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

October 18, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PERSONS DAY

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

DENTAL HYGIENIST PROGRAM

ORGAN DONATIONS

PERSONS DAY

NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION

JACK GOODLAD SENIOR CITIZENS RESIDENCE

CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSIT SERVICES

PERSONS DAY

PAY EQUITY

RESPONSES

TRANSIT SERVICES

PERSONS DAY

PAY EQUITY

TRANSIT SERVICES

PERSONS DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

ATTENDANT CARE

FARM SOIL AND WATER RUNOFF

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

TOWN OF IROQUOIS FALLS ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Mr Farnan: Why bother having public hearings on issues of importance and concern to the people of Ontario? These hearings span over several weeks and very often involve a large committee and staff touring the province or paying for delegations to travel to Toronto, This represents an enormous expense to the people of Ontario. However, even when there is overwhelming opposition to proposed government legislation, invariably the Liberal government brushes it aside and refuses to listen to the voice of the people.

The most recent example of the government’s contempt for the Ontario public was the committee hearings on Bill 119. Two hundred and twenty-eight municipalities, representing 7.5 million citizens, and all 105 briefs heard by the committee objected to this government legislation that pits culture and recreation against hospitals for lottery funding, but to no avail.

It is the same old story, just as it was for Sunday shopping, court security, auto insurance, the Workers’ Compensation Board, and no doubt will be for health and safety. The people speak and this Liberal government ignores them.

But perhaps it is not a complete waste of lime. Maybe through these expensive but futile hearings, the people of Ontario will come to the realization that this Liberal government is completely insensitive, autocratic and out of touch with its citizens. Maybe those who are not heard in committee can ensure that they will be heard in the next election. You will agree, Mr Speaker, ignore the public and there is a political price to pay.

PERSONS DAY

Mr Jackson: It is with great pleasure that I rise to acknowledge Persons Day, when 60 years ago the Privy Council in England declared that Canadian women were indeed persons and could participate in all facets of life as Canadian citizens, including being eligible for appointment to the Senate.

This is a day for all women to reflect on the historical struggle for their fundamental rights to be included as equal partners in a society that is still largely male-dominated.

Much work in this area remains to be done. Let us remember the sobering thought that it was not too long ago when women were not even regarded as persons. The persistent remnants of those gender dark ages are with us still when we hear of a man earning twice what a woman made for the same job in a shelter for abandoned women in Owen Sound; when we see rape crisis centres applauded loudly by government ministers, who then fold their hands when those same centres ask them for enough funding to keep their doors open, and when our court system pays more attention to the perpetrators of violent crime against women than to the victims.

Much work remains to be done, and we as legislators can begin to do it by learning, first of all, to listen to the women of Ontario. What they want is not special treatment but equal treatment along with men. So I remind the government that its responsibility towards women does not end when women cast their ballots and have mailed their letters to the Solicitor General. This government must respond swiftly and decisively to meet the needs of women. Women across Ontario experience this day as a renewed call to action on behalf of their rights. This government would do well to follow their example.

Ms Poole: This afternoon, I too would like to invite members to join me in celebrating an important victory won by Canadian women 60 years ago today.

Most members in the House are aware that 100 years ago, no woman had the right to vote anywhere in the world, but some are not aware that, even as recently as 60 years ago, women were not considered to be persons in Canada under our laws.

As the member for Burlington South (Mr Jackson) has said, in 1928 the Supreme Court of Canada actually ruled that women were not eligible for appointment to the Senate because they were not legally persons. However, on 18 October 1929, the Privy Council in England unequivocally reversed this decision with the following words: “and to those who ask why the word ‘persons’ should include females, the obvious answer is why should it not?”

This was a great day in Canadian women’s history. Today, over 1,300 supporters of women’s equality rights met to celebrate and to honour those women who fought so hard to earn this very basic right. We also wanted to express our support for organizations such as the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. LEAF, which are continuing to fight on our behalf.

Please join me in applauding women past and present who have fought the good fight for us.

[Applause]

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr Hampton: The 1988-89 Public Accounts figures indicate that the Ministry of Natural Resources spent $500,000 on hotels and resorts during the last fiscal year. This ministry’s travel budget is second only to the Ministry of Transportation’s transportation and travel budget. Yet, as an increasingly massive chunk of the Ministry of Natural Resources budget goes to finance the travel escapades of its senior bureaucrats, total funding for the ministry has actually been reduced by this government to $570 million from $576 million.

The irresponsible budgeting has taken its toll of Ontario’s natural resources. The ministry is unable to pay its conservation officers a fair salary and, as a result, there is a shortage of men and women who want to be conservation officers, despite the fact that everywhere in the province there is a recognized need for more COs.

Furthermore, despite this province’s enormous annual losses to forest fires, the Ministry of Natural Resources this past summer cut the number of trained forest firefighters by 130. In addition, the general fish and wildlife budget has not kept up with inflation. Further, the number of seedlings provided for reforestation has been cut. It would seem, if one looks at it, that the Ministry of Natural Resources is now more interested in hotels and resorts than it is in protecting our natural resources.

DENTAL HYGIENIST PROGRAM

Mrs Cunningham: Fanshawe College has had approximately 1,200 applicants apply for 16 spaces in its dental hygienist program. As a result of the extremely limited number of spaces in dental hygienist programs in Ontario today, there is a real need for trained dental hygienists in this province. In fact, one third of the students attending the Erie Community College near Buffalo, New York, are Canadians. This is at a personal cost to these students of over US$5,400 just in order for them to receive the classroom space and training they need.

The Premier’s Council stated that the government should work with the appropriate areas of government to develop a comprehensive people strategy that will address vital education, training and labour market policy issues. The issue of dental hygiene programs is just one example showing that this government does not recognize the importance of job training for our young people.

Provincial grants for community colleges do not even cover the direct operating grants of colleges in Ontario. This problem with the dental hygienist program is not new. Obviously both residents and dental hygienist students need to see a greater commitment from this government in order to provide the dental health care in Ontario that is essential.

ORGAN DONATIONS

Mr Owen: There are many people in Ontario and across Canada waiting to hear if organs have come available that could allow them a chance at living healthy, full lives since transplantation of organs has become a common practice. At one time organ transplants were seldom successful. However, today 80 per cent of transplant patients recover. No longer is this an experimental procedure. It is a life-giving reality. Over 95 per cent of cornea transplants are now successful. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of organs for transplant, and 40 per cent of those in need of donor organs still die as a result of this shortage.

We can all help to alleviate this shortage. What is needed is a commitment of people now that when they die, if at all possible, their organs will be given to anyone who needs them. Attached to the Ontario driver’s licence is a donor card. In the event of death, the signed consent allows the use of organs for transplant. This need is critical. Only 26 per cent of Ontario citizens have signed the donor cards.

Families of those who have donated organs tell me of the comfort of knowing this gift has given life to others. I would like to appeal to the members of this House to bring this message to their constituents.

In Canada, 52,000 people will die this year from heart disease and 28,000 as a result of liver disease. We now know how to help them. It is now up to all of us to provide the means.

PERSONS DAY

Mr R. F. Johnston: It may have been over 60 years ago that women officially under the law were moved from being chattels of men to being persons in their own right. But still, in 1989, women have a greater right to poverty than men do; they certainly have a greater right to lower wages than men for jobs of equal value. Today the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) and others will rise and talk about the Pay Equity Commission’s report on a group of women, as many as 900,000, who were left out of the initial considerations and promised by this government in 1985 that it would deal with pay equity in its entirety.

There is another report today that was brought down, which we would like to hear comments from the Minister of Labour about, from the Ontario Advisory Council on Women’s Issues, which surveys a huge number of ways in which women are discriminated against in this province still in 1989 in terms of labour law, and this government has yet not committed itself to a full overhaul of the employment standards legislation.

My colleague the critic for the Conservative Party talked about the woman’s right to protection against violence against her person in this province in this day and age. Although this is a great day to celebrate the final recognition by the courts of this land about personhood, we must also recognize that we have an awful long way to go before women can feel equal and as secure as men in this society.

NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION

Mr Pope: I have viewed with growing concern developments for transportation in northern Ontario and specifically wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye) for the province of Ontario the fact that we have had the Rukavina committee reviewing rail services in northeastern Ontario.

The very day they had their meeting in the city of Timmins, the tracks for the Ontario Northland Railway were being ripped out of the downtown core. We have had recent decisions of impending cutbacks in Via Rail service that will affect various parts of northeastern Ontario. We have had a recent decision of Air Canada withdrawing jet service to northeastern Ontario communities. We have no clear statement of what NorOntair is going to be doing to fill the void that is being left by these services, specifically to link Timmins and North Bay in the aviation system.

We have had no indication of the priorities of this government with respect to road construction and particularly municipal road maintenance and upgrading in municipalities in northeastern Ontario.

