lunatic asylum, which I have always thought was very appropriate considering what we do around here most of the time.

To now be choosing an avian emblem and to chose the loon as that emblem, I suppose is very appropriate for us in this assembly. I am wondering, though, if it is an omen because in choosing the loon it reminds me of earlier debates. My friend the member for Durham East referred to the famous or infamous debate about the blue jay, and we all know the fate of the Blue Jays since that debate. I am also reminded of an earlier debate in which his friend and my friend the member for Cochrane South (Mr Pope) introduced a bill to make the white pine the official tree of Ontario.

We all know the fate of the white pine in this province. There are almost none left, when at one time it was the most important forestry resource we had in Ontario.

I suppose one has to be careful on this. My friend who spoke most recently from the other side, the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts), said there are two sides to every debate. Sometimes, as we see in the configuration in this House, there are more than two sides. I do not think everything, including loons, is necessarily black and white. The loon is certainly emblematic of Ontario’s wilderness, of Canada’s wilderness really. It has a beautiful lonely call. I cannot agree with the author the member for Durham East quoted who said it sounded like the call of a --

Mr Cureatz: A mad person, a madman.

Mr Wildman: You did not say wild man.

Mr Cureatz: Proverbial madman.

Mr Wildman: It is indeed a lonely call, a sort of sad call, but a beautiful one. I hope that when we are choosing the loon as an avian emblem, we are not choosing that sad tone in looking at the future of our wilderness in Ontario.

My friend the member for Sault Ste Marie pointed out the difficulty the loon has had in reproducing because of pollution by acid rain and the pressure on lakes in northern and eastern Ontario from residential and seasonal cottage development. I wonder if in choosing the loon, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Durham-York, is really in a way symbolizing the mismanagement of our natural resources in this province.

The member for Durham East pointed out that the loon in a way is second and always comes out the winner. In this case, the government tried to choose the blue jay and it lost out because Prince Edward Island had already chosen one. In the coin decision with regard to the new dollar coin, because of the mishaps of the mint and Canada Post the choice was made of a loon design by Michael Carmichael, a well-known artist in my constituency. But I hope that image of the lonely loon on a lake in Ontario’s wilderness is not going to meet the same fate as some of the other images on the coins in our currency, whether it be the Bluenose or whatever.

We really do have a serious problem with the mismanagement of our resources in this province and I have some problem with the fact that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources is getting up and introducing this kind of motion when we see what has been happening in his ministry. My friend the member for Sault Ste Marie mentioned the cuts in funding for the Ministry of Natural Resources. I would like to talk a little bit about what I call the tough vision for the 1990s for the Ministry of Natural Resources and it is indeed a tough vision, both capitalized and uncapitalized.

The watch phrase for that vision is to do more with less. The staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources has been told they will not get the kind of funding that is required for them to properly manage the resources, whether it be the forestry resources, the water resources, the parks or the wilderness of this province.

They have been told instead that the ministry should be responsible for monitoring what the private sector is doing with our resources, that the ministry staff really should be spending time in offices writing up plans and evaluating proposals from the private sector for contracted-out work, whether it be in fire protection -- we are going to be hiring many emergency people from the private sector if we have a major fire emergency this year because we have cut the staff in our fire protection service -- or whether it is in forestry where we are contracting out the replanting of our trees or the parks where there are proposals to expand the contracting out of the management of the parks.

Instead of discussing these very major concerns, particularly in northern Ontario but for the people of the whole province, we are here talking about whether the loon or the blue jay or whatever would make a better avian symbol for this province.

I am lucky enough to own a place on a lake and we enjoy the sounds of the loons and seeing the loons on the lake. It is a beautiful sight. But I think we should be debating in this House how we can ensure that this environment is preserved for future generations of us and of the birds and other wildlife of this province. I do not think we are doing that.

I realize this is indeed private members’ hour and I commend the member for bringing forward this proposal. Sometimes I wonder if we get a little too overly interested in symbols rather than action. We have an official flower for the province that is on the endangered species list. You are not supposed to pick them. We have an official tree in this province that is almost nonexistent in this province. Now we are picking as an avian symbol a bird that is under pressure. Thank goodness it is not an endangered species, but it is under pressure.

I think that instead of just dealing with symbols, we should be talking in this House about how we are going to allocate the resources required to ensure that the loon does not go the way of the white pine or Ontario’s official flower, to ensure that we have lakes that are not polluted and to ensure that we are regenerating and preserving our forests. Instead of cutting the budget for the Ministry of Natural Resources and contracting out jobs to the private sector, we should actually be allocating the funds required to ensure the Ministry of Natural Resources can carry out its mandate to ensure that we do indeed have an environment we can be proud of for future generations in Ontario.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I just want to take a few minutes because my colleague and friend the member for Sudbury wishes to speak. I would like to go on the record as saying that we always exercise the option of a free vote in this Legislature in private members’ hour -- that is what we are doing today -- and I intend to support the bill. My colleague the member for London North (Mrs Cunningham) just mentioned to me that the loon is indeed a beautiful bird and she likes the idea of supporting it as well.

I might just say on behalf of my colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough that he is in the hospital this week. It is unfortunate he is not here to speak against this bill because his blue jay bill is still floating around someplace. He was hoping it would land some time, maybe when the other Blue Jays win the pennant.

I feel I should make one comment in support of the member for Durham East, who mentioned that the loon has a very funny call, something like the call of a madman, not a wild man. Perhaps it is appropriate that the member for Durham-York presented this bill.

Mr Campbell: I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of this bill. The loon is a very fitting and appropriate avian symbol for this province. As they say in Hollywood, “Cut to the chase,” because I only have a few minutes and I would like to comment briefly on the selection process for this emblem.

I am very pleased that it was a young man from the town of Walden, Matthew Conroy, who won top honours in the contest among the children of Ontario to select this emblem. Walden lies within the regional municipality of Sudbury and I feel it is very appropriate that a youngster from my region was selected as a representative of the young essayists who all wrote so eloquently on the loon.

Sudbury, as we all know, suffered from the ravages of uncontrolled development and the environmental damage caused was significant. But Sudbury is also the community that banded together and turned this around. The greening of Sudbury is a beautiful sight to us all and I invite all members to come up and see for themselves. With young people such as Matthew, I am certain our environment and our communities will continue to grow in harmony.

In conclusion, I must again compliment the young people of Ontario on their choice of an official bird for our province. There can be no doubt that this emblem is fitting, appropriate and very timely.

Mr Ballinger: Let me begin by thanking the member for Sault Ste Marie for his support, the member for Elgin for her very eloquent support, and also the member for Algoma -- although slightly strained support, I appreciate it very much -- the member for Sudbury from my own caucus, and the member for Durham East, my good friend and neighbouring colleague.

What can we say about the member for Durham East? The member for Durham East spent some time relating various species of birds to our caucus. I was wondering how he was tying that into Bill 27, currently before us, when we were discussing symbols, but quite frankly I say to the member for Durham East that there are at least two avian symbols that come to mind that I think represent him very well. Probably the first might be the symbol of the dodo bird.

Mr Cureatz: Extinct.

Mr Ballinger: Well, no, it is a bird that runs all over the place flapping and really does not accomplish very much.

Second, another symbol might be the crow. That is one the member for Durham East forgot.

Mr Wildman: Why, because he’s always ravin’?

Mr Ballinger: No, because he has fouled his own nest on more than one occasion.

Mr Cureatz: That’s true.

Mr Ballinger: I also want to thank the member for Wellington (Mr J. M. Johnson) for his support. We appreciate it very much.

All kidding aside, this particular discussion about making the loon a symbol for Ontario is a very important one. It has been selected through a contest by the children of Ontario, the future generation, who are somewhat concerned.

In a brief conversation I had with the member for London North, she said she believes very strongly that this is a wise selection because there is fear in Ontario of the extinction of the loon. It is important we symbolize this we work towards making sure that the loon does not become extinct in Ontario.

