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

March 31, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (RE-EMPLOYMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (RENGAGEMENT)

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES ENTENTES PORTANT SUR L'EXTRACTION D'EAU

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (RE-EMPLOYMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (RENGAGEMENT)

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES ENTENTES PORTANT SUR L'EXTRACTION D'EAU

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

FIRE SAFETY

GRIMSBY HAWK WATCH

GASOLINE PRICES

JACK MORRIS

EVENTS IN NIAGARA REGION

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

JOBS ONTARIO

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGE

HEALTH INSURANCE

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

CHILD CARE

GO TRANSIT MEETING

ONTARIO ECONOMY

BUSINESS PRACTICES

TOURISM INDUSTRY

LONG-TERM CARE

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

TRUANCY

WATER QUALITY

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE REVIEW

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUND

RACIAL HARMONY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

VIOLENCE

POLICE USE OF FORCE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

HAEMODIALYSIS

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

LANDFILL

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TOWNSHIP OF GLANBROOK ACT, 1993

TOWNSHIP OF HURON AND VILLAGE OF RIPLEY ACT, 1994

TOWN OF BOTHWELL ACT, 1994

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1994

INTERIM SUPPLY

ROYAL ASSENT

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (RE-EMPLOYMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (RENGAGEMENT)

Mr Morrow moved second reading of Bill 129,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 129, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): As I begin, I would like to recognize in the members' east gallery Joan and Karl Crevar. They are with the Ontario Injured Workers' Group, and without their help and guidance this bill would not have been possible.

I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill 129,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Each and every member of this House knows that their respective constituency offices start receiving calls from injured workers the day after they are elected. In my office, at least one third of my staff time is devoted to trying to assist workers through the maze that is the Workers' Compensation Board. This is not a reflection on this government but a problem that transcends all political parties.

As a union steward, I watched the Tories, with the Weiler report, make some changes, but they just didn't go far enough. Then along came the Liberals, introducing NEL and FEL, non-economic loss and future economic loss, and like that, that just didn't go far enough. As a matter of fact, in a lot of cases it made matters worse.

I also see the daily criticism from the other side of the House. Most of the talk is about the administrative dealings with the board, but I hear very little when it comes to support for injured workers in Ontario. It is now time to introduce legislation that really helps workers after they are injured and make sure that employers take responsibility for rehabilitation seriously.

Too often, I see in my constituency office employers who meet the bare minimum of recall rates under the Workers' Compensation Board and then quietly lay off their still-recovering staff. It reminds me, in this Easter season, of another person who just washes his hands and thinks the problem disappears.

I want to outline the major changes to the act that are included in Bill 129 and how they help injured workers.

The changing of clause 43(3)(

b) takes away a lot of the discretion used in the allocation of FEL awards. Presently the Workers' Compensation Board can decide that a worker might be able to get a job that pays a certain wage and then makes a decision on economic loss. In reality, a position may not exist or may not be available to the injured worker. So if she tries to find work in this designated area, she just gets frustrated. She is then forced to live on a reduced amount of money.

The board has used this in specific cases to say that a worker has the capacity to do a minimum-wage job, and the present legislation allows for allocation of these earnings that ultimately reduce her FEL. How can an injured worker survive on money she might be able to get but can't really? Either way, she ends up with nothing.

My new

section will make sure that a job is available and suitable. It is critical that the worker have the real opportunity, not just a perceived chance, to get the type of work defined as suitable and available. Too often, employers are treating their employees as just a figure on a balance sheet, to be manipulated at their benefit. This is a more common occurrence when dealing with the injured employee.

My constituency office sees employers offering inappropriate jobs or use of questionable job descriptions just to meet the re-employment rights of the Workers' Compensation Act, then watches as the worker fails to meet the requirements of the job. The employer terminates the worker at the company's earliest convenience. I am tired, actually very sick and tired, of certain businesses being responsible for the injuring of their staff and then having no responsibility when the worker tries to return to work.

Constituents in Wentworth East tell me that the re-employment process is unfair, too long to resolve and unduly harsh. In a recent memo from the Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario, it described a huge increase in the requests for hearings in the re-employment branch, which has caused a major backlog. Cracks are continually showing up. Attempts are being made to find a way to mediate before it gets to the hearing stage.

In a presentation by a staff person of the accident victims group of Ontario to workers' advocates, it was reported that approximately 70% of these cases are being heard and allowed in whole or in part. This is just another example of how the present system must be adapted to deal with the realities of today. If the decisions are coming back in favour of the worker, it shows that employers are either not understanding what responsibilities they have as far as re-employment rights are concerned, or legislative changes are needed to clarify the position of both parties when injured workers return to work. I believe Bill 129 helps extremely in this area.

When the injured worker goes to his doctor after complaining about the conditions and the strain on the injured part of the body, it is a long and involved process to reinstate benefits. In many cases the board forces the worker into appealing through the decision review specialist and into the hearings branch to get a decision. This, besides leaving the worker with few financial resources, increases the strain on the administrative procedures of the board. Besides that, it further increases the strain on the social services system to react to the dumping of people who really should be the responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board.

I think that staff time is being wasted preparing appeals that could be remedied by this change in legislation. This has also been held true by the office of the worker adviser. I've talked to Mike Grimaldi and Don Drury in the Hamilton office, and they tell me this is an ongoing occurrence. I also had a chat late yesterday afternoon with Tony Valletta from Local 1005, and he tells me that in most of his workers' comp cases, this is extremely true.

One large employer seems to be pressuring injured workers into accepting an early retirement package, using plant layoffs as a threat, at which point the Workers' Compensation Board will terminate FEL benefits, as the worker voluntarily left the workforce to take the retirement package. If the worker does not take what is offered, the employer holds the layoff threat over his head, and if he doesn't take the package, he will be left with nothing, getting caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place, leaving the injured worker with no real option.

This is undue manipulation by the employer, using the employee, again, as always, as a pawn. This is not taking any type of employer responsibility for your injured employee, but more an attempt to control the bottom line. I understand business is undergoing radical change from a manufacturing to a service-based economy, but that does not mean companies can cast out injured workers in the name of progress.

The present economic condition makes it difficult for workers to push for health and safety in small firms and retain their jobs. One worker complained that a machine was unsafe. The employer threatened layoff. The worker was injured. Then when he tried to return to work, the employer used every available loophole to make sure a job was not there.

In amending subsection 54(10), I'm giving the injured employee a fairer chance to get back into the workforce.

The board loves to use the phrase "work-hardening" when trying to help the workers return to their jobs. The board hopes that by working a few hours a day and then increasing the hours little by little, eventually the body will heal itself or the worker will be able to cope with the ongoing pain. What happens in a lot of cases is the worker tries the program, and with a few fits and starts, a lot of visits to the doctor thrown into the mix, he is just stuck coping with the ongoing pain. The employer then waits till the six-month requirement in the legislation is up and fills out a layoff notice.

Bill 129 gives the worker a longer time to work-harden. The injured worker will have more time to wean himself back into the job and not have a time frame hanging over his or her head. This will also force the employer to make a true effort to assist the worker. If you must keep this employee, then you will make sure he or she can accomplish the job given, or you will retrain the worker in a job he or she can do this time, and the layoff threat that hangs over the injured worker is withdrawn.

Rehabilitation of injured employees must be a priority. The people of Ontario want to work. I propose that rehabilitation should be a right, not a maybe. Furthermore, I would also like to guarantee a job to return to when the worker is deemed ready to once again be a productive employee.

Employers are going to have to take more responsibility for their injured workers than they presently do. In most cases, it is in the employer's control to prevent injuries. Now they would like to advocate further involvement by making it impossible for the injured workers to return to their place of employment. Do they hope that this worker will become someone else's problem?

It is my hope that the honourable members of this House will consider the proposed changes as essential in offering further protection to those who have already suffered physical and mental impairments at their place of employment. The struggle has been hard enough through the pain, doctors' visits and rehabilitation without having to know,

chapter and verse, the rights of the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Each party will have 15 minutes to debate Bill 129 in rotation.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have been involved for the past month of so in what we've called an outreach tour on workers' compensation. I've travelled to Barrie, Peterborough, Chatham, Brantford, Ottawa, Sault St Marie and Thunder Bay. I've also met with workers' compensation representatives from British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

One of the reasons that I and my leader decided we wanted to do this was that, as the member opposite has already mentioned in his opening remarks, out of 130 MPPs in this place, I would think there is not one whose main problem in a constituency office is not related to workers' comp. It may be followed very closely by support and custody orders enforcement trying to get the deadbeat fathers to pay for their kids, but clearly workers' compensation is the number one issue, certainly in my constituency office and with the colleagues I've talked to about this.

We identified that there was a problem, that over the years there has been so much tinkering going on with the Workers' Compensation Act, with the board, a lot of political interference, political interference from the corner office, with all three parties doing the tinkering. A staff person who will, to protect him, remain nameless made the comment, "In the Workers' Compensation Board we are prepared to do whatever it is you in the Legislature want us to do, but we're not sure on a daily basis, sometimes on an hourly basis, what it is you want us to do."

There needs to be a way of setting clear guidelines for policy. We have a situation now where policy in workers' compensation can be driven by such a thing as a private member's bill. It can be driven by WCAT making a decision that all of a sudden is contrary to what somebody else interprets as the proper policy set by the board of directors of the WCB.

We have figured out that there are no fewer than nine opportunities to appeal or reappeal a decision made in the workers' compensation system, and those nine do not include MPPs, because whether or not we want to admit it, we don't have the power to make a decision with regard to workers' compensation cases. So to call us an appeal process is probably stretching the reality. But the system is extremely ill, and not just from the point of view of the financial concerns. You see, I don't think it works for anybody.

I've met injured workers. Just the other day I was on a radio show in Ottawa with an injured worker who had a burn from gas. It got inside his glove and the temperature of the gas was some 220 degrees below zero. His hand apparently looked, when he got the glove off at the hospital, like a piece of chicken that just came out of a freezer. That was in 1989. This individual has been working within the system, within the medical community, both outside and inside the board, to try to, guess what, get the hand amputated, because he determined in his own research that was ultimately the solution.

He has been unable to do that and the infection has grown from his hand right up to his shoulder and now the alternative is to take off the entire arm.

These kinds of bureaucratic foulups in the workers' compensation system, because some doctor on the inside didn't agree with a doctor on the outside and then everybody circles the wagons to try to protect themselves, are actually almost countless.