All of these issues, coming as they do at the same time, leave many of us in northeastern Ontario asking the Ministry of Transportation for the province of Ontario to make a clear statement of policy on transportation evolution in northeastern Ontario and some clear indication of what programs will be put in place to support those policies.

JACK GOODLAD SENIOR CITIZENS RESIDENCE

Mr Faubert: On 9 September 1989, I had the privilege to represent both the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the Minister of Housing (Mr Sweeney) at the official opening of the Jack Goodlad Senior Citizens Residence in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere. I commend the Ministry of Housing for its participation in the development of these 170 units. They are a welcome addition to affordable housing for seniors in the city of Scarborough.

This residence is named after the late Jack Goodlad, a former Scarborough alderman with whom I had the privilege to serve on city council. Residents should take pride in this name, for Jack Goodlad had an exceptional record of hard work on council that all public representatives would do well to emulate. He was an ordinary but a very extraordinary man who was a truck driver and who decided to run for office because he believed he understood and could speak for the concerns of his fellow citizens.

Jack was also someone who never took no for an answer. He was fond of saying, “I’m just an average guy doing his best for the people who elected me.” His record was far from average, as he gave his heart and his soul and eventually his life serving the people of Scarborough to the end.

I congratulate all those involved in the building of the Jack Goodlad Senior Citizens Residence and, in particular, I would like to commend the chairman of the board and president of the residence, Barry Christensen, and all board members for the time and effort they have contributed to this very worthwhile project. Their persistence made it happen.

Finally, I would like to wish the residents of this seniors’ complex every happiness in this, their new home.

The Speaker: That completes the number of allotted members’ statements.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Isn’t anybody going to announce that it is Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s birthday?

An hon member: No.

Hon R. F. Nixon: And we wish him well.

An hon member: That is right.

Hon Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent for statements regarding the California earthquake.

Agreed to.

CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE

Mr Curling: On behalf of the government and the people of Ontario, I wish to express our sincere sympathy to the families of those who perished in last night’s devastating earthquake in the California Bay area. I would like to extend our concern to those who suffered injuries and the many who face the arduous task of rebuilding their lives and homes today.

Ontarians who wish to help in the relief effort can make a contribution to the American Red Cross through the Canadian Red Cross at 5700 Cancross Court in Mississauga. In addition, the federal Department of External Affairs has established a toll-free number for those seeking information about family and friends in the area. The number is 1-800-267-6788.

Our sympathy and concern have been conveyed today in a letter from the Premier (Mr Peterson) to California Governor George Deukmejian. We have also extended an offer of any appropriate assistance which may be requested.

Mr B. Rae: We join with the member for Scarborough North in extending our condolences to those families who have lost their loved ones as a result of the tragic events in California last night.

Anyone who watched the really quite frightening events on television, as I did and I am sure many members did yesterday evening, could not help but be just so moved at the courage and the ingenuity and the sense of sacrifice and the sense of pulling together of all those who were doing the rescue work; the women and men who, in some cases at considerable risk to themselves, were crawling through that very narrow space between the two highways trying to get to some cars and find if there were any people who were still alive and who could be helped.

It is often said that out of tragedy sometimes a greater common sense of the fragility of life emerges. Sometimes a sense of not only what we can take from life but what we must all give back to life re-emerges in all of us. Our hearts go out to those families whose lives have been devastated by this terrible tragedy. But at the same time we must rededicate ourselves to building a world that always has room for people and to building a world that can respond to the victims of a tragedy such as the one we have all just witnessed.

Mr Brandt: We are all horrified by what happened in the San Francisco Bay area as a result of the devastation in the earthquake that occurred last night.

I want to begin my remarks by quoting from one of the players in the World Series. Terry Kennedy. who is a catcher for the Oakland As, was getting ready to play in the third game of the series, which is, as we all know, the ultimate baseball experience, and just the promise of that experience swept up all of Toronto and Ontario a few short days ago. Mr Kennedy had this to say of the devastating earthquake that hit northern California yesterday:

“We found out where the priorities of life are. The World Series doesn’t mean anything compared to what happened in this city tonight. People were hurt and people lost their homes, it makes me feel sick.”

The earthquake yesterday and its shocking, devastating aftermath truly do bring home where the priorities of life are. The death toll, as we have been advised to this point, is really quite staggering; some 300 people are reported to have lost their lives and the count may well go higher. In addition, there are 600 who are injured as of the last report I have received. That count may go higher, as well. The material losses, which are not nearly as important as the injuries and the loss of life, are well in excess of $1 billion.

This does not take into account the damage at Santa Cruz, which was the epicentre of the earthquake. At the time of the information I received, there were no details with respect to how extensive the damage there was, other than that dozens of buildings and whole blocks of the downtown community are apparently devastated.

From the television we received last night and again this morning, we have compelling evidence of this horrible event. Perhaps most horrific are the deaths caused by the collapse of a major highway. The equivalent, in Ontario terms, would be if the Gardiner Expressway collapsed from Jarvis Street to Bathurst Street during rush hour on to Lake Shore Boulevard. That is exactly how extensive that destruction was.

I think we have to be thankful the tragedy was not even worse, given that it occurred at the worst possible time of the day. As well, if the epicentre had been closer, who knows what would have happened to the 50,000 or 60,000 people who were in attendance at the World Series ball game.

On behalf of our party, our hearts and our best wishes go out to the people of the San Francisco-northern California area, as well as our condolences. We hope they are able to cope with the terrible tragedy that has struck them. It is also our fervent wish that a tragedy of this magnitude never happens again.

The Speaker: I believe it would be fitting, when Hansard is printed, if I were to send those words and a copy of Hansard to the Governor of California.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSIT SERVICES

Hon Mr Wrye: A balanced transportation system is important from an economic, environmental and quality-of-life perspective.

In May of this year, the government announced a $2-billion transportation capital program to help meet the needs of the province.

The rapid growth of the regions surrounding Metropolitan Toronto has created the need for a strong, interregional passenger transportation system. The government of Ontario has met that need through its ongoing commitment to upgrading the GO Transit network. GO’s mandate is to provide service in the five regions around Metro, as well as in Metro itself. GO trains have experienced a 16 per cent increase in ridership over the past year.

I would like to inform the Legislature today of a further improvement in the service GO Transit is providing for the residents of northern Metropolitan Toronto and York region.

Starting 30 October, GO will add a fourth morning train to its

schedule on the Richmond Hill line. This new weekday train will leave Richmond Hill at 6:50 am, stopping at Langstaff, Old Cummer and Oriole stations before arriving at Toronto Union Station at 7:28 am. This follows the introduction of a fourth evening train this past summer. Together, these two trains will help accommodate the 20 per cent growth in ridership on this route over the last year.

We have taken a number of other steps to upgrade GO service to the northern portion of Metro and York region. The fare integration program, which allows preticketed GO passengers to ride local transit buses to and from the GO station with no additional fare, was extended to Richmond Hill Transit last month.

Parking lots at both Langstaff and Richmond Hill stations have been expanded this summer, and we are working to improve the facilities for connections between GO’s Richmond Hill line and the Toronto Transit Commission services on both Finch and Sheppard Avenue. The work at Finch is expected to be completed early next year.

As part of this government’s commitment to maintaining the high standards of GO service, additional funding has been made available to GO through the $2-billion transportation capital program. This capital program is intended to maintain road and rail links, while remaining sensitive to environmental concerns.

Among other things, the funding will allow GO to purchase more rolling stock. As a result, GO has just signed orders for more bilevel rail cars and locomotives. These orders represent a further investment by the province of Ontario of more than $112 million in the interregional transit system in the greater Toronto area.

UTDC Inc will build 60 more bilevel cars at is Can-Car facility in Thunder Bay. The $78.4-million order will provide employment at the plant for one year, with the first car scheduled for delivery in May 1990. The order will expand GO’s fleet of bilevels to 334 cars.

The diesel division of General Motors of Canada will construct 14 locomotives for GO at its London plant at a cost of $33.7 million, These locomotives have been designed to handle the special demands of GO’s commuter operations.

These orders will give GO the most modern and efficient commuter rail equipment fleet in all of North America.

In closing, I am pleased to inform the House of these improvements, which are part of our ongoing commitment to providing balanced, convenient and efficient transit services for the greater Toronto area.

PERSONS DAY

Hon Mrs Wilson: Sixty years ago today, Canadian women were recognized as “persons” in the eye of the law and became eligible to be called to the Senate of Canada.

The participation of women in all aspects of society has changed dramatically in this century. Women won the right to vote, to run for political office and to share in the decision-making process of our country.

The day, 18 October 1929, marked a great step towards the achievement of equality for women in Canadian society. While we have seen continuous, steady progress in the intervening years, there is much more to accomplish.

Our government has undertaken a number of important initiatives to enhance the status of women in Ontario. This government’s commitment to pay equity is the most progressive in any democratic jurisdiction.