The mere fact is that the member for London North, when she was chatting with me, explained that Ontario in itself, the people of Ontario, have mostly already adopted this as a symbol anyway. You cannot go anywhere in Ontario without loon memorabilia. Everywhere you go, whether it is in photos, paintings, etchings or carvings --

An hon member: Or earrings.

Mr Ballinger: -- the loon earrings, as the member for Elgin pointed out -- it has really now been chosen by the majority of the people of Ontario. When tourists come to this province, all you have to do is see all the loon artefacts on sale in this province and it would indicate that there is already very strong support out there.

Mr Spook -- Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr Ballinger: I was spooked. I have been spooked by the member for Durham East.

Emblems are chosen because they symbolize for us some of the best aspects of this province. They symbolize Ontario as we see it and as we want others to see it. Ontario is a province with a vital heritage. The loon symbolizes this heritage because it is one of the most ancient birds native to our province. In fact, as I said earlier, the loon family has been around for almost 20 million years.

Ontario is a province of magnificent wilderness areas, of rivers and lakes and fish. In fact, the name Ontario is thought to be derived from the Iroquois word “skandandario,” meaning “beautiful lake.” Loons are one of the most beautiful inhabitants of any of our provincial lakes.

The loon also represents something beyond the wilderness itself. Many of our children who wrote about the loon in their contest entries described their feelings at seeing a loon or hearing its haunting call. They were describing their own experiences of Ontario’s outdoors and they were worried about its future.

We all know that if we can keep our land and our natural resources clean and healthy, our wildlife will remain healthy. That is important to all of us. The loon is extremely sensitive to changes in its environment and is affected by human activity. I think by choosing the loon as our avian emblem we can make it a symbol, to ourselves and to others, of our concern for a quality environment. It will become a sign of our commitment to a healthy environment. It will become a signal that our beautiful wilderness will become part of the heritage we will pass onto our children and to future generations.

In conclusion, I want to say that I believe the children of Ontario have made a wise choice in our official avian emblem; the loon will represent important aspects of what we as Ontarians hold dear to our hearts. I look forward to the support of every member of the House in passing second reading of the bill.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel moved resolution 11:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that those directly affected by the government’s attempt to reform workers’ compensation -- labour groups, injured workers and their advocates -- are overwhelmingly opposed to Bill 162 and want it scrapped, the government of Ontario should immediately withdraw Bill 162 and begin a real process of consultation with the stakeholders to bring in needed, progressive reform to workers’ compensation in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The member is reminded she has up to 20 minutes for her presentation and may reserve any portion thereof.

Miss Martel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do have some formal comments I would like to place on the record, and I do hope to leave time at the end to respond to comments which I know will come from my colleagues on both this side and the government side.

I think it is most appropriate for me to begin by acknowledging that Thursday, 1 June 1989, the day this motion was originally scheduled to be debated, was Injured Workers’ Day. Injured workers were again demonstrating outside this Legislature. They were here for two reasons. First of all, and somewhat ironically, they were here, in fact, to celebrate.

Many members of this House would not know that six years ago, on 1 June 1983, injured workers in Ontario won a major victory when they forced a standing committee of this Legislature to hold public hearings on the steps outside of this building. It had never been done before. It has not been done since.

The standing committee at that time was the standing committee on resources development. It was holding public hearings on the Conservative government’s white paper on changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act. The victory came when the committee was forced to move its deliberations in order to accommodate the overwhelming number of injured workers who came here to protest that white paper.

Injured workers in the province and in particular in Metropolitan Toronto continue to celebrate that day when the ordinary folk in this province actually forced the government to listen to their concerns. Many would say that, in fact, the government of the day actually heard and reacted to their concerns. When Bill 101 was introduced in this Legislature, the dual award system, which they had come to protest about, was not included in that bill.

The second reason that injured workers were here again two weeks ago was to protest, as they were here six years ago to protest. It is an irony that the focus of their protest six years ago was a proposed dual award system to compensate for permanent disabilities. It was essentially the same dual award system that the Liberal government has put in place in Bill 162.

There is a difference, in that in the Tory proposal the age discrimination, which is an inherent part of the lump sum award, began at age 40. In Bill 162 the discrimination begins at age 45. But no matter what way you cut it, it is still discrimination. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, when it came before the committee during public hearings, said the same thing.

The second difference is that the Tory wage-loss system in 1983 was actually fairer than what the Liberals have proposed in Bill 162. The practice of deeming, or the board’s best guess of what an injured worker can earn, was only allowed when a worker actually refused a job which was suitable and had been offered to him or to her.

The Liberals on the committee at that time argued for, and in the end supported, defining the terms “suitable” and “available” to cut out unnecessary Workers’ Compensation Board discretion.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr Wrye) said:

“I view writing

an act without a definition of the words ‘suitable’ and ‘available,’ leaving all of that discretionary power to jurisprudence or the board or a combination of both, as extremely frustrating.”

He said further:

“Those of us who are elected by injured workers and a whole lot of other people ought to have the political courage to begin to define those words. If we do not have the political courage, I quite frankly do not understand what the hell we are doing here.”

I have to wonder what in fact we are doing here. In Bill 162, not only are the words “suitable” and “available” not defined, but in fact the practice of deeming is allowed, whether or not an injured worker has a job offer, whether or not he or she has training for that job, whether or not he or she has done that job before and so on and so on. It is a far cry from what the Liberal Party argued against six short years ago. It is interesting to note that times change, and the Liberal position on this issue certainly has as well since a majority government was won in 1987.

From the outset, injured workers, their advocates and labour have opposed this bill. Nowhere was that sentiment more clearly heard than during the course of public hearings on this bill. The overwhelming majority of the over 300 groups that came before the committee made their position very clear: Bill 162 could not be fixed; it could not be tinkered with; it could not be re-amended. In short, the bill had to be withdrawn completely.

The Peel and area council of the Canadian Auto Workers said this:

“It is our opinion, however, that amendments will not correct Bill 162 since it is fundamentally flawed and should be discarded.”

United Steelworkers of America District 6 director Leo Gerard noted this:

“Bill 162 must be withdrawn. Its fundamental flaws cannot be corrected by amending the bill in its present form. Workers in Ontario will continue to be unjustly treated unless Bill 162 is withdrawn and replaced by just and equitable amendments.”

The Ontario branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees put it this way: “Bill 162 should not be implemented, nor should it be further amended.”

Finally, and very simply, the Union of Injured Workers and their advocates said this: “Bill 162 must be set aside. It is not worth amending.”

The minister’s weak-kneed amendments, which he introduced in committee some three weeks ago, do nothing to change this position. In fact, they are noteworthy for their complete lack of substance, especially after all we heard during the course of the public hearings.

For example, rehabilitation is still not a statutory right for injured workers. The lump sum award is still miserly; it is still based on age discrimination. Deeming is alive and well; there is no way to check its abuse under this act. There are still exemptions and still time limitations in the reinstatement

section in spite of the fact that these are not allowed under the Human Rights Code. The WCB still has more discretionary power than ever before, and so on and so on.

These are types of concerns that the resources committee heard over and over again during the course of the public hearings, but this government did not listen to what those people had to say.

Those presenters who came before the committee and asked frankly whether there was any point to having public hearings and whether in fact their concerns were going to be listened to had every right to be cynical and critical of this government, because in fact this government did not listen to what the overwhelming majority had to say.

If the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) had listened, he would have withdrawn the bill, because that is exactly what labour, the injured workers’ groups, the legal clinics and their advocates said when they came before the committee.

On the important point of consultation, it is safe to say that none of the stakeholders in this system had any input into this bill before it was introduced.

My colleagues and I on the committee made it a point to ask a large number of groups whether they had been consulted about the bill before it was introduced. In each case, we were told that discussions took place after the bill was introduced or discussions did not take place at all. This came from some of the major stakeholders in the system, from those people who deal with compensation and this act every day on behalf of injured workers.