The example I gave you is an extreme, perhaps, but in the hearings that I held around the province I heard injured workers coming forward with horror stories that would curl your hair. So it's not working for injured workers. I accept that. I'm sure that members opposite would agree and we could come to a consensus on that.

It's also, we heard from employers, not working for employers. The employers are outraged. They get increases. We had a fellow who came forward and said: "I haven't had an accident in my establishment in 14 years. Why did I get a 31% increase in my rates? Somebody please explain this."

Maybe what needs to be looked at is the rating system based on segment of industry. Why shouldn't a company -- and supposedly they do if they get a rebate, but why shouldn't the rates be set for these companies on an individual basis based on their performance, based on occupational health and safety performance?

You'll all know that I am somewhat concerned about the status and the condition of the health and safety agency in this province and I don't think there is a proper relationship between workers' compensation and the WHSA. I believe what you have is bipartism that is being destroyed in the name of rhetoric, I guess, and I hear some of the rhetoric of the member opposite with regard to his bill. This bill in essence is the legal right to return to work. That is the latest thing that injured workers and the labour movement are saying they want.

And yet, I heard the member say, when he talked in terms of amending subsection 10, that the worker can go back to work when the worker is deemed ready to work. Those were your words, I say to the member.

If there's one thing I heard that is a serious problem that comes out of Bill 162, it's that word "deemed" and the issue of deeming. It does not appear to be working fairly and yet you could interpret what this member, with all good intentions, has said, "that when the worker is deemed ready to return to work." Deemed by whom? Here we go with this same problem. The worker says, "I'm not ready to return to work." A doctor somewhere, who perhaps has never even met the injured worker, has never examined the injured worker -- that's actually, believe it or not, what happens in this system.

The family doctor says, "I understand you have a problem." Let's face it, our family doctors, we all know them personally, and they us, and they want to help, so they say: "No problem. We'll fill out the form 7, we'll get you in there and get you on compensation." Somebody in the system rejects that, either an adjudicator or later in appeal or perhaps a medical adviser -- somebody rejects it.

We have medical advisers in the Workers' Compensation Board who are retired from a specialist area in medicine, who don't even have the opportunity to meet the patient, the injured worker, and yet they'll make a decision based on the file. They'll pull this file out and say: "I reject that. I don't agree with that doctor's analysis." That's what happened with this injured worker back in 1989 when he had the problem with his hand. They had a doctor look at a file and reject the medical advice. That's a critical problem.

One of the things that bothers me in this whole scenario is the tinkering: We have a little change here, we have a little change there. We have members of the NDP caucus who want to pander, shall we say, to the desires -- legitimate desires. I don't deny their concern, and I think it needs to be looked at.

In the PLMAC report, there was reference to the fact that indeed the right to return to work is in the legislation. I think that's debatable. It's perhaps not as strong as it should be. Reference was made to the fact that if it's not strong enough, if the board is unable to enforce the intent of the bill, the wording should be changed.

But we have to go a lot further. Just coming up with one little private member's bill that's going to make an amendment here or an amendment there, with all due respect -- I'm sure you're honest and sincere about what you want to do here, but we have to go a lot further. We have to look at the governance. We have to deal with the issue of whether the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board should be somebody who's appointed by the Premier because he or she was a member of our caucus or your caucus or the third party's caucus as an MLA in this place for 10 years. Are those credentials acceptable to the people of this province? Frankly, I think they're not.

We have to look at the governance as to, who are the stakeholders? I think we make a critical mistake when we talk about workers' compensation, because we say there are two stakeholders, labour and management, that we need the bipartite approach, the two vice-chairs, all this. There are a lot more than two stakeholders in workers' compensation.

The OMA has been clamouring for a spot at the table for some time. The OMA, on the other hand, says: "It's not our job to get people back to work. It's your job. We'll just give them a couple of Aspirins and tell them to call us in the morning." The OMA is prepared to come to the table and be more involved.

The chiropractic association is key. The whole thing we should be doing here is trying (

a) to prevent injuries and (b), once they occur, to get them into treatment as quickly as possible. The facts show that if you start the treatment early, you'll get them back to work quicker.

I want to leave some time for my colleague from Oriole. I say to the member opposite that I regret I can't support your bill right now, because I think it is tinkering. It's an inappropriate sense of timing that comes along and says, "We're going to fix this little thing here," and send another new message out to all the staff in the field about how they interpret things.

We need to reform workers' compensation from A to Z, from governance to service delivery, from the chairman to the adjudicator, at the front door -- the whole system. We need to make changes to help the injured workers and to ensure that Justice Meredith's principles that were set forth in 1914 in creating a system that was good for workers and employers will survive the turn of this century and lead on to be a benefit to injured workers in the province of Ontario.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It is interesting that today, the day this bill is debated in this place for second reading, there are reports that the government intends to announce the commission of a royal commission to explore the creation of a universal system of coverage for everyone in this province, and the prediction that changes to the overall WCB legislation will be proceeded with as early as next week.

I congratulate the member for Wentworth East on raising the topic of WCB, because he's right. This topic is dealt with by all members in this House in our constituency offices perhaps more than any other topic. There are many workers who come to us who can't understand the system; many of us don't understand the system. It's become an inequitable, unfair system, and employers and employees both complain about the workings of the system and whether it will work.

The member for Mississauga West has used the word "tinkering" with respect to this bill, and he's right. It is dotting here and there on a couple of places. It seems to me that the bill deals with two things.

It's a very short bill. It has a total of five sections, and the main sections are dealt with in the first three or four sections. Although it's small in length, I believe it's a powerful and dangerous adjustment to the Workers' Compensation Act. My reading of this bill, to the member for Wentworth East, is that it appears to be designed to give the Workers' Compensation Board more powers. It attempts to plug the hole opened by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal by enshrining overtly oppressive administration by the Workers' Compensation Board in law. The second thing I would submit to the member is that it's designed to ensure overcompensation.

Having said that, I'm sure the member for Wentworth East has come to this place saying these principles he's putting forward are justified on the premise that no amount of money can overturn the devastation caused by the accident, no matter how minor the injury. I'm sure that's one of the reasons he's bringing this bill forward, but I would submit that the bill has less to do with inequities in the workers' compensation system than it does with ensuring systemic overcompensation and guaranteed employment.

The real problem is that the system isn't working. The member for Mississauga West is right: What we need is an overhaul of the system. When we're all standing up in this place and talking about how the system is not working, why are we just tinkering with it, to use the words of the member for Mississauga West.

There's an excellent

article I'm sure many of you have read, and if you haven't, I'd recommend that you read it. It was published over a year ago in a periodical called Canadian Business. It's dealing with workers' compensation across this country. I'd recommend that the member for Wentworth East read this article, and I would recommend that the members of this House read this

article if the government is serious, as it is, with respect to the announcements in the media this morning that we're talking about the possibility of the creation of a universal compensation system to cover everyone in the province. I'll tell you, this system now is really in deep, deep trouble.

The unfunded liability: Is the system going to collapse? It's being predicted that it will. You could look at the history of all three parties in this House, all three governments over the past decade. During the five years of the Conservative rule from 1980 to 1985, the board went from an unfunded liability of $800 million to $5.5 billion; during the next five years, with the Liberal government in office, the total rose to $9.1 billion; and since the New Democratic Party took office in 1990, the unfunded liability is somewhere between $11 billion and $12 billion. That's a lot of money for unfunded liability. Will the system shrink?

I look at what this bill does. The member has been speaking in very general terminology, and I've been trying to determine the technicalities of it. It is difficult to explain the issue of deeming and to explain the issue of overcompensation. I have worked out principles of compensation, which probably -- in the time allowed, it's almost impossible to emphasize that, but I believe there will be overcompensation, compensation that the employer simply can't afford to pay.

This bill is anti-business. We are having in this province a great number of problems trying to create jobs. The government stands up daily saying how Jobs Ontario is solving all the problems in this province with respect to employment, and of course we on this side say it's not. The fact is that we have a lot of serious problems with respect to work. People are going bankrupt. People are leaving the province. One of the things they're afraid of is issues such as this, which the member for Wentworth East is raising. It's adding on another expense to the employer.

I know he's going to talk about the worker who has had devastating injuries, but there comes a point in time when the employer only has so much money to pay.

This

article I have referred to, and I'd like to quote from a couple of passages in the brief time I have, talks about the principle of universal coverage, which I believe the government is heading towards. "Some see a cure-all in so-called universal or 24-hour coverage, a concept so vague no one seems sure what it means.

Labour champions the idea because, in theory, a universal system could compensate everyone for pretty well everything, regardless of what caused the problem. 'We're wasting enormous resources debating causation,' argues Cathy Walker, national health and safety director for the Canadian Auto Workers union in Toronto." It talks about how that system hasn't worked in such places as New Zealand, and some time is spent saying that system won't work.

I'm afraid about what the member for Wentworth East is doing. I'm afraid of the reports I've been reading in the media today about the possible expansion in the anti-business philosophy that continues to come forward from a government that's trying to create jobs.

Looking specifically at the bill -- and again the problem is one of time; I have roughly a few minutes to speak further on it --

section 2 of the bill deals with the provision of rehabilitation services to disabled workers. This, I submit, eliminates any discretion the Workers' Compensation Board may have in the determination of a rehabilitation plan. The professional opinion of the board's rehabilitation experts therefore can be easily undermined. In addition, the proposed subsection 52(2) ensures that rehabilitation is a right. This means that the board cannot refuse a rehabilitation plan even if that plan will not result in a return to employment for the worker.

Section 3 of the bill deals with the employment provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act and serves to beef up the powers of the board and make the law even more draconian.

In the current law, the re-employment provisions are an effort to ensure that a worker is not discriminated against because of a compensable injury. Under the current law, an employer has an obligation to provide a worker his pre-injury job, or suitable employment if he cannot perform his pre-injury job. There are two thresholds that must be met. First, the employer must employ more than 20 workers. Second, the worker must have been continuously employed for more than a year. Right now, though, the Workers' Compensation Board, I would submit, is abusing its powers under the re-employment provisions of the act. Bill 129, I submit, beefs up the board's powers even more.

The proposed subsection 54(1.1) is even more devastating. Right now, people would have to be employed continuously for more than a year before the obligations are activated. Bill 129 indicates that employment would be "continuous if, during the period of employment, no intention to permanently sever the employment relationship exists."