One of the most distressing problems that women face is the incidence of family violence. In my capacity as the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues, I view the elimination of violence against women as a priority. If we are to have safe and secure communities, women must feel and be safe in our communities, in our workplaces and in our own homes. To that end, this government considers it a priority to continue to enhance the prevention of wife assault and all other forms of violence against women.

Today’s women are lawyers, welders, scientists, airline pilots, judges, machinists and senior officers in our armed forces. They are also MPPs. By the year 2000, half of our paid labour force will be female. In order to be economically competitive, we must use all our human resources effectively.

I ask my fellow members to join me in acknowledging the positive changes that have occurred as a result of that auspicious day some 60 years ago. I ask them to join with me and with this government in working to continue to promote awareness that women are not only persons but equal partners in the future of our country.

PAY EQUITY

Hon Mr Phillips: I would like to join with my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues in acknowledging today Persons Day,

Women have indeed made significant progress and the Ontario government has been in the forefront of that progress. But as my colleague said, we must not fail to recognize that much more must be done. It is for that reason that the government brought forward the Pay Equity Act.

As honourable members will recall, the act came into effect 1 January 1988. The legislation established the Pay Equity Commission and it required it to study and report on what are called predominantly female sectors of the economy that were not covered by the act.

I am pleased to table that report today and to thank the commission very much for its work.

The government is committed to the pay equity concept and pay equity is a key element in this government’s long-term strategy for improving conditions in our workplace, while of course continuing to keep Ontario competitive with other jurisdictions.

I look forward to studying the commission’s recommendations and announcing an appropriate government response.

I might take this opportunity to acknowledge in the east gallery today our commissioner of the Pay Equity Commission, Brigid O’Reilly, who is here with some of her other senior staff. I might ask her to stand and be recognized.

RESPONSES

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Breaugh: I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye) regarding GO Transit.

I hope this is an indication that he understands now that he does have a transportation crisis in and around Metro and that this gridlock does not disappear any more. It starts at about seven o’clock in the morning and stays in place until well after seven o’clock in the evening.

I hope the minister has some sense of what needs to be done in transportation. We believe GO Transit will be an important

part in solving that problem, but it is not a matter of planning any more; it is a matter of dealing with a transportation crisis.

One other thing does need to be said, although I do not think the minister is going to want to hear this part of it. It is to the everlasting shame of this government that the handicapped are denied access to this transportation system. It is not because somebody forgot, which is perhaps usually the case, and it is not because the minister has not been told, because he has been, on the record, here. It is because he chooses to deny them the right to use GO Transit.

While we are at it, we should be careful that we do not restrict the definition of those who have a physical handicap. Those who have tried to use GO Transit in any of the new stations will know that it is a real physical challenge to get at that transportation mode. The minister is doing things that make it most difficult for people who are frail and elderly and those who have any kind of physical disability whatsoever to use this transportation system. That is a crying shame.

PERSONS DAY

PAY EQUITY

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the two statements on women’s issues at once, if I might, following up from what I said in my remarks earlier on today. It is somewhat ironic that this government would get up and make positive statements around women’s issues following the year when it cut back the budget for the Office Responsible for Women’s Issues by $818,000, some real indication of its priority for this government.

It is ironic that on the day that the recommendations from the Ontario Advisory Council on Women’s Issues come out, on which the ministers have been briefed, there is no comment about the kinds of things that council has addressed. Perhaps that is because the government does not value it as much as it used to. It cut 22.3 -- I guess thousands of dollars from its budget this year, slashing it enormously from the support it used to give it in the past.

I think it is interesting that the minister would rise today and talk about pay equity and not talk back to the days in 1985 when the promise by this government was that all pay equity matters would be dealt with by the end of the first session of the accord between our two parities at that time. Here we are, these many years later, with a report on which he has no particular opinion at this point.

I wonder if as a minister, he is going to forget what the Attorney General (Mr Scott), women’s issues critic at the time, said a few years ago when he said that the government would move at the same speed for these women in jobs classified as predominantly women’s jobs as it has on pay equity as a whole. If that is the case, that means we should see legislation enacted in this House in three months’ time. That was the same kind of promise the minister made in the past.

I would just like to say that I have some concerns with the direction of this report. It looks to me as if, instead of 900,000 women being left out because of the exclusions and the various models being put forward, perhaps as many as 500,000 women will still not be covered by pay equity even after the kind of redress that is put forward in this particular document today. I did not hear the minister speaking to that at this point. The idea that we would exempt small employers means that many, many women will not be affected.

The Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues (Mrs Wilson) can get up today and talk about violence. How can she do that when we still do not have a stable funding basis for rape crisis centres in Ontario? How can the minister do it when the government still has not fully implemented the standing committee on social development’s report of 1982 on family violence? How can she possibly say that she is giving that the kind of priority it deserves? Of course, there was no mention at all of child care in the comments made today, and rightly so when one considers the abandonment of movement in that area as well.

Although I would recognize the importance of the symbolic day, so many decades ago, of women being finally recognized as persons, I would say that symbolically here again this afternoon we are getting a clear indication from this government that women’s issues are second class in terms of its priorities.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Brandt: I want to take advantage of one of the few occasions when I can compliment the minister on an announcement he has made, in connection with the expansion of the GO Transit system and some of the ancillary activities such as the building of some of the rail cars that will occur as a result of this expansion. The minister is in fact building on a tradition in this province of leading all of North America in terms of transit service. The GO system that was put in place by a previous government has proven to be an amazing success story and I am delighted the minister is continuing that tradition.

I would remind him, however, that there is much to do in transportation in terms of removing some of the gridlock we are experiencing, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area and in some other communities in other parts of the province as well. Highway 17, Highway 69 which I talked to the minister about yesterday, as well as the ongoing problem of the safety barriers to be erected on Highway 401, are all matters of major concern that must have the attention of the minister as soon as possible. and I would trust he would be making those announcements shortly as well.

Mr McCague: I thank the minister for his announcement today and for anything he is able to do to improve the service within the GO transit service area. The minister will know that there is increasing pressure in Simcoe, Simcoe West, Simcoe Centre and Simcoe East for the extension of GO’s mandate beyond Highway 9 to the north. I would hope that the minister, when he is looking at Peterborough and other areas for GO, would also look at increasing the mandate for Mr Parsons and company and allow them to move into Simcoe if the service could be justified and the ridership warranted it.

PERSONS DAY

Mr Jackson: I wish to convey my disappointment at what is the maiden statement for this province’s new Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues (Mrs Wilson). I am disappointed that she indicates that the leadership her government has provided is seen through her initiatives with pay equity and with the prevention of violence against the victims of violent crimes, predominantly women.

I am very disappointed because the actual record for this government does not demonstrate the kind of sensitivity she would indicate today. In fact, it is this government that has refused to look at the serious and necessary judicial reforms women require in order to be put on an equal basis in our court system. They have not enjoyed that treatment in this province historically.

A woman in northern Ontario can be subjected to the statements that some of the judges have made about women who are victims of violence. This government refused to look at a judicial inquiry into such statements about women as, “We know your husband has beaten you several times and perhaps he has gone too far because he put you in hospital,” and then there is a suspended sentence. Women are not treated equally in our courts and the Attorney General (Mr Scott) knows that. He knows that and he refuses to sensitize our court system. He refuses to encourage that our police systems be more sensitized.

In fact, our women should have the right, victims of violent crime, to be interviewed by a police officer of their own gender who has been trained to understand the psychological damages that are occurring for that victim at that time. Yet the government stands in silence when the Hamilton and district rape crisis centre is cancelling programs with a waiting list of 100 to 120 victims of incest and violence because the minister refused to answer the correspondence about the need for funding to allow those counselling programs to continue.

Women are not treated fairly in our courts, as I said. We have a system in this province where there is a presumption that a woman who is raped does not suffer severe emotional damage. That is still a condition in our court system and it is wrong. It should be removed and it should be lifted. Only then will women feel comfortable enough about approaching our court system and allowing their case to proceed so that real justice for the victim can occur.

No wonder. The victim’s compensation fund in this province only has two per cent of its fund being used by women who have been victimized in assault and sexual assault cases. When the minister talks about rape crisis centre funding and pay equity, I remind the minister that it was her predecessor who was paying almost $30,000 for his personal chauffeur and yet our rape crisis centres are being asked to operate with staff being paid $12,000 and $14,000.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr B. Rae: I want to again ask the Premier some questions about the very real contradictions between what he has been telling this House and what other people have been telling the world. Dr Sibbald, who the Premier will know is head of the working group in the Ministry of Health dealing with critical care, has told people that in his opinion, and indeed in the opinion of the working group, that Dr Nesdoly, who was the doctor treating Mrs Lacroix, “used all the resources available to him.” He went on to say, “He used the appropriate lines of communication that were available to him at the time.”