Any changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act must surely come about only after all of the stakeholders have been consulted and there has been dialogue.

It is interesting to note that it was only after Bill 162 was introduced that the minister then established the advisory committee for the green paper. The order in council which established the advisory committee says this:

“Whereas the Minister of Labour deems it advisable to obtain the opinions of various representatives of the workplace in respect of workers’ compensation, there is established a group to be known as the Workers’ Compensation Reform Advisory Group to advise the Minister of Labour on the subject of reform under the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

Why did this happen after Bill 162 was introduced? Why were the issues not raised in Bill 162 given to the green paper committee to deal with? I think the answer is very clear and it was best summed up by the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto and York Region, which came before the committee and said this:

“The intended bias of this legislation, in our opinion, is obvious from the start. If the legislation was sincerely intended to meet the needs of injured workers, why is it then that their organizations were not consulted in the drafting of these changes?”

I think the answer is simple: This legislation is not intended in any way, shape or form to meet the needs of injured workers.

It is completely inappropriate for the minister to say, as he has on several occasions, that Bill 162 is a result of years of discussion on how to reform workers’ compensation in this province. The ministry pamphlet which advertises Bill 162 says this, and I quote:

“These changes” -- meaning Bill 162 -- “are the result of a great deal of study. In 1985, the Ontario government commissioned research on how best to compensate injured workers and how to help them resume earning a living. After these studies were completed, the government talked to representatives of labour and business and injured workers themselves to put together a plan for a better, fairer system of workers’ compensation. The changes that are being introduced are based on that plan. Overall, these changes will not add to the cost of workers’ compensation because they involve a better use of existing funds. All of the changes are included in Bill 162.”

I have to say that that is utterly misleading and utterly inappropriate. Let me say why. Two issues alone have really dominated the issue of workers’ compensation reform in the past number of years. Those two issues include compensation for permanent disabilities and rehabilitation services offered by the Workers’ Compensation Board.

In the case of compensation of permanent disabilities, Professor Paul Weiler has recommended since 1980 that the government of the day adopt a dual award system to replace the present monthly pension. He did so one more time in 1986 in his third report which is entitled Permanent Partial Disability: Alternative Models for Compensation.

In 1981, the then Tory government did incorporate Professor Weiler’s scheme into its white paper. During the course of public hearings on that white paper during 1982 and 1983, that dual award scheme was overwhelmingly rejected by labour, by injured workers’ groups and by their advocates.

In 1981, the then Tory government did incorporate Professor Weiler’s scheme into its white paper. During the course of public hearings on that white paper in 1982 and 1983, that dual award scheme was overwhelmingly rejected by labour, by injured workers’ groups and by their advocates.

Bill 162, as I said earlier, duplicates that same dual award system with minor changes. In fact, a dual award system proposed under Bill 162 is even more unfair when it comes to the practice of deeming. That system too was resoundingly rejected during the course of public hearings on this bill by labour, by injured workers’ groups and by their advocates.

There has never been any consensus on how to adopt a dual award system in this province since the idea was first conceived in 1980. There has never been any consensus on how to bring a dual award system into place in this province.

The second issue, which has been a topic of major concern about compensation for the last number of years, concerns rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation became a focus of concern in particular in 1985 because rehabilitation services at the WCB were so bad and there was so much criticism that the government was forced to establish a task force to deal with the situation and make recommendations.

That task force, Majesky-Minna, was made up of representatives from labour, business and the medical community. Over the course of several months, they toured 19 communities in this province. They held public hearings in 19 communities, heard from hundreds of people and received hundreds of briefs about how bad rehabilitation was.

Their final report condemned the WCB in terms of rehabilitation services. That committee further recommended 84 changes that should be made to overhaul the delivery of rehabilitation to ensure that workers received rehabilitation and appropriate rehabilitation.

Those recommendations do not appear in this bill, nor has the WCB put them in place in its new rehabilitation strategy announced in April 1988. Although the minister has tried to suggest that they do appear in the bill or they do appear at the WCB, we have heard otherwise. In fact, in May 1988, Wally Majesky, one of the co-chairmen of that task force, held a press conference in this building and said that in fact the Worker’s Compensation Board had rejected 87 per cent of the recommendations put forward by that task force on how to change the system.

During the course of the public hearings, Bernie Young, United Steelworkers of America representative, who was a member of that task force, came before the committee and said that the recommendations of the task force did not appear anywhere in Bill 162.

Two million dollars of government money, months and months of hard work by a conscientious group trying to do a good job, and that report has effectively been shelved by this government.

There was consensus on how to change rehabilitation. This government did not have the guts the implement those changes.

The compensation system in this province is not working and we all know it, but this bill will do absolutely nothing to improve a terrible situation. That was the message the resources committee heard throughout the course of the public hearings; that, and a call on this government to withdraw the bill.

On behalf of all of those labour groups, all of the injured workers’ groups and their advocates who oppose this bill, I call on this government to withdraw Bill 162 and begin a real process of consultation to change the system.

Mr McLean: I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on the resolution from the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) calling on the Ontario government to withdraw Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, and to begin the consultation process aimed at the progressive reform of the workers’ compensation system in this province.

The key points of Bill 162 include replacing the current so-called meat chart system with a new dual system which would compensate injured workers on the basis of projected income of future earnings or income and non-economic losses, such as the effect upon lifestyle associated with permanent injuries; a mandatory reinstatement policy for many employers under certain conditions, and an increase in the compensation ceiling which would see the maximum gross earnings on which benefits are calculated and assessments are determined increase from 140 per cent to 175 per cent of the average industrial wage for Ontario or $35,100 per annum to $44,000 per annum.

Workers’ rehabilitation policy would require the WCB to contact the injured workers within 45 days of their injuries and provide prompt rehabilitation counselling where necessary. Injured workers who have not returned to employment within six months of an injury would be entitled to a formal evaluation of their vocational rehabilitation needs.

I cannot help but agree with my colleague the member for Sudbury East when she demands that the government withdraw Bill 162. I agree with her that this piece of legislation should be withdrawn, but for different reasons. Both employees and workers have legitimate concerns about the proposed amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Employers are concerned because they will be asked to contribute more money to the system they believe is already giving away far too much. They are concerned because they feel the scope of the compensation benefits is out of hand.

Employers are concerned that management controlled decisions are being taken out of their hands and placed in those of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, which has no cost responsibility and therefore often gives overly generous compensation awards, according to them.

Employers are concerned because they argue that injuries supposedly suffered in the workplace are often questionable. The list of concerns raised by both sides goes on and on.

A construction company I am aware of has hired extra trucks. The WCB indicates that they have to insure the trucks they hire, yet they have no say over whether they are safe, whether they need new tires or new springs, or whether they need to be fixed. Yet, this owner-operator is to pay for compensation of trucks that he hires. He has a concern with that and rightly so. I would think that if you owned your own truck, you would pay your compensation.

Another person wrote to me with regard to a small meat-packing plant that he owns, with six to eight employees. They have paid approximately $20,000 in compensation in three years and have had hardly any claims. So, employers are concerned.

I want to tell the members about an employee, a personal friend of mine -- as a matter of fact, a relation, my brother-in-law -- who had his arm severed between the wrist and the elbow in the workplace last October. When you talk to people who have been injured, who have gone through and dealt with the Workers’ Compensation Board and have had several operations, psychologically, there is a problem.

This individual is wondering in two years’ time or less what he is going to be doing, what he will be doing for the next 25 years that he is able to work or should be able to work. What type of a salary is he going to be able to make? Is he going to be capable of doing what he likes doing?

This is only just one of the people that you hear of, and the closer you are to these people, the more you know of their concern and the concern that they are raising. There are very few people who are injured who do not want to work; they want to get back to work, but there are many who cannot do what they had enjoyed doing in the past. So, the workers are concerned.