The member for Mississauga West got into the deeming provision, a provision I think we need considerably more time on, certainly more time than the three minutes I have to speak. All of this means that a worker who would be laid off for reasons completely unconnected to his compensable injury, would have a right to his employment simply because he happened to have a compensable injury.

Subsection 54(3) is amended to not allow the employer to terminate the worker before receiving notice from the board. The board will provide notice under the terms of

section 54 only if and when the worker is able to return to employment. Even then, rarely does the board provide notice in a timely fashion. This means that the employer must maintain a relationship with the unsuitable employee or the employee who would be terminated or laid off in the normal course. This, I would submit to the member for Wentworth East, is simply unworkable.

The bill proposes to amend subsection 54(10) to require just-cause dismissal as the only excuse for terminating a worker. I say this simply will not work.

Immediately before the last election, literally days before the 1990 election, Bob Rae committed an NDP government to eliminating deeming in a letter to a worker group. The idea of deeming captures an image of the WCB at its worst, setting compensation on phantom jobs, ensuring that the disabled workers are left in poverty. The image, I say to the member for Wentworth East, is pure theatrics.

I hope the members of this House spend some time considering the implications of this bill, which at first blush -- and I've spoken to the member privately -- seem to be just minor changes. It's going to have some devastating effects on the employers of this province.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): That's a typical Conservative response.

Mr Tilson: It's not a typical response; it's a response that if you're trying to create jobs in this province, listen to the people who are paying the bills. There's only so much money, as you people have found out since 1990. You've put this government into bankruptcy. There's only so much money in government and there's only so much money in the workplace. I would encourage members of this House to vote against this bill.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I suppose it will come as no surprise to you to be told that I support this bill. I think it is a timely and remarkably precise, indeed pithy, response to some very serious problems that are being encountered right here and now.

Remarkably, once again, it's in private members' business here on Thursday morning, during this two-hour period, occurring only once a week, that we've had some of the most interesting and engaging and least partisan debate this House ever sees. Indeed, I've never seen so many people in this chamber listening carefully to what the opposing views are, obviously weighing and considering those opposing views to the goal or the end of achieving a resolution to the issue.

I too read the Toronto Star this morning and, by God, it's almost like being in cabinet. You don't have to be there; you've just got to pick up the Star every morning. I tell you, I am looking forward to a royal commission on workers' compensation, and I am hopeful and optimistic that it will be a wide-ranging debate, that it will accommodate submissions from all sectors of the community.

I am trusting, of course, that injured workers will have status at the commission, because I think it's essential that they be represented, not just by way of one or two witnesses in the course of an afternoon or a morning but that they have an integral role in assisting the commission in cross-examining and in developing various theories through that process. I agree entirely with what's been said by every other speaker here this morning.

I know there are a whole lot of people from the government benches who want to speak to this bill. I know the parliamentary assistant will want to. I'm trusting that the parliamentary assistant will contain his or her comments so that other members, we mere backbenchers, have a chance to engage in this debate. Because I agree. Claudette Therrien in my constituency office, like her counterpart in 129 other constituency offices, devotes her full workweek to dealing with workers' compensation problems and she doesn't have the time to deal with all the files that are brought into that office.

Similarly, the office of the worker adviser, with incredible backloads, struggles very skilfully on a daily basis with the plethora of difficulties and problems generated by the system as it exists now.

People like Don Comi and Leslie Penwarden from the injured workers' group in Niagara, again, are more than familiar with the never-ending series of serious difficulties, significant difficulties, suffered by injured workers in addition to their initial injury.

One of the things I should mention is that it boggles the mind to think that there are still so-called consultants out there charging money to injured workers for services, mind you, that are being provided by constituency offices of MPPs, by injured workers' groups, by the office of the worker adviser. These are all provided free, so it boggles the mind how these so-called consultants can be out there shafting and skimming the top off of any awards that they occasionally get. But that's not the issue.

The fact is that a royal commission will investigate fully and completely all issues surrounding workers' compensation. Fine and good. The fact is that this shouldn't be a speedy process. If it's going to be done well, if it's going to be done properly, it's going to be done over a significant period of time to ensure that every single representation that could be made will be made, and there has to be a sufficient time for debate and for the preparation of a final report.

Well, what happens to the victims of an inadequate system in the interim? I've heard members this morning speak about this bill as being mere tinkering. I dispute that. Mr Morrow, the member for Wentworth East, has approached some very specific problems and generated a response to some very specific problems, a very effective response, one that can in the interim protect injured workers in these two very specific areas.

The first is the issue of re-employment and ensuring that the right to re-employment becomes a genuine, bona fide right as compared to something the high-priced lawyers and their ilk can weave their way in and about and through, in the process shafting once again the injured worker where it's a right without a remedy. You have a right to re-employment but you don't have to be re-employed, because the employer can buy his or her way out of it in relatively short order at a relatively cheap price.

Number two is the right to rehabilitation. What could be more fundamental in response to somebody who gives his health, his lifetime, to a workplace than the right to be rehabilitated, the right to be cured as much as medical science can cure you? What could be more fundamental? How could anybody find any objection to this very simple statement of the right to rehabilitation? Once again, tinkering? No. We're not dotting i's and crossing t's here.

I remember the fight over Bill 162. I was a boy, I was in the back benches then, I was way over on the other side, as far back as the leader of my party could put me. I remember the struggle that my friend Shelley Martel, the member for Sudbury East, led over Bill 162. Both of the issues that Mr Morrow, the member for Wentworth East, addresses in Bill 129 are among the many issues that Shelley Martel, as our critic in response to Bill 162, raised during that very dramatic debate when we sat as opposition members.

I tell you that an overhaul may well be in order, but are we going to tell the injured workers of this province that they have to wait yet another six months, a year, two years before the completion of a report by the royal commission that in itself is merely a report, which then begs legislation that will result in again, I'm sure, incredible debate? Clearly, there are diverse views about the rights of workers as compared to the rights of employers. There are some here who would see them as mutually exclusive.

I don't, because I think a healthy workforce, a workforce that's whole, women and men who don't lose their limbs or their eyesight or their hearing or their backs to the workplace, is as much a benefit to the whole process of manufacturing and creating wealth as anything else.

This bill, because of those two very specific issues that it confronts, two serious omissions from Bill 162, warrants speedy passage and referral to a committee so that -- again, we have such a limited amount of time here -- members like Mr Tilson can express the views of their constituents and of that constituency that they would speak for here in this assembly, but more importantly, so that injured workers and their sisters and brothers in the workplace could comment on this legislation and indeed have the opportunity to convince all members of this assembly that this legislation is timely, is appropriate and, most importantly, is just.

It has to do with justice and fairness. How could this assembly ever deny justice and fairness to any constituency? I say it's time to give justice and fairness to injured workers.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise and participate in this debate. I think anyone who's familiar with the workings of the Workers' Compensation Board will agree that there is a definite need for reform, that there are urgent problems which must be dealt with and that the Workers' Compensation Board today is not serving the needs of injured workers or the employers who depend upon the WCB.

We know that the original goals of 1914 are not being achieved today in 1994. The Workers' Compensation Board is out of touch and out of money, and frankly we're out of time. The reform is urgently needed. The bill that's before us today, Bill 129, in my view is not about fixing the problems of the WCB; it is merely tinkering, it is pandering and it is premature.

In the reading of the legislation, as I see it, this is not about workers' rights to rehabilitation. That is already included in the legislation that exists. This is about the right to return to work, and there are a few very important questions that have to be answered before this kind of legislation could be enacted.

It seems to me that while re-employment is ultimately the goal for all injured workers who are able, the concerns must be dealt with within the work environment, because presently you have a situation where when a worker is injured and they leave the workforce and there is a collective agreement in place, there is no acceptance or understanding as to what will happen regarding seniority and the return to work and perhaps the individual who has filled that slot in that spot.

This is a question which the member for Mississauga West has asked. We are very concerned about that. We believe that must be dealt with and responded to. In my view, the collective agreement is a place where that should be considered. Therefore, until that question is answered, we will end up with disputes between workers on the work site and chaos could well be the result.

It seems to me that reform for the Workers' Compensation Board is much too important for us at this time to be just tinkering with certain elements of the rights of injured workers or the rights of employers.

What we need is comprehensive reform. It is long overdue and I believe that this bill not only does not fix it; it might well exacerbate a difficult situation and does not deal with the problem.

Just as a matter of proving how out of touch the WCB is, I received a letter from the chair's office addressed to myself as Minister of Health. By the way, this was dated in March 1994. If you ever wanted an example of the problems at the WCB, this is it.

The Acting Speaker: Unfortunately, the member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Very briefly, I just want to say that after reading the articles today in the paper, the WCB commission being looked at, I think it's long overdue. It's been long overdue and I would hope that when the government does look at this WCB, it will take into consideration the faults that have been there for a long time.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to congratulate my colleague for bringing this issue forward because the issue of the Workers' Compensation Act reform is foremost in a lot of people's mind, and it's about time the government started addressing the plight of the injured workers.

I know that locally in my area I've been working with the Kitchener-Waterloo and Cambridge injured workers' group which has just put out a booklet that it's distributing to the unions and the labour council that'll help injured workers through the process. It's a fairly complicated process and injured workers have gone through this process. So to help out their fellow injured workers in the riding, they've put out this booklet that'll help new injured workers.

This is one of the reasons why the government has committed so much money to the injured workers' groups across the province, and this is one of the ways they're using it to help in the education.

Right now we have a set of recommendations from the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee which addresses the immediate pressures facing the system, a need to undertake a long-term, broadly based study to determine the most appropriate income support system for our times.

The government has been very encouraged by the progress that labour and business have been able to make in this very difficult area. The PLMAC proposal has many elements the government wants to consider carefully. Labour and business have asked that government turn its mind to the recommendations forthwith and that is what we are doing.

As everyone knows, the PLMAC was established in June 1992, following first reading of Bill 40. Its composition includes prominent leaders of labour and management in the province. This committee is chaired by the Premier.

In May 1993, the Premier asked the PLMAC to explore its willingness to take a lead role in addressing WCB reform issues. At its meeting on March 4 and 5, the PLMAC reached an agreement on the reform package, and on March 10, 1994, the PLMAC met with the Premier and the Minister of Labour and presented its package of reforms.

This package includes recommendations on governance, financial accountability, framework, measures to improve the financial situation of the system, measures to improve return to work, old-act workers, the need of a long-term review of the system.