Those words directly contradict what the Premier personally told this House when the Premier personally said “the system was there. The question is: Why was it not used?” He said outside, “The situation could have been solved very easily.” The Premier said, “A system was in place.” Those are two very different answers. Who is telling the truth: the Premier or Dr Sibbald?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think we have answered this question on many many different occasions. I have read the letter to my honourable friend and I cannot enlighten him any further, because he refuses to be enlightened.

Mr B. Rae: This is a matter of some considerable importance, not only to Mrs Lacroix’s family, but to many other patients in the province.

The question is, when the Premier gets up a full day after a tragedy has taken place in the province and assures members of this House that as far as he is concerned a system is in place for critical care patients, and he states categorically that the system could have been used and was not used by Dr Nesdoly, and we then find four days later that the expert in the field, Dr Sibbald, states categorically that Dr Nesdoly used all the resources that were available to him, and when he states categorically that there is no such thing as a critical care hotline and comprehensive system for the treatment of critical care patients -- when he says it does not even exist -- why was the Premier giving us such a misleading impression last week when he was commenting on Dr Nesdoly’s practice and what Dr Nesdoly did --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend stands up there and tries to continually make the same point, even though he is on very fragile ground.

Mr Wildman: He is just trying to defend the doctor against you.

Hon Mr Peterson: Well, I understand his right to stand up in this House and make a point, but I do not think it is correct that he would want to distort the matter one way or the other, which in my view he is very clearly doing. I quoted a letter from Vickery Stoughton at the Toronto General Hospital, as the facts they were operating on the basis of. It was said by some, including the member I think, there were no critical care beds available in Toronto and in fact there were. We have quoted that letter and it is all there for him to see. It seems to me it is quite clear.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There seems to be a lot of comments from both sides. I wish members would watch their language.

Mr B, Rae: I would simply ask the Premier this question. He is not prepared to admit that he has made a mistake. He is not prepared to admit that he gave, at the very least, a very misleading impression. He is not prepared to admit that he has been unfair to Dr Nesdoly. He is not prepared to admit that his government has not done what it said it would do last June. He is not prepared to admit that his government has made a mistake and that Dr Nesdoly was right. It is not Dr Nesdoly’s fault with respect to what happened. The delay is the responsibility of the government of Ontario.

I would like to ask the Premier. He now says it is Vickery Stoughton’s fault because the Premier read his letter. Last week it was Dr Nesdoly’s fault because he did not how to use the system. When is the Premier going to start taking responsibility for the failures of his own government’?

Hon Mr Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, I want to say this very carefully to my friend. If there is anybody who deliberately distorts in this House, it is him and him personally.

Mr Wildman: Order.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Brandt: Withdraw.

Hon Mr Peterson: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

lnterjections.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend just stood in this House and put words in my mouth. I did not blame Vickery Stoughton, I did not blame Dr Nesdoly, and he would create a different impression.

I say to my honourable friend, he would want to be careful. I have heard him in this House on other occasions standing up on his high horse, accusing members of this House of certain things, not once but twice, and having to crawl back into this House at a quarter to six and make a craven apology because he has been wrong. It is about time he stands up and admits that he is the one who is wrong in this case.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If you want to waste the time, go ahead.

Mr B. Rae: I am not sure if I heard an offer to come back at a quarter to six or not. We will just have to wait and see.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr B. Rae: I have another question for the Premier, It is about the goods and services tax. The Premier is on record as saying he was going to fight a provincial election to stop free trade. We all know what effect that had. That was the same election campaign in which he said that he had a very specific plan to reduce car insurance. The Premier has now threatened very widely that he intends to fight the GST. However, yesterday his Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) told us that instead of fighting the GST, he was going to have to commit assault and battery on the taxpayers of the province of Ontario. The fight seems to be with the taxpayer, not with the federal government.

I would like to ask the Premier this simple question. Just what is the plan that the government of Ontario has to fight the GST and is it going to be as effective as the fight on free trade and the plan to reduce car insurance rates?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend talks bravely about the fight on free trade during the last federal election. Was it not his federal leader, whom he was advising, who decided to low-bridge the free trade issue? They were worried about alienating the French. lt was the Liberal Party that carried the fight against free trade. The members of the New Democratic Party and their federal leader wimped out on it. That is the reality and that is now the subject of great internal debate in their party. He should be embarrassed to stand up and even take that point of view.

So he should not tell me about who fights and who does not fight. They are the ones when it comes down to it, who disappear on these matters.

Let me tell the member, the Treasurer was there yesterday representing the views of the province. The premiers have said it is unacceptable, and we shared all that information with my friend.

Mr B. Rae: I did not hear an answer to my question. I heard the usual array of personal abuse, which I have now come to expect from the first minister of the province, but apart from that, I did not hear an answer.

Since the Premier is such an expert on the question of credibility, I wonder if he would comment on the credibility of his own government, which promises to fight a campaign against the GST, describing it as inflationary and everything else, when at the same time the revenue to his own government from a retail sales tax in the province of Ontario has gone from $5 billion when he took office to a projected $9.5 billion next year. Just what is his credibility in fighting a goods and services tax when the Liberals themselves have raised the sales tax by one per cent and revenues have gone up over $4.5 billion in that period’?

Hon Mr Peterson: My friend continues to believe he takes the high road and nobody else does. Let me tell him, there is nobody who has engaged in more personal attacks in this House than he personally and he should know that. So I just do not think we have to take a lecture from him.

Let me say to my honourable friend, he is quite right. We have raised the provincial sales tax in this province and we have spent that on services for the people of this province. When he talks about credibility, how can he, every day, come in here and say, “Spend more, spend more, spend more,” and then say, “You should not raise taxes”? If anybody has a credibility problem, it is my friend.

Mr B. Rae: I want to come back to this question. The Premier has told us, the Premier told the people of the province, that there would be no free trade deal “if David Peterson became the Premier.” That is what he told people before 1987. In 1987 he told people that he had a specific plan to reduce ear insurance rates, Now we have the Premier going around saying he might even have to call an election on the question of the GST,

I tell him the phoniness of his campaign needs to be exposed and it is going to be exposed now. Where does he start telling the people of Ontario that he is going to fight the GST when he has been the master of assault and battery on the taxpayers of this province when it comes to sales taxes in Ontario’?

Hon Mr Peterson: My friend is talking about the next provincial election. Obviously he is a very, very nervous fellow at the present time. He was obviously afraid to go in Ottawa because he knew he would be decimated there. Now he is afraid to stay here and fight an election here. Let me tell my friend, when the election comes I will be happy to share the issues of the day with him.

He can have his view for the people and put it forward -- how he is going to cut taxes, increase spending and lower the deficit at the same time. He, with his magic, may be able to do that, but I can tell him we will put forward a credible program, addressing the needs of the people of this province with a strong and stable tax base that people can afford in a competitive and dynamic economy and province. That is where this government will be and he can be on all sides of every issue, as usual.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Brandt: I had a question for the Premier but he answered them all.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, The member for Sarnia would like to ask a question, and to which minister’?

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Brandt: As I was saying, my question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who also at times acts in the roles of the Minister of Education as well as the Minister of Skills Development.

As the minister is well aware, there is a large number of college students who have appeared here at Queen’s Park and taken the trip to Toronto to indicate their concerns about the college system, the current strike and the problems surrounding funding for college education, Would the minister indicate what steps he intends to take to break the current deadlock that has come into place between the college system and the teachers’?

Hon Mr Conway: I thank the honourable leader of the third party for the opportunity to address a very important issue facing the province at the present moment. I can tell the House that earlier today I met with a delegation of the student assembly and I also, with others in the assembly, met that group of students on the steps of the Legislature. I would like to tell the House what I told those students.

The government strongly supports that collective bargaining process. We certainly appreciate the concern of students, but we recognize that as supporters of the collective bargaining process the best settlement is going to be arrived at while at the negotiating table. Both parties have it within their powers to resolve this at the negotiating table. The mediator stands by to assist in any way that he possibly can. I would strongly encourage all members to continue putting the pressure where it belongs, and that is on both parties, to take advantage of the collective bargaining process to resolve this in the best interests of the students and the community college system at large.

Mr Brandt: I can appreciate the minister wanting to stand on the sidelines to some extent with respect to the activities that are going on at the present time, but I wonder if the minister could help me in understanding why it is that he will not take a direct role in intervening in this matter to try to bring about a quick, orderly and responsible settlement so that the students can get back into the classrooms as quickly as possible’?

Hon Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, if you understand and support the collective bargaining process, you understand that it is up to the parties to accept their responsibility to return to the table and to solve this in the best interests of the students and of the system. I mean what I say when I say that I support the collective bargaining process and I repeat that both parties have it within their power to resolve this at the bargaining table.

It is to that table that I would strongly encourage both parties to now return to take the opportunity to use the mediator in any way that might be productive and I simply say again that I appreciate the students’ concern. I share with them the desire to get this resolved, but let us not kid ourselves: The best resolution is a negotiated resolution. That can only occur when the parties return to the table and solve it there, between themselves.