We got a pretty clear indication of this when more than 200 injured workers stormed the Legislature because they opposed lower compensation benefits, objected to small lump sum payments in place of permanent pensions; they opposed a continued strong role played by the WCB physicians; they argued that temporary benefits would be severely restricted under the new system; they opposed wage loss payments based on the types of jobs; they objected to increased insecurity in old age and argued that rehabilitation would be virtually nonexistent. Like the employers’, the list of workers’ objections and concerns is endless.

The Workers’ Compensation Act was designed and passed in law in 1915. Today, the WCB has become a nightmare, a bureaucratic maze that is stifling the work that it was set up to accomplish, and the concerns and priorities are being lost in the process. I believe the WCB is one of the fastest, if not the fastest, growing bureaucracies in the government. The WCB is completely out of control.

I sincerely believe that we are all in agreement with the principles of the Workers’ Compensation Act and I believe that we all support the proposed aim of Bill 162, which is to give the injured workers of Ontario and their employers the fairest deal possible.

I must add that the amendments to Bill 162 do not accomplish their goal. Workers are upset because they feel they will be getting less than they had before. The employers who fund the entire administration of benefits paid out by the board are upset because they feel they have no control over their own money.

I believe that Bill 162, with its amendments and proposals, amounts to ineffective tinkering. The act is mired down and tangled in layer after layer of administration, which makes it almost impossible to get things done efficiently.

I support this resolution and believe that one of two approaches should be taken to the Workers’ Compensation Act. The first approach should be to have a royal commission look into the affairs of the WCB. This proposal is supported by both workers and employers alike, but the government failed to respond positively to this idea when it was first proposed in 1987.

The second approach involves withdrawing Bill 162 and bringing in a completely new act which will really address the concerns of both the employer and the employees. However, I doubt the government, with its huge majority, will go for this idea either. We have already seen what the government has in mind for the standing orders of this Legislature. The government will use its massive majority to ram through changes to the rules of the House that will ultimately permit this government to do what it wants and leave the opposition parties with absolutely no rights.

This move is completely anti-democratic and it is just one more display of this government’s arrogance. It is called, “the gag law.”

If the government can use its huge majority to try to take the heat off the recent politician payment scandals, or to ram through undemocratic changes to the rules of this House, how can workers and employers be expected to see any positive changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act that will result in fairness for both sides? I think that is just wishful thinking.

I would like to take a few minutes to share with you some of the concerns I have with the Workers’ Compensation Board, and more specifically, about Bill 162. In Ontario, the program’s unfunded liability is far and away the highest, compared to every other province in Canada, and it is getting worse. With all the emphasis on safety programs and all of the effort being invested in initiatives to rehabilitate injured workers, the record shows we are losing the battle.

In 1980 the average duration of lost time was 23.5 days. It is now 50 per cent higher at 34 days. In 1980 the number of weeks of benefits was 4.7. It is now 6.8. Both of these trends have a tremendous impact on cost and ultimately on rates. In 1987 there were 230 workers killed in industrial accidents. That is about one for every working day, and a cost in human life that is clearly unacceptable.

Between 1979 and 1987, the number of disabling injuries has increased by 61 per cent. I have serious concerns about the lack of an effective rehabilitation program for injured workers. It is both cost effective and far more acceptable for injured workers to get back on the job, if possible, and as soon as possible.

Bill 162 does not address any of my concerns about the administration costs associated with the current system. I feel that the reforming of the system, making it more responsive and more cost effective, either by way of a royal commission or at least by introducing some substantive changes, is long overdue.

Mrs Sullivan: I am sure it will come as no surprise to members to know that I will be speaking in opposition to the resolution of the member for Sudbury East. I also want members to know that I think it is refreshing to be able to engage in debate on the content of Bill 162, rather than the histrionics, the obfuscations, and indeed the simplifications of the issues associated with the bill which we have witnessed at every stage in the presentation of that bill.

Like other members, I have no illusions about the position of the New Democratic Party on the basic principle of the bill. The introduction of the dual award system is clearly something that they do not like. I understand their argumentation, I understand the principles behind their opposition to the dual award system, and I understand that this is not a new position for the NDP, that from the first Weiler report that party has been consistent in its opposition.

I disagree with their position, but I want to be able to get on with the debate and to deal with the substantive matters associated with the operation of workers’ compensation and how it can be improved to meet today’s needs.

We all know that the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Workers’ Compensation Act need reform. Bill 162 addresses much of that need. As well, the board’s own response to the Minna-Majesky report, its internal operating reorganization, its own recognition of its shortcomings in unfunded liability and vocational rehabilitation services and its own credibility to workers and employers have led it to make attempts to improve those shortcomings.

Every member recognizes that injured workers have not always been treated with the fairness and respect they deserve. We know that employers also feel they are not getting good value for their WCB dollar and that they want their employees back at work with them in a fit condition and without rancour.

The government certainly knows there are serious problems with workers’ compensation in Ontario and it is earnestly working to fix those problems. Any further delay, as suggested in this resolution, would be irresponsible, in my view.

The members opposite have spent some time trying to paint Bill 162 as a regressive step rather than the progressive legislation that it is. I want to reiterate the comments made at the opening of second reading debate by the Minister of Labour. “Bill 162 represents a conclusion of one round of historic reforms to the system and constitutes the beginning of another.”

Ontario is not the first province to introduce a dual award system into workers’ compensation. Bill 162 improves upon the dual award system first pioneered by a New Democratic government in Saskatchewan some 10 years ago. Dual award is becoming the norm of reform in workers’ compensation throughout the country. Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland have all adopted dual award systems. Nova Scotia announced in April of this year that it will be introducing a dual award system there and Alberta is making warm noises about the introduction of a dual award system.

There are no political stripes attached. It is a choice of what will make the system work for employees and for employers.

Bill 162 does four things. It introduces the dual award system to compensate workers with permanent impairments resulting from a workplace injury, it establishes a new statutory framework to provide for effective vocational rehabilitation to be provided on a timely basis to all injured workers who require this assistance in order to return to active participation in the workforce, it places some very real obligations upon employers to re-engage injured workers as soon as they are able to return to work and it makes provision for additional vocational rehabilitation and supplementary benefits to workers already injured and being compensated under the existing system.

The bill does other things, as well. It increases the earnings-covered ceiling so that it will be permanently fixed at 175 per cent of the average industrial wage for Ontario. Given that in 1988 the average industrial wage is estimated at $25,000, the new ceiling provision, if in effect today, would produce an earnings-covered ceiling of some $44,000. In fact, the ceiling will be higher when the bill comes into force as the average industrial wage will have risen by then. But as it is, it is a significant increase from the current ceiling of $36,600.

Bill 162 has received full public hearings through the committee stage and despite her suggestions that throughout the hearings the government would not pay any attention, the government clearly paid attention. From the oral and written interventions and other consultations, shortcomings and limitations of the bill have been considered, analysed and addressed. Not only has the government listened, but the government has responded.

The Minister of Labour has tabled with the standing committee a package of substantial amendments for its consideration. The amendments are intended to clarify some of the aspects of the statute which, given the language used, have been open to unintended

interpretations; to strengthen certain provisions of the bill and to respond to criticisms of the bill.

Those amendments have been put forward to ensure that Ontario’s workers’ compensation system is fairer and more effective than is presently the case. When implemented, Bill 162 will ensure that workers injured in the future are compensated fairly for the impact the injury has on their lives. It will do this in two ways: providing a compensation award for the noneconomic consequences of an injury and by providing compensation for the loss in earnings capacity suffered by the worker.

One of the issues raised before the committee was whether the Workers’ Compensation Board is given too much discretion to set a final wage loss award for a term which ends before the worker reaches the age of 65. That was certainly not the government’s intent, and to make that point clear the government has proposed an amendment to clarify that the loss-of-earnings benefit will be paid until age 65. The bill, as written, does not, as the member for Sudbury East has previously stated, give the WCB a free rein in determining projected lost earnings capacity.