These PLMAC recommendations will be reviewed by cabinet in the very near future and it's my understanding that an announcement will be made. I'd like to state that the consensus proposal put forward through the PLMAC is very encouraging. Once again, I'd like to thank the member for keeping this issue alive and I'm sure that in compendium with what the PLMAC and the Ministry of Labour are doing, this could be worked in very well.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I'd like to begin by congratulating the member for Wentworth East on the introduction of this bill, Bill 129. We know that there are some problems with workers' compensation, and I think this is a first attempt to do something about it.

The member for Oriole made comments, something about tinkering or pandering. Well, I certainly disagree. I think it's a big step in the right direction. You can't make sweeping changes all at once and I think the member for Wentworth East's attempt to make these changes are very commendable.

His bill actually does two things: It makes rehabilitation a right and it also closes loopholes that may exist in terms of re-employment. These are two very serious problems that many workers have faced over the years. With my involvement with CUPE over the years, I've had a considerable amount of dealings with the Workers' Compensation Board and these are certainly two areas that consumed a lot of my time. I again would like to congratulate the member on bringing this forward.

I just received a note that there are other members who want to speak on this bill. Time is very short, so I will concede to my members.

Mr Mammoliti: Thank you to the speaker who just spoke. I appreciate the time.

Very quickly, I want to thank the author of this bill because I think it's worthwhile. I think we need to do this sort of thing. I am going to support the bill; there's no question about it.

For those who say, however, that the author is tinkering, I want to remind people about the process in this place and how the author's, in this case Mark Morrow's, hands are tied in this place when we talk about introducing bills that might have some sort of monetary component to them. Our hands are tied; we can't do that. I know that Mark, if his hands were untied, would introduce things like pension reforms in this bill. I know that would be included. So for those who talk about tinkering and for those who say that we should be doing other things, that we should be including other aspects to this bill, I would agree with them.

I would also agree that this should be a government initiative as well. But here is private members' hour. We're talking about a private member who has introduced Bill 129 and who has done whatever he can do as a private member in this place, a backbencher, remembering of course again that his hands are tied and that he can't, as a private member, introduce things like pension reforms, something that I very quickly want to talk about because I was hoping that pension reforms might be a component tied into this. But it can't be, obviously. Pension reforms are very important to me.

The people whose hands are tied out there as well because of their injuries, who can't go back to work, are very important as well. This bill addresses those people, those people who can't go back to work even though they want to go back to work after an injury. As to the people who want to be rehabilitated and to go back to work at the same time, this bill addresses them. We need to understand the backbencher who has introduced this and how his hands are tied as well in this place.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired, thank you. Now the member for Wentworth East has two minutes to reply.

Mr Morrow: I want to thank all the members, first of all, who spoke, either in support of or against this bill. It's interesting to note that I think every speaker who spoke said there had to be an overhaul of or changes to the Workers' Compensation Board. You're right, and that's what Bill 129 is about: changes.

In 1914, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, we introduced the Workmen's Compensation Act; I believe it was passed into law in 1917. That act was to help the injured workers in the province of Ontario. That act is now failing. Bill 129 tries to help that.

To the member for Dufferin-Peel, you go out and tell the injured workers, "There is no more money." You tell them; they want to hear you say that. To the other members, I appreciate your support.

I look forward to this bill passing. I look forward to helping the injured workers in this province, once again with what they justly deserve, not with the mere pittance we're giving them now but with something they've worked for and have a right to.

The Acting Speaker: The time for ballot item 43 has expired. A vote will take place at noon.

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES ENTENTES PORTANT SUR L'EXTRACTION D'EAU

Mr Elston moved second reading of Bill 126,

An Act respecting Water Extraction Agreements / Projet de loi 126, Loi concernant les ententes portant sur l'extraction d'eau.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I am very, very pleased to rise in the House today to speak about this particular issue. It's an extremely important and critical issue to our lives.

I was raised on a farm in Morris township, Huron county, raised next to the Maitland River, swam in that river, skated on it in the wintertime, drank water from a dug well. You could have as much water as you wanted when I was a kid, and I think in many cases that's still the feeling of all the people in the province of Ontario.

Water in my view is the most precious of the resources which we all have. We know we need air and we need water to continue to live. In fact, one of the things that has come to my attention very clearly is that while we have taken some interest, and I think a serious interest, in air quality, and in water quality on the surface streams in our province, we haven't put our minds to the issue of water underground.

It's a very, very serious problem for those of us who have had local issues that have been raised to us by constituents who are concerned about the taking of water by people who come into the communities, who basically drive in one day, start taking water from a well and then ship it out to places unknown.

In my case, the issue that really sparked my final move towards doing something about water was the water-taking in the village of Formosa. Certainly I am eternally grateful to the local citizens of Formosa for finally pushing me to actually do something in a legislative format to raise the interest of the public in the conservation of water as a resource.

The people there are concerned, like we are right across the province, that there be a long-term future for us. We must as a result know exactly what is going on with our water in this province. To this point in time, there really is no understanding of how water is generated, how much is generated, how quickly it can be regenerated, what the activities that we carry on are doing to that water-generation ability. It seems to me it is time that we began to understand much more thoroughly the nature of this water resource of ours.

My bill is an interesting one, because it is just another bill, I guess some might say, in a list of about 40 that exist which deal with water in the province, but none of those other bills, with the exception of one that was recently passed, even really talk about the taking of water in the way that mine does.

There is a water-taking permit that is required under the Ontario Water Resources Act. It's administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy. For those people who take more than 50,000 litres of water a day, they must have a permit. There is a procedure by which an application is made, and to this point in time, basically very little has been allowed in terms of public participation. It's not because it wasn't really wanted, I don't think; I think it was mostly an oversight by the authorities.

In fact, the application itself could accommodate some public hearings, but I'm told by the London regional office that no public meeting has ever been called under the auspices of the current permit-issuing facilities.

There is another provision now that is just working its way through the legislative framework. It has been passed as part of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which does require some more public participation when it deals with water, but it is interesting that when dealing with the Environmental Bill of Rights, those provisions look like they may have been added on.

The environmental bills of rights that have come, in various stages and formats, before the Legislature since I've been a member have basically accommodated the issue of toxic contamination, either of our water through dumping or of leachate coming from municipal or illegal dump sites in our province, and the bill of rights has always been designed, it seems to me, to deal with that issue of disposition of garbage in one form or another. But the taking of water, which is an extremely essential part of our everyday lives, has really gone unaddressed.

I think it's not because people don't have any interest in it, but it's because, like so many other of our resources that were for years and years found in abundance all across the province in a state ready to use and taken for granted, water is taken for granted along those same lines.

The framework for my legislation, and I expect and I've heard that there is going to be general support for the bill as it resides in this form at this moment, says that the best way to deal with the issue of how the locality is to be affected by giving a water permit is to be determined locally.

For some people that is a problem, and I appreciate the member for Dufferin-Peel has come to me and asked me some questions about, "Why go to the local authority?" I think he feels perhaps it might be a little bit better if you supported the provincial central control of this. Well, my answer is very, very simple indeed: It is that the local municipality can respond almost instantaneously to the questions about what is taking place in its own backyard.

In fact, I want the local municipality to be intimately involved, not only in the application but in receiving the studies that they believe are necessary to satisfy themselves as the local political authority, and their ratepayers, their residents, that the operation of water-taking will not diminish the ability of the communities to sustain themselves. That's the first issue.

The second issue is the local municipality can probably do it cheaper than what it can be done for by the province. We know that there is a tremendous financial burden now on the provincial authorities. We know that if there is one more job added to the provincial public service, there probably will be no more people added to take care of the issue as it develops.

In my view, the quick nature of response which was achieved by the people in Carrick and Culross when concerns were raised by the citizens was ample evidence that a lot more in-depth work can be done quicker and cheaper at the local level because that concern is driven by a personal and continuing interest in residing in that area.

For those people who are concerned that this may be a type of anti-business piece of legislation, I want to assure them that I have taken great steps in trying to circulate this material to those people who would be affected. I haven't just sent this bill around to people who might support it; I have sent it to the association of water-taking businesses, I have sent it to the local municipalities, I have sent it to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture representatives in my area, I've sent it to municipalities and I've sent it to the people who were concerned in my area about water-taking.

I have received replies back from almost all of those people, but the one reply which is of concern to me is that there is a suggestion by the people representing the water-taking industry that this is against jobs. I appreciate they may be concerned that there will be an increasing burden, responsibility even, on the businesses that propose to take the water, of meeting the local concerns. In fact, because my bill requires consideration of a levy to be taken against the volume of water taken away, I know there is also a financial responsibility which will inevitably fall upon these businesses.

But the legitimate dealers, in my view, will want to do all of those things. They will want to have a financial responsibility to the local municipality. They will want to assure the local ratepayers and residents of the area that their intentions are not only noble but they are for the long term as opposed to, "We will take till it's done and then we'll be gone." All of these items can be addressed at the local hearings, after the permit is issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

I can tell you that we are all interested in local jobs. In fact, there is an exemption under the provisions of this bill which says that if the water-taking is in volume but you actually process it inside the area, then you can be exempt, the recognition being that the local resource is generating local economic activity and jobs in the community -- in the community. I think that's an important concept.

We've also provided exemptions for bulk water-taking by municipalities. For instance, in my area, Brant township actually is the host municipality for the wells for both the town of Walkerton and the town of Hanover, represented by my friend from Grey-Owen Sound. I don't want to stop the taking of water for those purposes -- a legitimate purpose for the people, in my view. So from my point of view, there are reasonable limits set to the application of this act.

I ask everybody to support me. I would just draw your attention again to the material which I sent around to you, an excellent series of articles by the Owen Sound Sun Times, an excellent program last night by David Suzuki on water, not just in my area, and I would ask again for the support of the people here at the Legislature for 126.

The Acting Speaker: Each party has up to 15 minutes to debate Bill 126 in rotation.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): It is my pleasure to stand in the House today and support my good friend from Bruce county on his bill. I want to congratulate him for bringing this bill to the House. I'm really proud that he did that because in Grey county, in my home town, we also have some concerns about the water-taking, and I too believe that the local municipalities should have the right to issue permits in this case.

If you've ever lived on a farm and gone without water when the well's either gone dry or your pipes are frozen and you have livestock to look after, you'll know how important the water is. If we don't get some control of the water-taking, then this could happen in different municipalities within my riding and in Bruce.