Mr Brandt: Anticipating that answer, I would call the minister’s attention to November 1984, when the now Premier and the Leader of the Opposition at that time criticized the then Minister of Education for not moving expeditiously to resolve the dispute that was current at that particular moment. I ask the minister what has changed so rapidly between 1984 and 1989 that what was right back in November of that year is inappropriate or improper now’? Why will he not intervene, as his leader suggested in his discussion with the then Minister of Education back in 1984 when he called for intervention?

Hon Mr Conway: Because in the circumstances of this situation there can be no doubt that both parties have it within their power to resolve this at the table and I repeat what my honourable friend from Sarnia knows better than most people in this assembly and that is that if this matter is to be resolved, it will be resolved by the parties at the table. The mediator stands by ready and willing to assist in any way possible and I repeat, I expect both parties to return to that table and to resolve this in the best interests of the students and of the community college system at large.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Eves: I would like to return to the issue of Mrs Lacroix that we discussed with the Minister of Health yesterday. I would like to simply read the minister her own quote of last Thursday 12 October from Hansard, when in response to the Leader of the Opposition she said, and I quote, “‘The Emergency Hot Line for use by physicians around Ontario…staffed 24 hours’” -- a day -- “was not used nor was the trauma team consulted, but all have confirmed that the patient would have been accepted had they been contacted as part of the normal procedure that is in place for patient referrals.’” Does the minister still stand behind that statement’?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member opposite continues to display his lack of credibility in this House. I will send him a copy of the letter from the Toronto Hospital, in which the quote is contained and that I was quoting on that day.

Mr Eves: I do not know what delivering a letter has to do with answering the question I asked. I asked the minister if she stood behind the quote that she made.

Mr Callahan: You do not read your mail.

Mr Eves: I do not usually have a habit of reading other people’s mail.

Dr Nesdoly is not alone. I was talking today with several physicians around the province, one of whom is Dr Pressnail of Barrie. He had a similar incident on 8 and 9 August of this year, whereby he had a woman patient and at 10 pm started looking for a hospital in the province of Ontario. She required some very serious neurosurgery help. By six the next morning she had gone to Toronto General Hospital, whose emergency department admitted the woman and then sent her back to Barrie by ambulance at 6:30 am on the next day. They finally found a physician for her in a hospital that would take her and try to handle her problem at noon the next day and she subsequently died.

Is this another isolated incident’? Are we going to blame Dr Pressnail like we blamed Dr Nesdoly? Perhaps I could read some of the other --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order. The question is, is this an isolated case?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that this is not the appropriate forum for discussing individual cases. I would say to him that I am always happy to investigate any individual case and I know how difficult it is for the professionals in this province and for the families of patients in this province to have confidential information discussed in this House.

I would say to the member that because he stands in his place and says that I am blaming someone, that does not make it true. I have never stood in this place and blamed anyone. I have talked about the dedication of the professionals in this province and I would say to him that he should stand in his place and acknowledge that, which is true.

Mr Eves: Seeing as how the minister is into reading letters today, she will undoubtedly be aware of a press release issued by the Ontario Medical Association today. It goes on to say:

“It seems to us that when problems like this happen,” -- we are talking about Dr Nesdoly’s case -- ”the government points fingers of blame at hospital administrators, doctors and nurses.

“To attack the integrity of a member of the medical profession or any other health care provider in such a manner is intolerable. Mrs Caplan has said many times that she wants the co-operation of all health care providers; however, when circumstances like this occur, she blames the providers.

“It would help to create the mood of co-operation that she says she wants if she and the Premier would apologize, in writing, to Dr Nesdoly, and do so immediately.”

Will the minister do that immediately, please?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I will say again to the member, I know he has difficulty understanding some of the things about our health care system. I know that on occasion he plays word games and on occasion in this House he has real trouble in understanding the information that I give to him. I will say very clearly that never, never in any way have I ever assessed blame, never have I ever questioned physician judgement and his saying so or anyone else’s saying so simply does not make that true.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities around the strike question as well.

Is it not the case that in fact the minister is already a third party at the bargaining table? He is the silent parsimonious partner at that table, the partner who has passed through 5.5 per cent to a system which is in growth in numbers of students, in growth in terms of demand on programs, yet he expects these people to be able to settle at the table. Why will he not admit that he basically is there at the table right now in terms of his underfunding?

Hon Mr Conway: No, it is not true that under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act passed by the Conservative government of some years ago that the Minister of Colleges and Universities is at the table. But it is true that this is a government which over the last four years has seen operating grants overall to this system, which has not seen great enrolment growth; in fact, 1989 enrolment as compared to 1985 enrolment would show roughly the same total numbers.

It is true that in that time of relatively stable enrolment growth this government has seen the operating grants to the system overall increase from approximately $460 million to now almost $700 million, an increase of over 50 per cent.

Mr R. F. Johnston: The minister well knows that the reason that we are having a strike at the moment is not the particular matters that are on the table, but this is a system which is feeling very much under siege and under question, whether it is Vision 2000 and the whole role of the future of the colleges or whether it is the undermining of programs, like the gutting of programs at Niagara College and other colleges in the province of Ontario over these last number of years.

It is the minister’s funding which is making it impossible for the two sides to come together on this matter. I do not now understand why he will not admit that it is that parsimonious nature of this government which is causing the difficulty.

Hon Mr Conway: I repeat to my good friend, who needs no lecture about the dynamic of the collective bargaining process, that the reality of this government’s funding to the college sector over the last four years is quite contrary to his analysis, and I repeat, while the system overall has not seen a very significant enrolment growth, in fact the enrolment growth over a four-year period in net numbers is about stable. The fact of the matter is that the overall appropriations for operating purposes have risen by over 50 per cent, from about $460 million to nearly $700 million this year.

I know the assembly joins with me in sharing the concern of those students who gathered on the front steps of this assembly today. They will want me to say again that the resolution that must be arrived at is through the collective bargaining process. The two parties at issues are the College of Regents, representing the 22 colleges, and the union. Let those people return to the negotiating table and let those people, in the interests of the system and the students, arrive at the earliest possible resolution at the negotiating table.

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

Mr Pope: I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer will be aware that on 30 September, Statistics Canada published --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I did not hear. To which minister?

Mr Pope: My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will be aware that Statistics Canada issued a report at the end of September, which indicated that tax increases pushed inflation almost a full percentage point higher this year. It is therefore the view of Statistics Canada and many business and community groups across this province that tax policies, including this government’s tax policies, are a major contributor to inflation in this country and in this province.

The Treasurer is also aware of growing discussion about the competitiveness of Ontario as a jurisdiction in which to invest and locate and continue to operate a business. First, we have seen the advertisements for the competitive advantage to Saskatchewan and Quebec in their recent budgets. That and other comments led the Treasurer of this province on 6 October to be reported as saying that Ontario must stay competitive to keep businesses, and quoting tax rates and tax policies as the main issue in addressing the competitive position of Ontario,

Mr Speaker: And the question?

Mr Pope: The question to the Treasurer is, will the Treasurer follow the lead of the province of Manitoba and give exemptions for small businesses in this province from the employer health levy that he is about to impose in this province’?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member no doubt has perused the legislation that is before the House now. He would be aware that the rate for small business is less than one per cent. As a matter of fact, at the minimum wage, the employers make their contribution at about less than five cents an hour. We do not think that that is going to be a serious impediment to the competitiveness of small business.

I think this is particularly true, when you look at what the United States, with which we must compete, have to pay for similar medical services. Lee laccoca himself, the guru of the free enterprise system, has said that to make Chrysler cars, he pays more for health services than he does for steel in the car. As a matter of fact, the provision of our medicare facilities which, in spite of the comments made by honourable members, is generally seen worldwide as a very good one, an excellent one, is one of the most important competitive advantages that we offer on a worldwide base.

Mr Pope: I ask the Treasurer about the small business sector of this province and he gives me a quote from Lee laccoca. I do not know where the Treasurer is sitting on this. We are talking about exemptions. We know the question was put to him that Ontario had to be careful that it does not lose business investment and jobs to lower-cost areas of the United States. His response to that was that the warning was a good one. Those are his words.

In light of his own recommendations of his own government in an Annual Report on Small Business in Ontario put out by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in 1988 about the impact of payroll taxes on the competitive position of small businesses in the province of Ontario, we want to know why he will not give an exemption, not a reduced rate but an exemption, for the small business sector of this province to encourage competitiveness and to keep them in this province’?

Hon R. F. Nixon: We want to pay for medicare. We are paying about $14 billion, just a bit less than that. That base is growing at about 10 per cent. Some people in this House feel that is an inadequate growth itself. We have to find the money for it and at least 16 per cent of that overall cost is going to be based on the tax the honourable member refers to.