As originally drafted, the bill sets out a number of factors that are to be taken into account when establishing the criteria which will be used to determine projected wage loss. These criteria will be set out in the regulations and will be based upon such objective factors as the worker’s personal and vocational characteristics, the availability of suitable employment, the net average earnings before the injury, the net average earnings, if any, at the time of the assessment and prospects for successful vocational and medical rehabilitation.

Furthermore, the board, in determining what the worker is able to earn, will have to look at the worker’s actual post-injury experience. Thus, when the injured worker returns to suitable employment and suffers a loss of earnings, the bill requires that the WCB shall have regard to actual earnings when it is calculating the worker’s future loss of earnings.

However, to give even greater clarity to the government’s intention, the Minister of Labour has proposed a modification to the bill which spells out in even greater detail what factors are to be taken into account when determining what constitutes suitable and available employment. The WCB will have regard to the following: the fitness of the worker to perform the work, the health and safety consequences to the worker in the specific work environment, the existence and location of employment opportunities and the likelihood of the worker securing employment. This addition to the bill should finally dispel any notion that the WCB will base its earnings-loss determination on phantom jobs.

The awarding of an amount for noneconomic loss is fundamentally a medical rather than a legal or an administrative decision, and while the government has every confidence in the professionalism of medical practitioners in the employ of the WCB, others have a different view. Nevertheless, it is important that the assessment not only be an impartial professional analysis, but also be seen to be so. Therefore, the government has proposed an amendment to the bill which will enable the worker to select a physician from a roster of independent practitioners.

There are many more changes, many more improvements that have been put forward in the amendments to the bill that the committee is waiting anxiously to consider. Bill 162 will put Ontario’s workers’ compensation system at the forefront of workers’ compensation programs on this continent. I urge all members to support Bill 162 and oppose the resolution before them.

Mr B. Rae: I want to start by responding to the last point that was made by the member for Halton Centre. It just will not do to say that this puts the WCB at the forefront in North America. If that were the case, I say to the member, why would every single workers’ organization in this province be opposed, why would every injured workers’ organization be opposed? Does she think that a progressive coalition in Arkansas, California or any part of North America could possibly be put together to reform workers’ compensation in a progressive way that did not include those people who were affected by the changes?

The only people who are in favour of this, in addition to members of the Liberal Party and the bureaucrats at the WCB and in the Ministry of Labour, are management people, corporate executives, across the province.

Mr Epp: And the NDP in Saskatchewan.

Mr B. Rae: I say to the member who just heckled: When was the last time the president of Inco, the president of Ford, the president of Stelco, the president of any other major industrial company or of any major construction company, Mr Del Zotto or anybody else, had to go down to the WCB and say, “I have not had my payments for the last two years”? When was the last time they had to explain to the WCB that they were having to lose their house because the payments were not coming through because they had been denied a pension? If these are the people who are in favour of the reform, just on a gut reaction that is a good enough reason to oppose it.

One has to look beyond the simple reality that every single organized group of workers in this province has stated its complete opposition to Bill 162 and its determination to defeat Bill 162. I would say to the Liberal Party: This is the first major reform of workers’ compensation since 1915 which has not had the support, the consensus and the approval of the people who are going to be affected by these changes. This is the first change that has ever been imposed on working people against their will. Every other major reform in legislation since 1915 has had the support of the millions of workers who are going to be affected by these changes.

The bill has three major problems with it that are fundamental, that go to the root of the issue and that speak very directly to the concerns of working people.

Le premier problème avec ce projet de loi, c’est que la proposition du Parti libéral va changer la

Loi sur les accidents du travail et va créer encore un système de bien-être social. Nous ne voulons pas de système de bien-être pour indemniser les gens dont les problèmes et les maladies ont été causés par leur travail ; nous demandons un système de justice.

We want a justice system for people who have been injured on the job. We want an insurance system for people who have been injured on the job. We do not want a welfare system for people who have been injured on the job. That is the fundamental difference between us and the Liberal Party.

I will speak very directly to the question that has been raised about the changes that have been made in other provinces. I think we ought to learn from those changes. I think we ought to recognize that the party that brought in those changes in Saskatchewan now feels that that system needs changing; that that system is not working; that it is producing a situation where a great many workers are being denied benefits and where the level of benefits for workers is in fact lower than it would otherwise have been.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan), said that we had been consistent in our approach to the Weiler report since 1981. She is quite right. I was here when the Weiler report first came down, and I can tell her that her colleagues in the Liberal Party, some of whom are still there, were initially opposed to Weiler as well. So the charge of consistency is one that I accept, but it is not one that can be applied to her own party or to her own colleagues.

I think we have to recognize that the move to create a welfare system out of workers’ compensation will be a tragedy for injured workers. It is a mistake of historic proportions. I go back to my fundamental point. Why are we imposing changes on workers that they do not want? It is workers who are the beneficiaries of this legislation and who are affected by this legislation. Company executives do not get injured on the job; workers get injured on the job. If a bill is not acceptable to those workers, then I can tell members it is not acceptable to me and it is not acceptable to the New Democratic Party.

Second, I think we have to recognize and see very clearly that, government speeches notwithstanding, this bill does much less in the field of vocational rehabilitation and on the question of reinstatement than the government would hold out; much less indeed.

We know full well that the thrust of the Majesky-Minna report was to say two things: That workers have a right to work and a right to rehabilitation and that indeed the whole thrust of the WCB needed to be changed in order to put working and rehabilitation at the very centre of the work of the board.

Well, what has been done? First of all, there is no right to rehabilitation. There is no such right contained in this bill. In fact, the wording of the act is the exact opposite. The Acting Speaker, as a lawyer with some experience in this field, will understand this distinction.

The bill says that workers have a right to an assessment, so that everybody will get assessed. But that worker having been assessed, the discretion of the board as to what to offer that worker is complete and total. It is fully within the discretion of the board to offer and organize a rehabilitation program and it is fully within the discretion of the board not to do so.

That is a decision which, being fully in the discretion of the board, in effect denies the ability of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal to effectively review because the discretion of the board is as total as it is, is stated to be as total as it is.

Section 86n is still there in terms of the power it gives to the board in its determination of its decisions, but I can say to the members of the Liberal Party, if any of them believe that this bill says anything about a right to rehabilitation, they should read the bill.

On reinstatement, we are nowhere near where the Liberal Party says we ought to be. The Majesky-Minna report stated categorically that there needed to be assurances that workers would get their jobs back and that there would be some legal obligations on employers to take workers back. Those rights are so circumscribed in this bill, and indeed do not even apply in full form in whole sectors of our economy, that literally millions of workers are effectively outside this so-called protection.

So what do we have? We have a bill being imposed against the will of working people. We have a bill on compensation that breaks faith with our 75-year social contract with the working people of this province when it comes to compensation: “Give up your right to sue and we’ll create a system which you can be part of, which is your system. Give up that right to sue and you’ll have an insurance system of which you can be proud.” That contract has been broken. It does not provide for a right to rehabilitation and it effectively circumscribes and limits very dramatically the right to reinstatement.

The member for Halton Centre says she is looking forward to the debate and she enjoys participating in the debate. I can tell her we have a very profound difference of opinion on this question. We think the government is wrong; we think what the government is doing is in fact unconscionable. It is an issue which we intend to continue to fight.

Mr Lipsett: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take

part in this important debate today. I would like to address my remarks particularly to the rehabilitation and the reinstatement to work that this bill offers, because from the moment that it took office this government has expressed its concern about vocational rehabilitation and employment efforts on behalf of injured workers.

In May 1986, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, then Minister of Labour, appointed the Ontario Task Force on the Vocational Rehabilitation Services of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The task force was asked to do a number of things.