I think in Grey and Bruce we probably have the best water there is in Ontario and we know that a lot of other people are looking at us to supply them with water. There's even talk of a great pipeline coming right from Georgian Bay to pipe the water to Toronto, and it's just because we have the water up there that's pure; as I said, the best water there is in the world. We can eat our fish when we go fishing in Georgian Bay. We have some of the best fishing spots there are, and you can eat our fish because our water is good.

There's the other thing: Should the local people have the right to decide? I think they do. I got elected on local autonomy and I have some concerns about other things that Queen's Park likes to control. I think the local municipality should have the right to at least have some say into this. What happens now is that somebody can be trucking water out of a local municipality and the local politicians won't even know about it until after it's happened, and this isn't right. So I think that with Murray's bill, this will come a long way in helping us solve this problem.

The other thing in Grey county is, and we've asked -- we've had meetings with the Minister of Environment and Energy and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to look into the whole situation -- do we have enough water in Grey county to supply water to the rest of the people? We want to know this, and we're even looking into a point where maybe in our municipalities we would like a moratorium put on until this is proven to us.

It's ironic that some people may say Bill Murdoch's standing up here asking for more controls, because normally I would like to see fewer controls. But water is one of the most important things in life that we do need controls on and it just doesn't seem to have enough control at this point, and there are a lot of people within my riding who are concerned. One of the important things or one of the odd things that has happened is that it has brought the preservationists, the ones who want all the controls, and the local municipalities together, and they're working on this problem.

On April 9, there is a meeting in my riding, right in central Grey in Markdale. A group called the Grey Association for Better Planning is putting on a meeting, and I know that Murray Elston is one of the panelists there, just to discuss this issue. I'm sure they'll have a great crowd there because, again, it affects everyone in my riding, regardless of whether you're out in the country or living in one of the small municipalities.

So I really am glad that the member from Bruce county has brought this to the House. I hope the government of the day will see that this bill goes on and does come back for third reading. We have the summer. Hopefully they will take this bill out to a committee so that people can look at this and bring it back for third reading and pass it, because again, our local municipalities need some control. The local people where the water is should have something to say about that.

In closing, I just want to say again that I believe that in Grey and Bruce counties we do have the best water. We're not going to keep it away from you if the water is there, but we just want to know where it's going and have a bit of control.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): As an MPP who represents a primarily rural and agricultural community and as a rural resident myself, who, along with my family, depends on well water for drinking and other water needs, I can fully appreciate the concerns regarding water extraction for bottling operations which have been brought to the attention of the honourable member for Bruce and which have prompted him to draft and present to the House the bill that we have an opportunity to debate this morning.

Water is an important, precious and essential resource. The management, conservation and pollution prevention of this resource is a major focus of the Ministry of Environment and Energy and this government.

I'd like to clarify for the House the legislation currently in place to control the extraction of water. The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy has the sole authority under

section 34 of the Ontario Water Resources Act to regulate the taking of water in excess of 50,000 litres per day through the issuance of a permit by a director.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy is particularly concerned with the potential of groundwater and surface water interference from operations of a commercial nature. Currently, fewer than 25 permits have been issued in the province to the bottling industry. No application has been received since December 1993.

Another primary concern, in addition to interference problems, is the destruction of natural habitats surrounding springs or artesian well sources. Regional technical assessment staff review all applications under the permit-to-take-water program, including commercial takings. Applications to take water undergo a thorough hydrological review and surface water review which determine the maximum allowable volume that can be drawn and not affect the long-term sustainability of the supply.

In any area where there is insufficient water -- a limited aquifer -- to meet established and new uses, an evaluation of the relative importance of the various uses is carried out by MOEE regional staff before the issuance of permits. The ministry refuses to issue permits if there is a possibility of a drawdown affecting other water supplies or nearby surface water bodies.

The taking of water for domestic and farm purposes and fire protection is considered the most important use, generally followed by taking for municipal water supply, then the taking of water for industrial, commercial and irrigation purposes. Water management for pollution control, flood control, recreation and biological preservation are also important considerations in the review of permit applications and the assignment of special conditions where required.

Once a permit is issued, the proponent is required to reapply for another permit or for an amendment if at any time there is an increase in the rate or volume of the taking or a change in ownership. Also, if an impact is noted through monitoring or if a complaint is received which shows there has been some impact, the conditions of the permit are revised or the permit is revoked. Municipalities such as Grey, Bruce and Caledon have in the recent past become concerned about bottling operations because the water often leaves the particular watershed from which it was taken without any benefit being received, financial or otherwise.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy has responded to concerns raised by municipalities and the general public over commercial water-taking by bottling companies. The current legislation does not preclude notice to municipalities and does allow flexibility to address the problems that arise. It is MOEE's practice now to notify any affected municipality of any bottling proposal received. MOEE has included operating conditions, as requested by local municipalities, conditions such as limiting the time of day for the water withdrawals or the period of time before renewal is required.

Permits to bottling companies are now issued for a two-year period rather than the more typical 10-year period. In addition, MOEE staff encourage all applicants to receive the appropriate zoning and to adhere to local municipal bylaws and regulations before submitting an application to our ministry.

Also, as the members of this House will know, the Environmental Bill of Rights, proclaimed on February 15 of this year, gives all Ontarians a greater say in environmental decisions affecting their lives and communities. It is the intent of the MOEE to include applications under the permit-to-take-water program in the EBR registry. During the minimum 30-day notification period, the public, including municipalities, may provide written comments on these applications to the MOEE, and the ministry must consider and respond to these comments.

Once a decision to issue a permit is made and placed on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry, a 15-day period is allowed for any resident to seek leave to appeal that decision, because we believe public input and participation are essential to our environmental wellbeing.

Improvements can always be made, and I hope this debate will foster some new ideas regarding how we can do things better. In principle, I support the stated intent of the honourable member's bill and support public consultation on environmental matters such as water use. However, I believe the current form of Bill 126 does not contain provisions which promote the conservation of water.

In fact, one

section of the bill suggests that fees to municipalities be based on allowable amounts of water to be taken rather than the actual extraction. If the purpose of the bill is to promote the conservation of water, the fees should be based on the amount of water used, not the maximum amount indicated on the permit. That would certainly encourage the permit holder to use the maximum amount.

On average, Canadians use 340 litres of water a day, second only to the Americans, who use 426 litres a day. The Europeans, by comparison, use about 165 litres a day. We have to use water far more wisely than we do.

The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy is undertaking measures to promote water conservation and protect the quality of our water. These include setting strict discharge reduction limits for the petroleum refining industry and the pulp and paper industry; issuing clean water draft regulations for metal mining, metal casting and industrial minerals; and committing in excess of half a billion dollars over the next three years for Jobs Ontario funding for more than 300 water and sewer projects. We're investing $25 million annually in Ontario's seven remedial action plans for the Great Lakes area.

And we're choosing pollution prevention, the elimination of pollutants at the source, as the first method of protecting water quality.

In

summary, I believe this bill is addressing the symptoms rather than the root cause of the growing demand for bottled water: the need for safe, clean water by Ontarians. Our government has already demonstrated our commitment to the development of measures that ensure that all Ontarians have a healthy, sustainable source of clean water, and we will continue our efforts to safeguard that very important resource.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As I begin this discussion during private members' hour, I'd like to take a minute to explain to those who are watching why I think private members' hour is so important. This is an opportunity for non-partisan discussion and debate on issues which are of interest to individual members, usually of items which are not on the government's agenda and which may not be seen by the government, or in fact by individuals across the whole province, as a significant priority.

Right now in the riding of Oriole my constituents believe, as I believe, that the priority for the province of Ontario is economic renewal and job creation. People are worried: Are they going to have jobs tomorrow? They are also very concerned about the important public services that are provided by the province: health services and educational services. Are we going to be able to ensure that the opportunities are there for our youth? Youth unemployment and jobs for youth are extremely important to my constituents in the riding of Oriole.

Private members' hour gives us an opportunity to debate and to discuss and to raise issues on the public agenda which are important not only for today but for the long term as well. I believe my colleague Mr Elston should be congratulated for tabling Bill 126, the bill that is before us, because I believe it is a public interest issue. Water is a very significant natural resource in the province of Ontario.

The security of our water supply, the management of our water supply, are in need not only of important debate in principle but also further discussion and the opportunity to raise the public consciousness at the resources committee of the Legislature, as this bill, hopefully, will be supported by all members of the Legislature and then permitted to have the kind of public discussion awareness through the committee hearing process.

Private members' hour gives us the opportunity to debate this bill in principle, and that's what I intend to do today. I was provided by Mr Elston with some interesting background material. In the time I have I'd like to share some of the comments of some of those people who are as concerned about water management as I am.

There was a very timely

article in the Financial Post within the last year. The headline says, "World's Freshwater Tap in Peril." I'm just going to put on the record two paragraphs from an excellent

article that I would commend to anyone who is interested in preserving and protecting water for future generations. This is the beginning of the article: "Water, like energy in the 1970s, will probably become the most critical natural resource issue facing most parts of the world by the start of the next century."

The bottom line, the last paragraph of that article, is, "However, the complexity of the problems across both the developed and developing world supports the United Nations environment program's" -- UNEP is what it's called -- "belief that the questions of where clean water will come from next and how much it will cost will remain high on the international agenda."

I remember some concerns and discussions about the availability and the transportation of water during the free trade discussions and debates that ensued. I don't believe those questions were ever legitimately answered.

We know that the Sun Times in Owen Sound has been investigating this issue quite thoroughly, and many of the articles Mr Elston presented to me make very important points that I don't believe the public is generally aware of. One of the articles states as follows: "Little is being done to update the provincial process for approving water-taking permits. Despite growing complaints, it's badly out of date as the water bottling industry continues to grow."

I'm going to be 50 years old this year.

Applause.

Mrs Caplan: Thanks very much. Yes, I see that as a milestone.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Tell us it isn't so.

Mrs Caplan: It is so. I'm also going to be a grandmother this year, so it's a banner year for me. It's an important and exciting time.

But I remember, and it didn't seem so long ago, when in fact there was no water bottling industry. We didn't see, except in offices, the kinds of water bottles in places where taps were not available. Now it is very common for people in their homes and in their cottages. I have a permanent part-time residence in Huntsville, Ontario. For years we drew our water from the lake and we used filtering systems. Now what we have is a water bottling system where we purchase it at our local grocery store. I think the water bottling industry is important and good for Ontario.