In order to recognize the very competitive situation that he is bringing to our attention, we have established a standard rate at 1.95 per cent compared, for example, to three per cent in the province of Quebec. For small businesses with payrolls under $200,000 a year, the rate is just half that, less than one per cent. We feel it is fair, equitable and competitive.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Adams: My question is for the Minister of labour. Outboard Marine Corp recently announced that it is closing its manufacturing operation in Peterborough. Some 300 jobs are being lost to Belgium, Hong Kong and the United States. Would the minister please tell the House what is being done to help those who are losing their jobs?

Hon Mr Phillips: I must say that one of the most difficult jobs as Minister of Labour is being involved in a situation like this where we are talking about lives and the significant dislocation of lives. What we do in a case like this is work with the federal government, labour -- in this case, the union -- and management in establishing a joint committee, funded I must say by the province, the federal government and by the company, to assist the workers.

We, the provincial government, have what we call an employment adjustment branch. We provide counselling work. We have an employment standards provision that ensures at least a minimum in terms of severance pay, and we will make certain that minimum is adopted.

We are establishing that committee working with labour, management, the federal government and the provincial government to do the very best we can in the significant dislocation to this company, these workers and the city of Peterborough.

Mr Adams: A special feature of this matter is the high proportion of older workers who are involved. I wondered if the minister could tell the House what is being done to help these particular workers.-

Hon Mr Phillips: I think many of the members in the House probably will be interested in this because, tragically, we see a number of plant closings that affect older workers. About a month and a half ago, we signed a joint proposal with the federal government to deal with older worker adjustments. It is a program called POWA, program for older worker adjustment.

It is designed to help workers who are 55 years of age and over. It is designed to assist them for approximately 10 years, from 55 to 65, to assist those people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits, who have found it impossible to find a job, and to provide assistance to the age when they can get their old age pensions. That program we signed jointly with the federal government. We are now setting up the mechanisms for it.

I cannot assure the member that this company will qualify for it but it seems to meet many of the criteria. I would suggest to the member and to the employees involved in it that they avail themselves of the possibility of that program because I think it is a good program and would be of assistance particularly to those older workers affected in this particular case.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Minister of Health. On 11 October, I asked the minister to conduct a baseline health study of the population surrounding the Darlington nuclear generating station before the station opened. In reply the minister said that the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy was conducting a health status study which she said “will provide the kind of information so that in fact we will be able to meet the needs of our future populations.”

Upon inquiry, it appears that the facts are that the fieldwork for the council study does not begin until January 1990 and will not be ended until November 1990, so that it will be at least two years before we have any useful statistics from that study. Can the minister explain how the study that she referred me to will be of any use at all in providing baseline data prior to the opening of the Darlington nuclear generating station?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The health status survey which is being conducted by the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy, as the member opposite has indicated, I think will be a very significant undertaking. It will be the first time in Ontario that we actually have the kind of data and information gathered in one of the largest surveys ever in this country so that we will be able to monitor how we do in the future, evaluate our programs and see how we can have an even healthier society in the future.

Mrs Grier: This is the third time I have raised this question with the Minister of Health and she still seems to be unable to understand that the point of a baseline health study prior to the opening of the generating station is to have accurate knowledge of the state of the health of the population before a nuclear generating station opens in their community. That means things like their white blood cell counts and the level of tritium in the blood, not the kind of questions the Premier’s Council study is going to be asking or would have asked even if it had been done before now.

The minister has been asked for this study by all the local councils in the area surrounding Darlington and by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Time is running out. Will the minister try to understand and to give me a commitment that she will do some very basic studies before Darlington opens, or else that she will postpone the opening of Darlington --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs Grier: -- until after the Premier’s Council study is done?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The information that I have for the member is that the Atomic Energy Control Board has commissioned a study by the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation of leukaemia rates around nuclear research, processing and generating facilities. I would say to the member as well that the responsibility for monitoring the health of the community is vested with the local board of health and that the Ministry of Health is always offering advice and assistance to local boards.

ATTENDANT CARE

Mrs Cunningham: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. I recently spoke to the annual meeting of Cheshire Homes of London Inc. The meeting was extremely well attended; it was well attended by a large number of disabled persons who are anxiously waiting for the recommendations in the John Lord report, especially as they relate to attendant care, to be acted upon. This government and all of us are committed to deinstitutionalization. What is the minister going to do about the recommendations of this report’?

Hon Ms Collins: I want to first express my thanks to the member for her interest in and her concern about people with disabilities in this province. The Office for Disabled Persons and myself endorse and support the values of self-reliance and self-direction. I want to assure the member that I am committed to the development of long-term strategy for the rationalization of the delivery of support services.

Mrs Cunningham: Even taking the most conservative of figures that Mr Lord has presented, the most conservative of figures, it is clear that the number of persons who need attendant care exceeds the level of current services by some three to 10 times. That is rather significant. Across this province, we have disabled persons who are in need of attendant care by three to 10 times the numbers that we are able to provide at this time.

This group has asked me to go back and address them again in the very near future and I know other members in this House have the same kind of requests from disabled people across this province. My question then is, when specifically can I go back to Cheshire Homes of London and Cheshire Homes across this province and tell them that the minister will be taking action and implementing the recommendations, especially as they relate to attendant care across the province of Ontario?

Hon Ms Collins: I know the member is aware of the long-term care study that is being done by this government. A number of members in the cabinet are involved in that: the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mr Morin) and myself. That is looking at some aspects of the attendant care issue. Those proposals will be dealt with very soon. I am sure the member will become aware of them.

FARM SOIL AND WATER RUNOFF

Miss Roberts: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last week, a report released by the Conservation Foundation in the United States and the Institute for Research on Public Policy in Canada found that the health risks are increasing for those of us living around the Great Lakes water basin, due to the accumulation of toxic chemicals in the environment. This is of grave concern to myself and to the constituents in Elgin. One of the sources identified as contributing to the problems in the Great Lakes is the chemicals used by farmers and the runoff that goes into the Great Lakes, as well as into the ground water. What steps has the ministry taken to alleviate this problem’?

Hon Mr Ramsay: Having travelled the province in the last two and a half months and having spoken to the farmers of Ontario, I can assure the member that the farmers of Ontario share her concerns, the same concerns I have, with the quality of our water and soil resource in this province.

There are really two ways of going about this. We can look at abatement of pollution and also at reduction in the use of chemicals in our farming practices. Our ministry is working on both of these tracks. My predecessor the member for Huron (Mr Riddell) introduced a program last year, Food Systems 2002. This is going to be a 50 per cent reduction in pesticides over the next 15 years. Part of the components of this program are research so that we can look at expanding our use of nonchemical alternatives, farmer and consumer education and field advisers to do farm demonstrations.

We also have a grower pesticide safety course that 11,500 farmers have completed to date, and thanks to my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), we will have that course mandatory by 1991.

Miss Roberts: I am glad to see that the minister is dealing with it, but does he foresee any new programs on the horizon that are going to address this problem? Is there anything else he is going to be doing?

Hon Mr Ramsay: As I mentioned yesterday to the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman), the federal and provincial governments have signed a soil and water accord that will enable us to enhance our present programs. As the member is aware, we already have a land stewardship program and the soil and water environmental enhancement program that abates much of the runoff into Lake Erie. I hope that with our officials working together, since this accord has been signed, we are going to be able to design some new programs to further combat this problem.

Mr Wildman: I can think of a couple of things that smell worse than Lake Erie,

The Speaker: I think the member behind you would like to ask a question.

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

Mr Philip: I wish the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) would not talk about smells when I get up to speak.

I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. Would the Chairman of Management Board inform the House of the total amount of dollars that will be spent as a result of recent increases in remuneration for persons appointed by order in council and would he tell us how many of these appointees have received such increases?

Hon Mr Elston: In fairness, I think it is a question for Orders and Notices, but I presume what the honourable gentleman really wants to do is follow up on a report by Mr McAuliffe. What I think he probably is alluding to is the issue about the report done Monday, I believe. If he would be so kind as to identify it later, I will get specifics. What I did with respect to the material on the CBC show was to ask my office to contact the people who are the subjects of the inquiry to see if we can have their consent to release personal information, as is required by freedom-of-information requests.

Mr Philip: There are over 5,000 appointees, so l am sure we are going to get a quick answer on that inquiry.

Would the minister confirm that some have received increases as high as 33 per cent increase in remuneration, and that one or more has received increases of $19,000 or more per year in remuneration? How can the minister justify that kind of increase on behalf of political appointees when he is offering public servants between four per cent and six per cent?

Hon Mr Elston: I have not yet been able to review the material that is the subject matter of that report on the radio. I am in the process of getting the material brought forward. I will be able to provide the member with more detail when I have replies from the individuals about whom the member requested the information. We are in the process of asking those people if they would consent to the divulgence of their pays. We can give ranges, and in fact ranges of amounts that are given to the appointees to the boards are available. Those remain available to the reporter who I think has keyed the honourable gentleman to ask the question.