In its review, the task force recommended that workers have a statutory right to vocational rehabilitation. I believe that Bill 162 does that. No, it is not an unlimited right: There must be an evaluation to determine whether a vocational rehabilitation program will be of assistance to the injured worker.

Members opposite have suggested that every worker who suffers a permanent injury should receive vocational rehabilitation if the worker requests it, but, given that the vast majority of injured workers are able to return to work without vocational rehabilitation, that would be a misuse of workers’ compensation resources.

The task force recommended that the act be amended to spell out the definition of what rehabilitation means. The task force’s clear intent was to ensure that the whole person is dealt with, not just a physical impairment. We do not disagree. We considered introducing a definition but chose instead to maintain the current flexibility by leaving rehabilitation undefined, rather than inevitably limiting it by giving it a definition.

Instead, the bill defines the services that can be provided through a vocational rehabilitation program. To give greater certainty to the bill’s vocational rehabilitation services, the Minister of Labour has tabled amendments with the standing committee considering the bill, which will define what the vocational rehabilitation assessment is to include and what services may be provided as a vocational service to the injured worker.

The task force recommended that all cases that have been opened for more than 30 days be referred to vocational rehabilitation service. We considered that but were reminded that there are many cases where a worker will recover fully, but the recovery takes longer than 30 days. Indeed, some 80 per cent of injured workers are back to work within 45 days of their injury. Automatically referring everyone after 30 days would be inappropriate, impractical and again a misuse of scarce resources.

The route we chose instead is to use a two-step process. First, the Workers’ Compensation Board is obligated by Bill 162 to contact the injured worker if he is still off work 45 days after the injury. The purpose is to determine if the worker requires any vocational services. Unfortunately, 45 days after an injury is sometimes too soon to determine the rehabilitation needs of an injured worker. So Bill 162 provides that where a worker has not returned to work within six months of the injury, the board is obligated to offer the worker a formal vocational rehabilitation assessment.

That is not to say that the WCB has to wait six months before providing such assessment, but if the worker is not back to work, already receiving rehabilitation services or involved in a rehabilitation program, then the worker has the right to require the WCB to undertake a vocational rehabilitation assessment.

The amendments tabled by the Minister of Labour clarify these provisions by making it clear that upon receipt of the assessment, the WCB in having regard for the assessment is to consult with the worker and then make a determination as to the need of a rehabilitation program, all within 30 days. This time line will be added to the bill to make it clear that there should be no delays in the provision of this service.

When the WCB determines that a worker will benefit from a rehabilitation program, then the board is further obligated to consult with the worker and, where possible, with the employer and the worker’s physician in designing the program. This involvement of the injured worker in his rehabilitation program goes beyond anything recommended by the task force.

The task force did recommend that where the injured worker disagreed with the vocational rehabilitation program being established for him, the worker maintains the right to appeal. Bill 162 does not in any way preclude such appeals through the board or to the WCAT.

The task force also recommended that injured workers have a right to return to their pre-injury job; or where the worker is no longer capable of performing that job, to return the worker to another job in the same enterprise. In some respects, Bill 162 goes further on that recommendation than the task force recommended.

First of all, the bill obligates employers to reinstate all injured workers in their former positions, or where that is not possible, in an alternative job of a similar nature with the same pay.

Second, where the worker is unable to perform the essential duties of that position, the employer is obligated to offer the first suitable position that becomes open.

Third, the minister has tabled an amendment to the bill that will place on employers a similar obligation to accommodate injured workers as is set out in the Ontario Human Rights Code. This additional obligation will require the employer to modify either the work or the workplace as long as to do so would not place an undue hardship upon the employer. The employer is also obligated to file the plan modification with the Workers’ Compensation Board. As well, the bill makes provision for WCB assistance to employers in their efforts to modify the workplace as part of the vocational rehabilitation program.

Fourth, and this is where the bill begins to go farther than the task force recommendations, the WCB is authorized to penalize any employer found in violation of re-employment provisions.

Fifth, in addition, during the injured worker’s first year of absence from work due to the injury, the employer is obligated to maintain contributions to any workplace health care, life insurance and pension plans to which the worker belongs. Not only does this provision ensure the worker does not face an immediate loss of benefits for himself and his family, but it serves to strengthen the continued employment link between the injured worker and his employer.

The government is serious about doing all it can to facilitate the injured worker’s return to work. I believe the approach set out in Bill 162 will make a tremendous difference. Reinstatement provisions are relatively rare in employment law. It is extremely difficult to force an employer to hire and rehire a particular employee. I think that is where we have gone farther with this bill than anyone has ever gone before.

In conclusion, I am convinced that Bill 162, with the proposed amendments discussed above, will have the desired results. Injured workers in Ontario will get the assistance they need to return to the workforce more quickly and in much greater numbers than has been the case up to now.

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr Wildman: I want to take this short time to commend the member for Sudbury East for the work she has done on behalf of injured workers in Ontario and in opposing Bill 162, which is the most ill-conceived piece of legislation we have ever seen in this House.

The fact that the government could proceed with this kind of legislation when every group that will be affected by the legislation is opposed to it is beyond me. Why does the Liberal government insist on proceeding with a bill that has the opposition of injured workers, the labour movement and even of some groups of employers? How is it that the Minister of Labour and his friends in the Liberal Party can believe they are the only ones who are right on this legislation and everyone else who is affected by it is wrong?

It is important we recognize that the promises made by the Liberals in this legislation cannot be fulfilled. We have seen the experience in Saskatchewan, where this dual award system was mistakenly proposed and where most involved groups now would like to see the system changed. The promise of rehabilitation is a sad joke in this legislation. All that is promised is an assessment and that is all that is guaranteed. There is not a guarantee of reinstatement.

I implore the members of the Liberal Party to listen to the people who appeared before the standing committee on resources development and almost unanimously called for the withdrawal of this legislation. We have done all we can to try to persuade the members of the Liberal Party to listen to the people who appeared before the committee. Surely, they can now vote in favour of the resolution of my friend the member for Sudbury East, which will advise the minister to listen and to withdraw the legislation.

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired. The member for Sudbury East had reserved almost three minutes.

Miss Martel: In the short time I have remaining, let me respond to some of the comments that have been made.

The member for Halton Centre has said Bill 162 improves upon the experience of Saskatchewan. Let me tell members of this House what Bob Sass, who was Deputy Minister of Labour at the time this bill went into effect in Saskatchewan, says about this, “If I had my druthers, now I wouldn’t tout the Saskatchewan system as an advance.” He thinks the compensation for wage loss alone is unfair.

Sass thinks the act does not recognize proper compensation for individuals whose claims are recognized. He thinks the act does not recognize as many claims as it should. If he were starting again, he would develop an entirely different system from the one now in place in Saskatchewan.

Second, the member talked about the minister moving substantial amendments in committee three weeks ago. I would say there are substantial amounts of new words in the legislation, but it does not change the bill or the direction of it in any way, shape or form. That is why we wanted new hearings, in order to have the people who came before us tell us the same thing, as l am sure they would have.

She talked about the earnings loss determination and said that with the new amendments to the amendments to the amendments introduced three weeks ago, deeming would not continue. I hate to tell the member that she neglected to mention the last criterion in the deeming section. She mentioned five out of the six. The last one also says “any other such factors as the board may put into the regulations,” which allows it to define anything it wants, any time it wants, and MPPs will have no input into that process at all.

In terms of the comments made by the member or Grey (Mr Lipsett) concerning rehabilitation, let me just point out what Wally Majesky, who was co-chairman of that task force, said over a year ago when the board introduced its new rehabilitation strategy, which the minister has said incorporates most of the Majesky-Minna report: “The new WCB vocational rehabilitation strategy has rejected approximately 87 per cent of the task force recommendations, or 73 out of a total of 84. It is obvious to me that the WCB is still driving a 1914 model of rehabilitation.”