I know the water I drink now is probably much safer than the water I drank straight from the lake just a few years ago. I've seen how rapidly these things have changed, and I know legislation frequently gets outdated and that it is important, from time to time, to go back to our basic principles and to take a look at them.

I think the points Mr Elston made in his original presentation were very important and worth considering. We have an industry and those jobs are very important to us, and we want to make sure that as we protect our water we also protect the industries that are beginning to develop and flourish. He said something I'd like to quote again.

Mr Elston made the point that while there were legitimate concerns, reasonable limits were also very much acceptable to legitimate agencies' drawing and taking of water, and that it was reasonable that both responsibility and accountability should be as close as possible to the local community where the water was being taken from. The frustration that is occurring today is that local municipalities have no say whatever over what is happening within their communities. Those jobs are equally important to them, but so are the water resources in their community.

As we find the kind of balance this legislation provides by involving municipalities and giving them the ability to manage the water within their boundaries, I think there is an important role for the province, which could well establish the criteria, which could well establish the policy under the Ontario Water Resources Act or an updating of that act. It could go hand in hand with the local management and the partnership and control of the local municipalities, which frequently know best about what's happening in their jurisdiction and care very much about their community and economic development.

I believe this is an opportunity where we could rethink the way we are presently doing things. The province could be a little less paternalistic. We could hold out our hands to local municipalities, which have the same concerns, the same goals and perhaps a little bit better expertise in being able to ensure that resources are properly managed.

Water is a very important natural resource in Ontario. We have seen efforts to keep the water clean. The one thing we haven't been able to do successfully is to look at water-taking. The issue really is, who owns that water? It's my view that whether you live in Huron or Bruce or Metropolitan Toronto, each and every one of us has a stake in protecting the water resources of the province of Ontario.

The bill that is before us, Bill 126, which is called

An Act respecting Water Extraction Agreements, is an important bill because it gives us the opportunity to have a full debate, to raise the public consciousness and to establish the kind of criteria and policies that will do exactly what I just referred to, which is protect our water resource not only today but for future generations.

If this government is as serious as Mrs Mathyssen says it is about protecting the water resource for future generations, hopefully it will permit this bill to go to the resources committee or a committee of the Legislature, where we can raise the public consciousness, have a full and open debate and perhaps see this bill amended to respond to whatever concerns are out there. Today is an opportunity to debate in principle, and tomorrow or the day after that or the week after that or the month after that will give us the time we need to truly study this bill and amend it and bring in the kind of forward-looking policies which will protect these resources not only for today but for the future.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. It is about the notion of not only protecting our water and our resources, but it's the notion of central control versus local partnership and local participation. As a former municipal councillor, I very much believe that municipalities should be partners in protecting our resources and that this bill provides a very good framework for proceeding to do that.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to rise in support of private member's Bill 126,

An Act respecting Water Extraction Agreements. This bill is very timely. There have been some issues raised in my riding with regard to this very issue we're discussing today.

Briefly, the member for Bruce would require a person who takes water from a water-taking site under the authority of a permit issued under

section 34 of the Ontario Water Resources Act to obtain a certificate of authorization from the Minister of Environment and Energy and negotiate an agreement with the local municipality if the water is taken for shipment outside the municipality without bottling or processing.

As well, the agreement may require the permit holder to pay the local municipality an annual fee that is based on the maximum volume of water the permit holder is authorized to take under the permit. A prescribed percentage of the fee is to be paid to the Minister of Finance. Finally, agreements are not assignable, and the bill sets out recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, as well as termination provisions. This bill covers a broad area.

Concern regarding water extraction has been expressed to me by a number of my constituents on a number of occasions. Albert Swan of Elmvale wrote to me recently indicating that a local resident is considering selling water from wells in the area for export, and he is afraid it will ruin all the wells in the area. Mr Swan says: "We did not mind using the water for irrigation, as it soaked back into the soil. But hauling it away will deplete the supply, no doubt."

On February 15, the Ministry of Environment wrote to the township of Springwater indicating that the current permit for water extraction proposes withdrawal of the water for the purposes of selling bottled water. Bottling is not to occur on the site.

The ministry agreed with the township of Springwater's conclusion that this type of operation is not appropriate in an area zoned agricultural. The ministry decided to withhold the certificate until the zoning and official plan amendments are finalized to the township's satisfaction, thereby giving the jurisdiction back to the municipality.

According to the ministry,

section 52 of the Ontario Water Resources Act clearly states: "No person shall establish, alter, extend or replace new or existing water works except under and in accordance with an approval granted by the director," and "'Water works' means any works for the collection, production, treatment, storage, supply and distribution of water, or any part of such works, but does not include plumbing or other works to which regulations made under clause 75(3)(

a) apply."

The ministry officials concluded their letter by indicating that an approval under

section 52 of the OWRA will also be required before proceeding. This will enable the establishment of quality and quantity conditions beyond what is established in the permit to take water.

I agree with Mr Swan and other residents in the Hillsdale area who are concerned that water extractions across Ontario do not have sufficient legislation or regulation. I am concerned that this lack of legislation and regulation could result in the mass extraction of water from local municipalities for shipment throughout the country or even across the border into the United States.

It's interesting to note that just on February 11, the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority passed the following resolution:

"Therefore

be it resolved that the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority go on record as being opposed to the practice of such operations without local municipal input into the licensing; and

"That the province of Ontario be requested to place a moratorium on the issuing of new licences for the sale and export of water until further studies have been undertaken and more information is available...."

I am supporting this private member's bill because we should ensure that municipal and provincial levels of government are involved in the use and conservation of our water. People like Albert Swan and the numerous people on whose behalf he is writing and organizations such as the NVCA really do fear that their water supply is being depleted as a result of insufficient legislation and a lack of government action.

I commend the member for Bruce for bringing this legislation forward. It's timely, it's necessary, and it's appropriate that we have a really good discussion in this House about this very important issue. After all, water is our main resource, and it sometimes concerns me, with the dumps we're putting in rural Ontario, underground, burying garbage, about the result that's going to have on the future too. So I commend the member for bringing this forward.

Mr Cooper: It's my pleasure to participate in the debate today, and I'd like to commend the member for bringing forward this issue, an issue that's really important to the region of Waterloo, which has been wrestling with the water issue for years.

In the stated intent of the bill, it says "to promote the conservation of water, to ensure that high quality water supplies are available to the people of Ontario, and to ensure that the Ministry of Environment and Energy and municipalities participate in regulating the extraction and transportation of water."

I'd like to remind the member that this government has set up the Ontario Clean Water Agency, whose purpose and intent is to make sure that the province of Ontario has sufficient drinking water to provide to the people here in this province, and its main focus is on conservation.

One of the problems I have with this bill is where he's talking about the municipalities participating in regulating the extraction and transportation of water. I know that at the 1993 AMO annual conference there was a resolution passed that said:

"Therefore

be it resolved that AMO petition the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Natural Resources to provide municipalities with a means to regulate and control the removal of water for commercial purposes or for resale, and to investigate the possibility of having the water resource treated as a commodity and financially valued similar to the gravel resource, whereby a system of revenue-sharing with the local municipalities or the maintenance of the roads may be realized."

I know that in some of the articles that have come about because of the introduction of this bill, a lot of the questions that are now being asked are, exactly who does water belong to and who should have control of it? Water is one of our most precious resources and the utilization must be properly controlled for everyone in the province.

I'm concerned about the potential impact that over-taking of surface water or groundwater might have on adjacent or downstream users of water and the environment, and this is where it concerns me. We've just designated the Grand River as a heritage river now, and there were discussions with members from Bruce and Grey and all the way down to Lake Erie. So this would affect Waterloo region and I know Waterloo region has been wrestling with this issue about the future need for water. We've had discussions on a pipeline and now my understanding is that study will be delayed until 1996.

One of the things we have done is that we have put in the Mannheim recharge system, which takes the Grand River water and filters and purifies it, and now that's supplementing the groundwater we have. The other thing is that we have the Groundwater Research Institute from the University of Waterloo, which has been going across the riding trying to find out exactly how much they have, and now it's my understanding that the region of Waterloo has commissioned them to actually take an inventory of the water.

If people are taking it for commercial use, it may impact on other municipalities that are a fair way away, so it's good that we have this discussion. We have to determine whether or not it should be allowed, basically through the province as a whole, to determine what water use should be and make sure that we do have clean drinking water for everybody in the province.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On all of these issues that are being raised in this House today on the subject of water, certainly we all agree with them. Water is becoming more and more of a great concern to all of us, not only in this province but around the world. We're concerned about pollution, we're concerned about the loss of water and certainly we are concerned about the regulation of water trucking. For that reason, I congratulate the member for Bruce in bringing this issue to this House for debate at this time.

I must say, though, that I cannot support the principle of what he is doing specifically with the regulation of the water trucking industry by the municipalities. I say that because water is a provincial resource. It goes beyond the boundaries of municipalities, whether you're talking rivers, whether you're talking lakes or whether you're talking aquifers. The aquifers extend the boundaries, and it's going to be with a great deal of difficulty that municipalities, through the agreements with these industries, these corporations and others, will be able to properly regulate it.

It's tempting for me to remind the member for Bruce of the Liberal Sunday shopping legislation in which it was suggested that Sunday shopping be regulated by the municipalities. There was a great fear that was put forward by all around this province that we would have different rules for Sunday shopping throughout the province and that it would be unfair to different individuals. That same fear exits here, that we'll have different rules, different sets of royalties that will be set by different municipalities.

I would also submit that this legislation probably doesn't go far enough. There's the topic of golf courses. We all have heard of how the watering of the greens on golf courses is creating many problems with respect to wells surrounding golf courses. It doesn't seem to deal with other industries, whether it be breweries, whether it be agricultural, the transport of water for agriculture and other commercial activities. So there is a certain amount of discrimination with respect to this topic.

But that's not to say this place shouldn't deal with it. The Ontario Water Resources Act, as I understand it, hasn't been amended in some 30 years. Currently, if you want to draw water, you have to get a permit from the government, yet the regulation as to how much water comes out of the ground, whether it be from a well or from an aquifer, is on the honour system. The individuals pulling the water out mark in their own logs and report it. It's a very inefficient system that we have concerning the fear we have.