I am quite pleased to entertain a request through the order paper to provide a detailed answer to this in written form. If he wishes to pursue that avenue, which is really the logical place to pursue that sort of information request, we will be pleased to process it in due course.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Attorney General. I hope the Attorney General is aware of the unrest with regard to the justices of the peace in this city of Toronto. It is my understanding that on Friday many of the justices of the peace will be unavailable for work. There is a very critical situation with regard to these people. Evidently, there are over 3,000 people who will not have their cases or matters heard before the courts on Friday due to the minister’s inability to deal with the justices of the peace in a fair manner. They are at their wits’ end. What is the minister intending to do to stem this particular action?

Hon Mr Scott: I am always glad to get a question from the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling). But the member for Cochrane South (Mr Pope) has a question of me and he is here so rarely that I thought he should be allowed to ask it in place. Perhaps he will be allowed to come on next.

I am aware of the concern that the honourable member from Carleton has raised --

An hon. member: Cheap shot.

Hon Mr Scott: No, it is true.

Mrs Grier: Also unparliamentary.

Mr Jackson: That is against the standing orders of this House. You know better.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Scott: All right, if it is against the standing orders of the House, of course I withdraw it, but I do not understand it to be.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There seems to be some argument on the standing orders. There is nothing in the standing orders directly. However, the tradition of Parliament is that no member should refer to the absence of another member.

Hon Mr Scott: I was not familiar with that rule. That is my fault and I promise never again to make reference to the absence of the honourable member.

The member for Carleton asked a very important question. He is aware of course that for more than a decade in Ontario the justices of the peace have been concerned about the position in which they find themselves. He will also be aware that this government introduced a new Justices of the Peace Act, which was just recently passed, and has appointed a chief judge coordinator of the justices system.

The good news is that after a long stall going on close to 20 years, we are now very close to implementing the requirements of the Mewett report as found in the new statute. I am confident that the justices of the peace, who are an important part of the judicial system, will not engage on Friday or on any other day in the kind of unlawful activity to which my honourable friend referred.

Mr Sterling: I wish I was as confident as the Attorney General. The president of the association, James Allen, resigned this morning, as I understand it, because he is concerned about the fact that the justices of the peace have been jerked around by the minister’s office. They have been referred from one civil servant to another civil servant to another civil servant and back to the first civil servant without any reply from the Attorney General or any of his ministry.

Bill 93, which the minister referred to in his statement, does not resolve the problem of dealing with the civil service in asking to deal with the remuneration of justices of the peace. As the minister may know, I introduced an amendment that would allow the justices of the peace the same kind of mechanism as provincial court judges have in this province. Why will the Attorney General not make some kind of commitment to the justices of the peace that will provide them with some avenue to negotiate, to talk to an independent third-party group in order to negotiate their salaries and their working conditions in the future? He knows and has said in this Legislature today --

The Speaker: Order. The member is now making a speech.

Hon Mr Scott: It is really not fair to put the question in that way. I practised law, as the honourable member has. I practised law for 25 years in Toronto and in that period of time the previous government, for 25 years, never gave a meaningful increase in salary to either the provincial judges or the justices of the peace or, by the way, to the lawyers who operate under the legal aid plan. When we came in in 1985, we had our hands full. The crown attorneys were going on strike, the lawyers would not work under legal aid, the justices of the peace were on strike and the provincial judges suggested they were going to go on strike.

Mr Sterling: When were they on strike?

Hon Mr Scott: They suggested they were, in 1985.

Now, we came into office and we have instituted significant wage increases for all these important groups. We have also done one other thing that the justices of the peace specifically asked for. They asked us to implement the Mewett report in the form of legislation and that we have done. I understand the problems they confront. We have made significant headway, trying to play catch-up to 25 years of inactivity and we will continue to do so, I have met with them before and I will be glad to meet with them again, but this kind of misinformation is not required.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I think it is time we were keeping things under control around here. The member for Algoma (Mr Wildman).

Mr Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr Owen: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would point out to the Speaker that I did rise before the member for Algoma, before, during and after you were standing.

The Speaker: I will recognize the member for Simcoe Centre.

Mr Owen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I realize that the colour of my jacket may dazzle or something like that. At any rate, I have a question for the minister --

Mr Sterling: A point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I remind the member that the standing order states that this 60 minutes is used for oral questions and points of order, not for points of privilege, so could he bring that up later?

Mr Sterling: Okay, Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is there a difference between a member of this Legislature saying that another member has provided misinformation and calling him a liar?

Is there a difference?

The Speaker: I am not here to ask questions. I am here to make decisions.

Mr B. Rae: It was not a riddle.

The Speaker: I beg your pardon.

Mr B Rae: It was not a riddle. There is no trick involved.

The Speaker: I think that after today’s question period I will have to look at the whole Hansard, just to see what was said.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will no doubt recall that I have spoken to him. There also have been media reports that have concerned people in the city of Barrie. The suggestion has been made that there is a linking of illness and deaths with exposure to chemicals used at the former Robson Lang Leather tannery in Barrie. The plant is no longer functioning, but many of the former workers and many of their families are now worried about the effects of any possible exposure that may have taken place on their long-term health. I wonder if the minister could share with us the status of his investigations into these allegations.

Hon Mr Phillips: It is a matter of considerable concern, as the member has indicated, to himself, to the people of Barrie and clearly to the former employees and the families involved here. Just to bring the member up to date on what we are doing, our ministry has established a group to look at a study of the health effects on the affected workers. We are asking for assistance in finding ex-employees. This plant went into receivership in 1986, so we have established a phone number within the ministry, which we would be happy to give to the member and others, to inform us about former employees so we can get help in terms of analysing the health effects on them.

We are going to Cobourg to talk to the employees at the former head office of this firm to see if we can get further records of former employees. Our ministry will be attending the meeting that is scheduled, I think, in Barrie on 31 October. It is a matter of some considerable urgency and interest to us and we very much look forward to this study and hopefully proving one way or another whether these were related --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Owen: I find that the alarm that has taken place with regard to this particular plant seems to be contagious. I now find that other plants seem to be concerned. The former workers at other plants are saying: “What about the materials we’ve used on the job when we were working? What about the training that was or wasn’t given with regard to what we were dealing with? What about protective clothing in handling of possibly hazardous materials?”

With that in mind, and knowing that the minister is now introducing and pursuing the occupational health and safety bill, Bill 208, I wonder if the minister could advise what this bill could do in the future to try to avoid a recurrence of this type of problem.

Hon Mr Phillips: Bill 208 is an important bill and the official opposition will be discussing it this afternoon, as well as the third party, I know. In my judgement, Bill 208 is designed to tackle issues like this. We have in the bill the agency that will be responsible for developing education and training programs so that workers and employers will be trained to identify issues such as may possibly have existed in the Robson Lang situation.

Workers will be certified so that they will be knowledgeable about the workplace. Joint health and safety committees will have the right to regular inspections in the plants. They will have the right to responses in writing to their recommendations. The fines for organizations and companies will be increased dramatically, like to $500,000. The whole Bill 208 is designed to tackle and substantially improve occupational health and safety.

The one other thing I would say is that there is a program called the workplace hazardous materials information system which I think could have been helpful in this particular instance in identifying perhaps hazardous materials that were in that workplace. The WHMIS program is now in place.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources related to the figures published for Ministry of Natural Resources travel and accommodation in the government’s Public Accounts. This ministry’s travel budget is now second only to the Ministry of Transportation’s.

At a time when the ministry’s total budget has been cut, when the total number of seedlings purchased for planting has been cut and thousands of seedlings have been destroyed, when the number of forest firefighters has been cut, when conservation officers continue to be underpaid and overworked, how can the minister justify the expenditure of $132,448 on travel and $309,409 for accommodation for senior MNR staff, most of it spent on the weekly airlift of staff to Thunder Bay?

Now that the environmental assessment is going to go for another three years, how much more is she going to take from other programs just to pay for travel and accommodation for senior staff?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I trust that the honourable member, by his question, is not calling into question the decision on the part of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment to hold a class environmental assessment on the whole matter of timber management and the effect of timber management on the environment.

I hope he is not also calling into question the decision that was made by that environmental assessment board to hold a large proportion of its hearings in Thunder Bay, and in fact in other areas in northern Ontario, which is the very heart of what will be affected by the discussions.

Certainly, the ministry’s budget is impacted by the increased cost of the environmental assessment hearings, the class EA hearings that are going on in Thunder Bay. We accept that as being a cost of carrying out this very important hearing on the environmental effects of our timber management plans.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Brandt: I have two petitions. One is a petition signed by 29 residents of the Sarnia area, calling on the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) to enter into meaningful negotiations with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation with the view to obtaining a settlement of the pension which would be fair to teachers.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Brandt: The second one is a petition signed by approximately 32 residents of the Sarnia area, objecting to the implementation of Bill 8.