I should point out to the Liberals as well that they paid $2 million for the task force by Minna-Majesky which had representatives not only from labour but from the medical community and business. They made 84 substantial recommendations that this government has decided were not good enough. If they had consensus from labour and from business, why is it not good enough for this government to accept those recommendations and incorporate them into this bill? It is a disgrace.

The purpose of the motion today was to point out two things. The overwhelming majority of groups that came before us said not that the bill could be fixed, not that it could be tinkered with, but that it had to be withdrawn completely, and we should start again with a process of real consultation. There was no consultation on this bill.

We heard the same from the Ontario Federation of Labour, from trade union movement groups, from legal clinics, etc. That is why I am calling on this government today to withdraw this bill and start again with a real process of consultation to reform the system.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for debate on ballot item 7 and ballot item 8.

AVIAN EMBLEM ACT, 1989

The Speaker: Mr Ballinger has moved second reading of Bill 27.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

The House divided on Miss Martel’s motion of resolution 11, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Grier, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Martel, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Rae, B., Reville, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Bossy, Campbell, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Elliot, Epp. Faubert, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Henderson, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, Neumann, Nicholas, Oddie Munro, Offer, Owen, Pelissero. Polsinelli, Poole, Reycraft, Roberts, Sola, South, Sullivan, Ward.

Ayes 18; nays 34.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs Grier: On 19 May there was a leak from Dow Chemical in Sarnia of some 4,000 to 6,000 kilograms of Freon, a chlorofluorocarbon with a tremendous ability to destroy the earth’s ozone layer. Dow uses it as a coolant in the chlorine plant in what is supposed to be a fully contained system.

Investigators of the Ministry of the Environment are still trying to determine whether it is even possible to charge Dow for this Freon leak. Dow did not report the leak promptly to the ministry because the company claimed there was no legal requirement to do so, and even if Dow had reported it, there is no proper provision in air pollution regulation 308 to cover substances such as Freon that do global rather than local damage. This morning the ministry told us that it would be several years before regulation 308 is amended.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) talks a good line about protecting the ozone layer. This Legislature debated Bill 218 which will phase out CFC use in Ontario, yet there is little or nothing in the Environmental Protection Act to give the ministry the muscle to prosecute a massive CFC leak such as the one by Dow. We have two fine-sounding pronouncements in the act.

Section 13 says you must not discharge a contaminant into the environment. In other words you should not pollute, but if you do,

section 14 says that when you discharge a contaminant out of the normal course of events that causes or is likely to cause an adverse effect, you must notify the ministry forthwith.

if a major leak of a chemical that destroys the ozone layer is not enough to make Ontario’s environmental laws kick in, what is?

CLEANTARIO

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’ Neil). The minister will recall on 25 April the throne speech from his government contained a reference to the creation of a new lottery fund called Cleantario. I realize that this speech was made nearly two months ago and its contents may have faded from his memory, so let me refer to the pertinent

section which says, the creation of a “new lottery fund, Cleantario, to help finance our ongoing efforts to protect our environment.”

In other words, the minister’s colleague Bingo Bradley has indicated he is not willing to pay for any of the pollution abatement necessary to keep Ontario clean. Through the minister, Bingo Bradley has decided to tap into the already saturated lottery market to do the job. The Minister of the Environment is abdicating his responsibility and will gamble on the lottery-ticket-buying public to do his job for him.

The Cleantario announcement was made approximately two months ago and we still do not know what kind of a numbers game Cleantario will be or when the first tickets will go on sale. I do not think the minister or the Minister of the Environment even know if the marketplace can support another lottery. The uncertainty surrounding Cleantario leads me to believe that his government’s phoney war on pollution is only a crapshoot. The minister’s government continues to turn up snake eyes when it comes to the environment.

FOLK FESTIVAL

Mr Furlong: For the past 28 years, the Oshawa Folk Arts Council has annually entertained the people of the community with a celebration of its culture. Since its inception in 1961, the Oshawa Folk Arts Council has grown from an evening Mother’s Day concert to a fiesta celebration that encompasses a week-long community festival.

The main thrust of the folk arts council is to promote better understanding and goodwill among all the people in the community. Oshawa’s week-long fun festival welcomes more than 100,000 people and offers worldwide cuisine, international entertainment, unequalled hospitality and good cheer. A one-time purchase of a $4.00 passport is your admission to all fiesta events starting Sunday, 18 June with the fiesta parade, which will feature more than 2,000 participants.

As the parade finishes, the 28th annual folk festival concert begins. This international presentation reflects the cultural mosaic of Oshawa. Included in the festival is Pavilion Week. This year’s 26 pavilions promise six action-packed days of international hospitality.

I invite members to visit Oshawa, enjoy the hospitality, cuisine, stage shows, public dancing, boutiques, cultural displays and good cheer. As June is Seniors’ Month, it should be noted that all senior citizens are admitted to the pavilions without charge. I want to congratulate the members of the Oshawa Folk Arts Council for their hours of dedication to the task of fostering an understanding of the richness of our multicultural community.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Morin-Strom: I would like to express serious concern about the Minister of Transportation’s (Mr Fulton) parochial priorities for highways in Ontario.

Yesterday, the minister announced $690 million of new highway initiatives in the Metropolitan Toronto area, and nothing for other areas of the province; nothing for southwestern Ontario, nothing for eastern Ontario, nothing for the Niagara Peninsula and nothing for northern Ontario. The people of these other areas of the province, certainly the people in northern Ontario, would like to know what this government’s commitment is to highways in other areas of Ontario. Hopefully it is not being the spokes of a wheel centred in Toronto.

In recent years, and the last two in particular, this government has committed to less than 10 kilometres of multilane highways across northern Ontario. At that rate, it will take over 100 years to four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway across our province. Surely the Ontario government must recognize that the Trans-Canada Highway particularly is ageing, and its design no longer reflects its national importance.

I urge the Premier (Mr Peterson), along with the Minister of Transportation, to make a sincere commitment to a staged upgrading of that highway. Transportation and tourism, indeed the whole economy of the north particularly, require that the Trans-Canada Highway become the first class national highway that it should be.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: In the absence of any policy leadership and certainly in the absence of any moral and ethical leadership by the Premier (Mr Peterson) and cabinet, the Liberal Party has taken to blaming Ottawa for all its failings. This is just as true in agriculture as elsewhere.

Rural members will know that Ontario participated in jointly funding, with Ottawa, drought relief for livestock producers. Rural members, however, may not be aware that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) has not yet done the same for the crop and horticultural industries. The government should realize that a childish turf war with Ottawa hurts no one but Ontario’s farmers.

Perhaps one reason is that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has failed to get a single penny from cabinet to help crop producers who were hard hit by last year’s drought. Cabinet members cannot seem to remember last summer’s crippling drought in Ontario any more than they can remember Patti Starr’s contributions and other activities. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is now reported to have said that he may not be making any provincial appointments to the Ontario producer review committee of the Canadian crop drought assistance program.

Ontario farmers need these appointments and provincial participation. In particular, the horticultural industry in eastern Ontario needs these appointments in order to emphasize the special circumstances of apple growers in eastern Ontario, for instance. I urge the minister and cabinet to take these needs seriously and to act to help the crop and horticultural industry all across the province.

HARRY CLASS

Mr D. R. Cooke: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise during Seniors’ Month in Ontario to inform the members of an outstanding senior citizen in Kitchener. Harry Class is 73 years old. He started competitive swimming one year ago and is now the holder of the Ontario records in the 50-metre, 100-metre and 200-metre freestyle in the 70- to 74-year age group.

For him this is nothing new, as he has been an outstanding athlete most of his life. In 1932, he was the Canadian junior diving champion. In 1934, he won the bronze medal for Canada at the British Empire Games. He continued to be diving champion until 1943, when he entered the services. He also joined the Canadian National Exhibition sports committee, which he has served for 25 years.