There's also the subject of who owns the water, and that's a legal issue. The member for Bruce has indicated in his presentation that he has spent considerable time researching this. I understand he had a law student spend some time researching the topic. But it's a topic that needs to be reviewed further, the topic of whether the private owners own it or whether the crown owns it. That's a topic that I hope would be proceeded with before this type of legislation proceeds.

Can the province pass some of this jurisdiction on to the municipalities? Probably they can, but the question is whether they should. I emphasize that there should be a consistent policy throughout the province. Different agreements, different royalties, will lead to unfair advantages with the commercial world. A piecemeal approach, which I submit this bill is putting forward, is wrong. Not only would there be another layer of bureaucracy, but there would be confusion throughout the province and the people who are using the water, and it's not just the water takers, it's the golf courses, it's the others that overlap into other jurisdictions.

I emphasize that water is a provincial resource -- it isn't a municipal resource -- and accordingly should be regulated by the province. As I said, currently the province issues permits for the extraction of water, and the law is out of date. I would hope that, if anything, the introduction of this bill and this debate in this place today would encourage the government to consider great changes to the water resources act and other pieces of legislation that regulate the topic that is before us.

I would submit that for all these reasons I have given, the municipalities not have the jurisdiction to do what this law is doing. I submit that they may not be able to do it. They may not have the financial resources to do it.

On the topic of the royalties, the member has referred to a

section in his bill,

section 11, which talks about a certain percentage of the royalties going to Queen's Park, to the provincial government. Well, I'll tell you, the record of the provincial government is not good, and if the municipalities are going to have to be retaining staff, whether it be legal staff or environmental staff, they have to pay for all this, they have to pay for all the inspections, and they're going to need a great deal of resources to properly administer it.

I would submit that only the provincial government has those resources, and all these royalties they're going to be taking will simply be taken by the province, so I would submit that this legislation not be proceeded with at this time.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I stand here today and I commend my colleague for Bruce in bringing forth this private member's Bill 126. A number of people have phoned me in my constituency, because it does affect us, and they're concerned. Any time we talk here in this House about water and the issues around that as a commodity is very much needed.

The bill goes a long way to help the issues around making sure municipalities have an opportunity to recover costs. That is knowing that my roads need to be paved and my roads need to be kept up, and seeing the trucks that have trucked through my communities over the years from Bruce, I can relate to that issue.

I think a number of people have said, and it's even been related here and even a number of people in the communities have said, that the bill needs to go a little bit further. One chap I was talking to reminded us about the Aggregate Resources Act, and maybe tie it in that there are some lines there that need to be drawn, so there is a very formal process to even talk about the need should there be water out of the area, regardless of do we get fees or who's doing it or the work that's involved.

I'm supportive of this bill. I would hope that it can be used in context with all the good work that MOE has done and needs to do, and other ideas like that brought up when I was at the Lions Club in Formosa that evening, about strengthening the bill. That's the context that this bill can be worked in with and move forward and on that, I support the bill.

I have a colleague who has a couple of things he'd like to say.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There are 54 seconds left.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I rise in support of this particular bill. I believe this bill will start a very important debate that needs to happen, not only in this Legislature but indeed in the province as a whole, because we must begin to deal with water as a resource and how we're abusing that resource, whether we're abusing it by putting chemicals in it or whether we're dumping raw sewage in it or indeed putting a garbage landfill site at the head of waterways.

I was very pleased to see the member for Grey get up and support this bill because I hope that indicates he is going to support my bill on third reading. Dumping landfill sites at the head of waterways also affects the quality of water and quality of life downstream for municipalities that are affected by that, but I do support this bill.

Mr Elston: I'm pleased to wrap up, with a limited amount of time. I am pleased that generally speaking I have the support of the House. There isn't any question at all that this means, I think, that generally the caucuses, having discussed this, although this is private members' time, have, interestingly, indicated that they are generally in favour of moving on the issue of water.

I wanted to address a couple of the points that were raised, the first by my colleague from Dufferin-Peel who basically has told us that the province hasn't done a good job in a number of places, and that they can't actually get the work done, but he still wants them to do the work instead of the local municipalities.

I don't understand his reasoning. I think I understand that what he's trying to do is develop a bit of a legislative speech that he can copy and send out to the water trucking association and that's okay, but I think he should be up front and just say, "Listen, I'm supporting this so I can send the transcript of my remarks to the water truckers to say that I support you."

I don't think there's any need to beat around the bush. This is the only way that the work will actually get done. You know that there are 16 water permits issued in the province of Ontario at the current time for people taking more than 50,000 litres per day.

In one

article that was brought to my attention out of the Owen Sound Sun Times series of articles which I talked about earlier, that was indicated to be enough to supply a city of 112,500 people over the course of a year. That's just with the number of permits that have been issued now. That's a very astounding or astonishing figure, and what is more important is that we don't really even know what the effect is going to be of the taking of that much water over the long term.

I was talking to one of my colleagues from the new Democratic Party and he has actually been to a couple of places in the United States where the taking of water has not only dried up the underground system, but it has actually started to allow the surface of the soil to settle. There's actually a hole being created because all the water has been pumped out from under parts of the United States of America. That should be enough to really cause us concern. It is for me.

I'll go on to reply to the second point raised by the member for Middlesex, and I wish that the bill itself could actually tell you the process that you go through arriving at this clause or that clause, and I know any number of you have done your own, but when we were talking about the provision of charging on the maximum amount of water to be used, the way that we thought we could best conserve the volume of water was by saying, "If you apply for 200,000 litres, you've got to pay for it." We hoped that would moderate the amount of water people would apply for and make them go to the lowest amount rather than having this open or almost open book as to the volume of water to take.

In many ways, I think we have the same idea in mind. I just chose to do that so that everybody would be aware that I don't apply for the maximum I think I may want, but that I am only going to apply for what I am going to need and therefore that is going to make sure that there is no open-ended volume of water to take.

At the same time, if their business were to grow and they had to go beyond the amount they applied for, they would have to do a new application. They would have to provide new hydrogeological materials to satisfy the ministry and the local municipality that they weren't going to imperil the water supply. In my view, that is a much more prudent, probably careful way of addressing the issue of conservation. I appreciate the issue being raised. I was actually going to do it in my own remarks to try and get people to understand, but I am happy that the member for Middlesex has raised it, because it did give me a chance to go back there.

I want to bring to the attention of the House one of my biases in this whole thing. Along with the fact that there is a very interesting local issue which has extremely important consequences, in my view, for the province in terms of water supply, I am one of those people who was learning through our education system, up through the late 1950s and 1960s and into the early 1970s, and hopefully still am learning but outside school, thinking about all the things that the nation of Canada may have done errantly in the past.

One of the biggest problems, in my view, has been the experience that has been suffered in the province of British Columbia with the Columbia water diversion. If anybody had a chance, I just happened to be able to watch last night the Suzuki program on water, which I thought was very good indeed. The results of that Columbia water diversion now are really being felt strongly by some of the people along the watercourse. The park out on the Peace River, Woodland National Park, I think it's called, is perhaps jeopardized by that Columbia water diversion.

The fact that hydro is not now necessarily the major reason for the diversion of the water, but the water itself is probably the major reason for the diversion, is enough in my view to make your heart stop with respect to the things that we are doing now without any understanding of what the consequences are.

That's why this bill is very critical in my view to bringing people back to understanding what this means to my local municipality. That can be any municipality right around the province. It's interesting to note, by the way, that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot spoke briefly and mentioned the region of Waterloo. Waterloo, I am told, now is consuming only about 166 litres per day per person, which is well below the 360 or 340, whichever is right, litres of water, on average, that we use in this province. That's good progress. But you know, we still don't understand what is going to take place.

We don't understand what 900,000 litres a year taken from the well in Formosa is going to mean in the long term.

I am proud to move this bill today. I ask for the people's support and generally I understand that I have it. There is one piece of other business which I understand is extremely critical. I'd ask people that when they vote they also support this going out to the resources committee so that we can really talk in depth about it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (RE-EMPLOYMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (RENGAGEMENT)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time provided for private members' public business has expired. We will deal first with ballot item number 43, standing in the name of Mr Morrow. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Morrow has moved second reading of Bill 129,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

According to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): Mr Speaker, I would like it to go to the resources development committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Should the bill go to the resources development committee?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

Those who are in favour, would you please rise.

Those opposed will please rise.

A majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES ENTENTES PORTANT SUR L'EXTRACTION D'EAU

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 44 standing in the name of Mr Elston. Mr Elston has moved second reading of Bill 126,

An Act respecting Wayter Extraction Agreements.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I prefer it to go to the resources development committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the resources development committee?

All those in favour of the bill going to the committee will please rise.

All those opposed to the bill being sent to the committee will please rise.

The majority of the House not being in agreement, this bill will therefore be referred to the committee of the whole House.

We've debated all the bills that we were planning to debate. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the 19th annual report of the Commission on Election Finances, which covers the year 1993.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This NDP government is still guided by the mistaken notion that big government knows best, when we know that in most instances it's the community and its members who know best.

We were informed recently -- this week, in fact -- that the Queen St Mental Health Centre is undergoing a $2-million expansion which will include a 20-bed unit for the criminally insane. The centre has confirmed that.

This was done without community consultation and without even consultation with its political representatives. This centre will now open in August, according to Ms Stuart. It says that in the future Toronto could get substantial numbers of maximum- and mediumsecurity beds for criminally insane patients. Again, the objection here is that the community should have been consulted.

Second, we learned in November 1993 that the local probation and parole field office, which was located at the Dufferin Mall, had suddenly shifted and was now at the very centre of the south Parkdale community.

I was exasperated over the fact that the recommendation to relocate this office, with a case load of 1,400 adults, was made by someone who never lived in the community and had, consequently, no idea of what to do.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Yesterday, out of sheer frustration, the Mississauga city council passed a resolution to allow fire safety officials to inspect rental units without search warrants. It is a step that could well be followed by all municipalities which have basement apartments or other apartments in houses.

The legislation to address this problem, Bill 120, legalizes basement apartments but fails to provide the necessary safety measures for those who live in them.

The Minister of Housing indicates that fire regulations will require that smoke detectors be installed, but there is no additional authority for municipalities to be able to enter, to inspect and to make sure that basement apartments meet the safety regulations.

This legislation places the onus on the tenant to request such an inspection, and in all likelihood numerous apartments will not be inspected.

Municipalities have told the Minister of Housing and fire chiefs have told the Minister of Housing that the Fire Marshals Act does not grant sufficient authority to municipalities to ensure safety, nor does any other act.

I quote the fire chief of the city of Mississauga: "The municipalities' hands are tied. It's now up to the provincial Legislature to give us the tools to deal with these apartments."

I hope the Minister of Housing is listening.

GRIMSBY HAWK WATCH

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to tell the House about a very uplifting event that will take place in my riding tomorrow, the fourth annual hawk watch at Beamer Memorial Conservation Area atop the Niagara Escarpment in Grimsby.

This special open house gives the public a unique opportunity to see hawks soaring on the thermal updrafts as they wing their way northward on the spring migration route.

It is hosted by the Niagara Peninsula Hawkwatch and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

Visitors will likely see a large number of red-tailed hawks, red-shouldered hawks and some eagles and Cooper's hawks.

Experts will be on hand to help visitors identify the hawks as they fly overhead and to give hourly talks on why birds migrate and how they manage to travel so effortlessly.

Also, a rehabilitated hawk will be released into the wild by Mary Ellen Hebb of the nearby Owl Foundation.

The hawk watch open house will run from 9 am until 3 pm, with children's activities scheduled from 11 till noon. The rain date is Saturday, April 2. There is no charge for the event, and visitors are urged to dress warmly and bring a lawn chair, binoculars and a bird guide.

I would also like to pay tribute to the many volunteers from the Niagara Peninsula Hawkwatch who come out each spring to count and tally the passing hawks. From March until early May, they station themselves at Beamer Point and count thousands of hawks. This vital information is then sent to the Hawk Watch Migration Association of North America, where experts examine the data and assess the health of the hawk population.

I urge my elected colleagues and their constituents to come to Grimbsy tomorrow and join in the hawk watch. What an awesome way to enjoy the unique resources of our beautiful and well-protected Niagara Escarpment. My assistant and his wife and his young son will be there, and I will be there with my family also.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On January 24, 1994, I wrote to the Premier to remind him of the promises and commitments made by him and the senior members of his government to equalize the price of gasoline across the province.

I reminded the Premier of a 1991 statement he made that the NDP government "is concerned about the high price of gasoline in northern Ontario and the burden it places on motorists." I reminded the Premier of the promise made by Shelley Martel in 1990 during the election campaign that "gas prices must be equalized across the province." I reminded the Premier of Gilles Pouliot's 1991 comments that as a northerner and as a consumer, he wants the assurance that he is being treated fairly and that he is getting a fair shake for his hard-earned dollar.

On January 12, 1994, the price of gas in Windsor was reported at 46.6 cents per litre, while on the same day the price of gas in Pickle Lake was listed at 68.6 cents per litre. That's nearly a 20-cents-per-litre difference. On March 16, the prices were Windsor 49.6 cents and Pickle Lake 67.9 cents -- the difference, 16 cents per litre.

Members of this government have clearly declared their commitment to equalize the price of gas between northern and southern Ontario, but today absolutely no action has been taken to address this issue by this government. This government quite simply has not done anything to fulfil its commitment to the people of northern Ontario.

JACK MORRIS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a man who will be sadly missed in the community of Prescott, Ontario. Jack Morris was editor and publisher of the Prescott Journal, retiring in 1977 after a career in community newspapers that began in 1926. His avid concern for the community he lived in and the lives of those in it can be shown in his lengthy list of contributions and accomplishments.

A founding member of the Grenville County Historical Society, he worked to create Prescott's own Forwarders museum, a museum tracking the history of Prescott and the St Lawrence River.

A recipient of several awards for community dedication, Jack's lifelong interest in local history prompted him to write a book on the history of Prescott as a personal centennial project. The book succeeded in giving Prescott residents a new-found pride in their home town and its place in national history.

In his varied and active career, Jack was also a militiaman and a soldier, serving with the Canadian Army in France, Belgium, and Holland.

As a musician who got his start in the 1920s playing piano for silent movies, Jack served as organist for several years at local churches and most recently contributed to entertainment for fellow residents in his retirement home.

Jack Morris was a man who was very generous with his time, a man who chose to put his vision of his community ahead of any conflicts of personality. He will be greatly missed.

EVENTS IN NIAGARA REGION

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): We hope it's going to be a warm and wonderful weekend. I invite you, Mr Speaker, members of the Legislature and the people of Ontario watching to come and visit Niagara Falls and Niagara region. Come for a picnic on the Niagara Parkway or bring your bike and cycle. We have 50 kilometres of bicycle path, from beautiful, romantic Niagara-on-the-Lake all the way to old Fort Erie.

If you come and stay over and enjoy one of our new and moderately priced accommodations, then you can visit the whole region. We have so much to offer. How about a winery tour from Grimsby right through to the historic cellars of Bright's in Niagara Falls, or we have a new pamphlet on the Black History Tour. The end of the Underground Railway came from Buffalo through to Niagara. You can investigate a secret tunnel from the river bank up to a well-known safe house for slaves. There's also the tiny, hidden-away BME Church on Peer Street in Niagara Falls.

You can take a historic bus tour to see the battlefields of the War of 1812 at Chippawa and Lundy's Lane. You can also explore the route of the Welland Canal up from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie.

There is so much more to Niagara. For decades, other provincial governments have ignored us. Now our government is working hard to enhance and preserve the beauty and history of Niagara for tourism. Come and visit us. The blossoms will soon be out from Queenston to Queen Victoria Park.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): This morning at 7:14 -- that early, it must have been very, very important -- I got a message over the fax machine and the message is addressed primarily to the Premier, and I'm glad that he is here and able to listen to it. However, it also interests the whole NDP caucus and in particular the members from eastern Ontario.

Here is what Dawn Wallace, who is from Wolfe Island, has to say, and I'm very pleased to share this message with you, Mr Speaker. It says:

"For the record, can you please make Premier Rae know: I want him to quit. I say this in response to his comments in the Legislature yesterday. Apparently he is under the impression no one wants him to quit...

"I'm very thankful the CBC played the excerpt from yesterday's Queen's Park session. Obviously Premier Rae has delusions about public opinion. So let me repeat and add, I want him to quit, my husband wants him to quit, hundreds of my neighbours who are fighting the slated June 1st highway tax to be implemented on the Kingston Wolfe Island crossing want him to quit.

"I would appreciate if you can set the Premier straight.

"With thanks,

"Dawn Wallace."

I'm very pleased to convey this message. If I can have a page, I'd like to pass it over to the Premier, please.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to bring to the attention of this House that we have a minister without portfolio destroying heritage buildings in this province.

NDP members Shirley Coppen and Margaret Harrington gleefully participated in the destruction of two buildings in Niagara Falls with historical value to make way for the new Culture, Tourism and Recreation office.

Let me read to you from the subsequent release an

article that appeared in the ministry newsletter:

"The sound of shattering glass and the crunching of bricks made a sweet sound when associate minister Shirley Coppen joined a media conference at the site of the ministry's new office."

This was not a sweet sound for all who heard about this destruction. The Caledon Heritage Committee in Dufferin-Peel was appalled that the minister without portfolio responsible for culture in this province was so pleased to participate in the destruction of a heritage building.

In their letter to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, the Caledon Heritage Committee states: "We deal on a continual basis with behaviour like this from ill-informed people who see no merit in conserving Ontario's heritage. How will any of us be able to continue to work to incorporate heritage with new construction and promote conservation and reuse if this is the example your ministry is setting?"

If this attitude from Mrs Coppen wasn't bad enough, when I wrote the Premier on this issue, his letter back to me amounted to, "I have noted your comments."

How can the heritage committees of Ontario feel that they have support from this ministry and government if this is how Bob Rae's government is going to respond?

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I can't for the life of me understand why the official opposition and the third party continue to criticize and condemn the NDP Jobs Ontario program. The cynical, irrational members opposite continue their doom-and-gloom approach to a program that has proven itself time and time again.

I've talked to many people from the Hamilton-Wentworth area and they're telling me that they think the Liberals and Tories are blowing in the wind. Since the program began in the fall of 1992, 2,034 people in Hamilton-Wentworth have been placed in jobs, and it is estimated that many more jobs will be created in the Hamilton-Wentworth area by the end of the program. And its success does not stop in Hamilton-Wentworth. Thousands of jobs have been created and maintained throughout the province of Ontario.

Another feature that people in my riding like is the fact that both employers and employees benefit from the program. It creates a balance of assistance during these difficult economic times.

The people in my area continually read in the Hamilton Spectator and other fine newspapers in the area of the many success stories of this government's Jobs Ontario. So, to my critical friends across the floor, the program is working, and it's working well not only in the Hamilton-Wentworth area but across the province of Ontario.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yesterday the member for Leeds-Grenville, Mr Runciman, rose in the House on a question of privilege concerning a recent newspaper

article on certain cabinet deliberations. The member requested the Speaker to determine whether there may have been a violation of members' privileges by reason of an alleged breach of cabinet confidentiality.

I have reviewed yesterday's Hansard, our precedents and the usual parliamentary authorities. I find that the precedent that is closest to the circumstances raised by the member for Leeds-Grenville is a 1980 ruling concerning a newspaper

article on taxation measures. The

article was published a few days before a scheduled budgetary announcement in the House. Speaker Stokes stated the following at page 4215 of our Hansard for November 13, 1980:

"The chair cannot be asked to rule on something that took place by way of an interview. The chair similarly cannot be expected to monitor whether or not there has been a breach of cabinet solidarity."

Turning to the case raised by the member for Leeds-Grenville, I find that the publication of the newspaper

article does not establish a prima facie case of privilege. However, I thank the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville for his concerns and for bringing them to my attention.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HEALTH INSURANCE

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Today the government is moving ahead with measures that will help us preserve our health care system.

In last year's budget, we promised to tighten OHIP rules by restricting benefits to residents of Ontario. The measures I am announcing today will save the taxpayers of this province about $48 million annually.

As well, we are formally asking the federal government to assume its responsibility for refugee claimants in Ontario by paying their health care costs. Ottawa already does this in most other provinces.

Starting April 1, most people who arrive in Ontario but do not plan to live here permanently will no longer receive free health care benefits. Temporary residents already here will continue to be covered by OHIP until June 30. This will give them time to arrange for private health insurance. The Ministry of Health is contacting the people involved to make sure they are aware of this change.

We will continue with our firm policy that absolutely no one in this province will be denied urgent care by an Ontario hospital or community health clinic, regardless of their OHIP status.

We need these changes to ensure the high quality of Ontario's health care services. Our go