His career as a freestyle swimmer, however, has begun only recently. In May 1988 he began swimming competitively in his age group and in the past three months has won the following awards. In March 1989 at Troy, New York he won two New York state championships; in March 1989 at the University of Toronto he won three Ontario championships; in April of this year he won four golds in the Niagara District International Invitational Meet at the University of Buffalo; and more recently he has won four golds at the Canadian Masters Swimming Championship held in Quebec City two weeks ago. He is currently training for the World Senior Games to be held in Utah in October.

It is with a great deal of pride that I personally congratulate Harry Class who is in the members’ gallery and I hope that he can look forward to many more wins in years to come.

APPLICATION OF SCHOOL RULES

Mr R. F. Johnston: I wanted to draw to the attention of the House the case of one Ron Sondhi, an 18-year-old with bone cancer who lives in Brampton. The night before he was to start chemotherapy at Mount Sinai Hospital he went back to his high school to go to a dance, the last that he might be able to go to for some time. His high school vice-principal refused him entrance because he did not buy his ticket during the day at class. Two constables went in and argued for him. They still did not let him in. A friend got up in an assembly following this event, asked for an apology and was therefore suspended for three days for doing so.

I would ask that the minister investigate this case and get a report from the Peel Board of Education about what went on. It is the most insensitive example of authoritarianism I have seen in a high school.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Hon Mr Fulton: Yesterday I informed the House of the new package of provincial highway initiatives and new funding support for municipal roads in the greater Toronto area, I suggest to my friend, the member for Sault Ste Marie (Mr Morin-Strom). It is one of the components of this government’s $2-billion transportation capital program for the next five years.

Today I want to update members on another component, a similar plan for public transit in the greater Toronto area. It will accelerate public transit initiatives contained in Transportation Directions for the Greater Toronto Area, a document released a year ago by this government.

An efficient network of local and regional transit systems is essential to the greater Toronto area. Approximately 4 million Ontarians now live in the area, which stretches from Halton in the west, Lake Simcoe in the north and the region of Durham to the east. It is estimated that a million more people will arrive in this area in the next 10 years. A balanced system for this region must therefore encompass municipal roads, provincial highways and a mix of provincial and municipal transit.

The new Ontario budget provides an accelerated capital program of $550 million for transit in the next five years. GO Transit represents one of the greatest single opportunities for transit improvements for all residents of the GTA. In fact, in the past five years GO Transit has carried 70 per cent of all new transit commuters into downtown Toronto. For GO Transit, therefore, our five-year accelerated-capital plan provides for an additional investment of $400 million.

Added to base funding already in the budget, this new funding will finance several immediate and long-term improvements. Those initial improvements are an additional morning and evening train on the Stouffville line later this year --

Mr Cousens: Or Markham-Scarborough.

Hon Mr Fulton: Before my friend from Markham (Mr Cousens) applauded, I was going to suggest to him that he and I would probably prefer to call it the Scarborough-Markham-Stouffville line.

Additional bilevel passenger cars and locomotives will be ordered, and the addition of nearly 2,000 more parking spots, a 10 per cent increase for commuters who must drive a car between their homes and the GO station.

Union Station will continue to be the major focal point for the GO rail network. Consequently, GO Transit will upgrade rail and platform capacity. Those improvements will speed the flow of trains and passengers. With this new funding, GO Transit can now proceed with several longer-term projects.

The Ministry of Transportation is now ready to submit environmental assessment reports on GO expansion east to Oshawa and for enhanced service to an improved Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo train and bus station in Hamilton.

I must reiterate the legal requirement for the completion of the environmental process, before formally allocating funds for both projects. At that time, the government will announce further details with respect to both projects.

Further, the government of Ontario will be undertaking feasibility, engineering and design studies into service expansion possibilities on several other lines. These include enhanced peak service and new off-peak service to the cities of Brampton and Mississauga and the towns of Richmond Hill and Markham. With the continued support and co-operation of the railroads, expect to announce these service expansions very shortly.

Last year, GO Transit carried almost 31 million passengers; almost 20 per cent of these from within Metropolitan Toronto. Ridership on the rail network is currently growing at a rate in excess of 15 per cent per year. Substantial growth will also occur in some of the municipal transit systems within the greater Toronto area.

Consequently, the accelerated funding program in the GTA will include $150 million to enable municipal transit systems to push forward on these improvements:

Reducing the time between trains on the Yonge-University subway line in Metropolitan Toronto; by reducing the headway, we can add to passenger capacity of the existing network;

In order to relieve congestion, expansion of the Yonge-Bloor station where both lines intersect;

Supporting extension of the Harbourfront light rail transit;

Supporting all necessary work leading to, and including, construction of the Spadina subway extension from Wilson Avenue north to Sheppard Avenue;

Transit improvements in the Sheppard and Finch Avenue corridors, including a grade-separated bus station at Yonge and Sheppard and improved turning capacity at the same site;

Increased cross-boundary bus services;

New buses and garages for transit systems throughout the GTA, and

Support for more fare integration, service co-ordination and gateway development.

Of course, Ontario continues to support Metropolitan Toronto’s plans to protect the Sheppard subway corridor. Honourable members may recall that Metro sought to protect the corridor from Yonge to Victoria Park Avenue. We have gone one step further, providing $1 million to protect the entire corridor from Yonge to the Scarborough City Centre.

Included in the new allocation for both provincial and municipal transit, over $100 million will support the purchase of “rolling stock” passenger cars, street cars, diesel locomotives -- for systems within the GTA.

We are further ready to fund transit improvements to Pearson International Airport. We have already asked the federal government for its firm commitment to an airport transit facility to link with ours.

With this statement, the provincial government reaffirms its commitment to working with municipalities in developing an ongoing, affordable program of transit and rapid transit development in the greater Toronto area.

Transportation Directions for the Greater Toronto Area was a document developed in close consultation with municipalities in the GTA. It indicated those projects which should be done in a financially sound fashion. Yesterday and today, we have said how these projects will be done.

PERINATAL CARE

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to inform the House today that my ministry will be introducing a number of innovative programs to ensure that a comprehensive network of care exists for mothers and babies before, during and after birth.

These programs, totalling more than $2 million, include: the establishment of birthing centres outside hospitals so that women with low-risk pregnancies will have more choices in the kind of care available to them; home support programs for mothers leaving hospital early after uncomplicated deliveries and for those bringing babies home from intensive care nurseries; community-based health promotion programs to reduce the number of premature births, and the appointment of a provincial co-ordinator of maternal and newborn health.

We have a very good hospital care system with highly sophisticated, technologically based services for high-risk pregnancies. As I have said on many occasions, we are always seeking to make improvements. My ministry also wants to increase the emphasis on flexible, family-centred approaches for the approximately 85 per cent of mothers who have low-risk pregnancies.

I believe that establishing out-of-hospital birthing centres in Ontario gives us a clear opportunity to increase our community-based services.

My ministry will provide funding for three out-of-hospital pilot birthing centres once the Independent Health Facilities Act is passed. The act, which will enable the government to develop and regulate community-based facilities, allows us the opportunity to license birthing centres and assure quality services.

Aside from offering home-like surroundings with minimized medical intervention, birthing centres provide extensive education and care throughout pregnancy, birth and early parenthood.

As well, my ministry will allocate $1.5 million to developing pilot community-based health promotion programs aimed at reducing the rate of premature infants and low-birth-weight babies. These programs will include social and emotional support for specific high-risk groups, such as low-income and teenaged mothers.

My ministry also plans to provide $600,000 for two pilot projects, one to provide homemaking and nursing visits to allow women to return home earlier from hospital after normal births. The second one will provide home helper services for mothers who have brought home babies from one of the province’s specialized perinatal units for higher-risk births.

I am also pleased to announce that a provincial co-ordinator will be appointed to di