Mr Owen: I have a petition, signed by 28 residents of my riding, requesting the repeal of the French Language Services Act, Bill 8, and it is submitted by myself under this statement.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr McCague from the standing committee on estimates presented the committee’s report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 57, your committee has selected the estimates of the following ministries and offices for consideration:

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 5 hours; Ministry of Transportation, 5 hours; Ministry of the Environment, 15 hours; Office for Disabled Persons, 7.5 hours; Office Responsible for Senior Citizens’ Affairs, 7.5 hours.

Pursuant to standing order 58 the remaining estimates of the ministries and offices not selected for consideration are deemed passed by the committee and reported to the House in accordance with the terms of the standing order and are deemed to be received and concurred in.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 58(

b) the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Scott moved first reading Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Scott: I made a statement about this yesterday in statements.

NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Scott moved first reading of Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Notaries Act.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

An hon member: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Scott: The purpose of this bill, unanticipated as it will be by members of the opposition, is to turn the position of the official who is responsible for examining potential notaries from a Lieutenant Governor in Council appointment to a public service appointment.

TOWN OF IROQUOIS FALLS ACT, 1989

Mr Pope moved first reading of Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the Town of Iroquois Falls.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Speaker: I believe the member for Nickel Belt was speaking. He may have some further comments.

Mr Laughren: Yes, Mr Speaker, you are correct in your belief. I did adjourn the debate on Monday last.

During the debate I was expressing my concern about Bill 208 and trying to say to the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips), or trying to convince the minister at least, that our fears were founded, not unfounded as he was implying to us. Let me tell the minister why we are so concerned about the proposed changes in Bill 208, because the minister was pretending that there was really no fundamental change in the bill, he was just making it a better bill. That is what he was trying to convince us of and we simply do not believe that to be the case. We believe that the principles of this bill have been severely diluted.

As a matter of fact, if you look at the bill as having a basic principle of the right of a worker inspector, for example, or a management inspector to shut down an operation and you remove that right, then in effect you are contravening the principle of the very bill itself. There is no question in our mind that the changes that the minister is proposing are very serious indeed. Let me be specific.

The minister continues to shake his head. I am starting to worry about the minister. If he shakes his head on every single point that is made, it is apparent that we are not getting through to him at all; and not only that, but he may do himself some damage.

Mr Dietsch: Which way is he shaking it?

Mr D. S. Cooke: It’s not up and down.

Mr Laughren: It’s not up and down.

Let me remind members what he said in his opening remarks on second reading of this bill last Thursday. He said, “I would like to present some changes, and one...approach to a particularly complex question that will be proposed to the standing committee on resources development after second reading.” What he is doing is sounding an alarm bell that he is going to suggest -- ”propose” is the exact word he uses -- some changes to the standing committee, which will of course be holding public hearings on this bill, then dealing with it in clause-by-clause to consider any amendments.

The minister goes on to talk about the commitment to the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, which is the umbrella health and safety organization in the province of Ontario. He says, “As a means of facilitating the building of this partnership and contributing to the excellence of its ultimate product, the government will propose amendments to the committee that would add to the agency a full-time, neutral chair.” Here we have a proposal that is going to turn the health and safety agency from a bipartite organization into a tripartite organization.

Mr J. B. Nixon: With Elie Martel in the chair.

Mr Laughren: It would still become a tripartite agency regardless of who was in the chair. Even if the member for York Mills were in the chair, it would be tripartite. I do not know how the minister can continue to say that he is not fundamentally altering the bill.

He says, early in the bill, “That act was founded,” talking about the Occupational Health and Safety Act, “on the central idea that it is the people in the workplace who are in the best position to identify and minimize health and safety risks.” He says that and then goes to immediately set up the most important agency in the province dealing with health and safety, the umbrella health and safety organization, by turning it into, not a bipartite organization with workers and management on it, but a tripartite organization. That is a very worrisome move.

I always thought that the internal responsibility system was based on the theory that the people involved with the workplace were the ones who knew most about it, had the most stake in it and would make the most reasonable recommendations for improving health and safety in the workplace. And now here we go taking away that bipartite nature on which the internal responsibility system is based and turning it into a tripartite one with a neutral chair. A neutral chair implies that it is neither management nor labour that is involved in chairing this organization.

Then how is it an internal responsibility system if he does that? I suppose the minister could say it is not involved in the direct workplace, but it is still the agency whose responsibility lies with health and safety in the workplace.

The minister goes on, “Bill 208 expands workers’ rights to refuse dangerous work so that dangerous work activities, such as lifting unreasonably heavy loads, may be avoided.” That is what the bill says. Then the minister says, and this is what has us worried again:

“The government will propose an amendment to the committee to clarify that this right is directed at avoiding current or immediate dangers.

“The long-term ergonomic concerns, such as, for example, repetitive strain, although of equal concern, we suggest will be dealt with more thoroughly by the highly trained health and safety committees.”

He says it is of equal concern, but at the same time he will not allow that to be dealt with in the same way as an immediate concern. I do not know why not. It implies that there would be -- he does not use the word “frivolous,” but at the same time, why would he not allow that to be done? If a place is serious to the long-term health of the worker rather than just the short-term, surely that is just as important, if not more important.

If that place has to be shut down, that does not preclude the health and safety committee dealing with it more thoroughly after it has been shut down to see what can be done to resolve the problem. It is not a case of, “If it is dealt with in the short term, therefore it can’t be dealt with in the long term.”

That is what the minister implies. Why did he not leave it the way it was, because there is not going to be an abuse of that. The minister goes on:

“As the government creates joint health and safety committees on construction projects, for the first time we will propose several measures to enhance the effectiveness of Bill 208 in the construction sector.

“First, we would propose to raise the threshold at which certification is required to 50 workers and a project duration of six months.”

I believe the bill said 20 workers and three months in its original draft. Once again, that is diluting it.

The minister goes on, and he is talking here about the right to stop work, and this is really the crunch. This is where the ministry and the government came under so much pressure, and it was expressed in a very clear way by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter). When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said that he was concerned about the bill and Ontario’s competitive position, and that he made no apologies for being the voice of business in the province, and expressed his concerns with Bill 208, I wondered, did he get his knuckles rapped at the cabinet table?

It would be interesting to know that. I did not know that ministers went around complaining about a bill that cabinet was dealing with.

Mr D. S. Cooke: He stayed in his portfolio. The Minister of Labour got bumped.

Mr Laughren: Yes, here is a case where the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology makes a complaint about a government bill, as a member of the cabinet, and gets away with it, while the former Minister of Labour, the member for York Centre (Mr Sorbara), who is simply trying to shepherd a difficult piece of legislation through, gets bounced on his ear. What kind of government decision-making resides over there? It is a strange way to reward, on the one hand, a minister who is trying to deal with difficult legislation on one hand and, on the other, a minister who does not show much cabinet solidarity in dealing with a piece of government legislation.

I know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is not here to defend himself but that is his fault, not mine. That is what he said. I really wonder about that.

Anyway, we all know that the problem with the bill was that it gave a certified worker inspector the right to shut down an operation that is deemed to be unsafe, certified by the umbrella organization, the health and safety agency. They had to be certified. But no, the business community launched an all-out lobby, an attack on the government and said, “You’ve simply got to do away with that because it is going to give the workers too much control.”

The minister, in dealing with that question, says, “The question of the accountability for such authority” -- namely, to shut down a workplace -- “is important and it has been argued that a unilateral authority to stop work is inconsistent with the collaborative nature and accountability of the joint health and safety committee.” That is what he says.

I thought that was the whole idea of the internal responsibility system, that people could shut down an unsafe place and that the people on the job could shut down the place. That is the whole purpose of the internal responsibility system.

The minister goes on to say, “These are issues that will have a profound impact on the day-to-day business of Ontario workplaces.” How? I hope when the minister replies he will tell us how these issues will have a profound impact on the day-to-day business of Ontario workplaces. Is it to make them safer, or because they will be shut down, or because it increases costs, or because it would make the workplaces less competitive? What is behind that statement in the minister’s opening remarks on second reading of this bill?

He goes on to say, “They deserve a thorough and public debate.” Well, they are going to get that anyway, they are going to get a full and public debate before the standing committee on resources development. If the minister really wanted some changes, why would the minister not have let Bill 208 go through the process with the committee in its original form, and, after they have heard from everybody across the province presumably, management and labour, heard all the arguments pro and con, let the committee members move amendments? Is the minister doing that?

Oh no, the minister is going to propose amendments himself. We all know the makeup of standing committees around here: six Liberals, two Conservatives, two New Democrats. We know where the majority is, obviously. So why is the minister -- I hope he will tell us this -- proposing amendment now rather than listening to the people of the province before he does that?

Mr D. S. Cooke: Because he’s already heard from the business community.

Mr Laughren: Yes. Why not wait and let the committee process proceed? Because if he signals now that he is proposing this amendment, whether he proposes the amendment now or after the hearings, the word is out, the signal is out.

He says, “We therefore propose to refer this matter...to the standing committee on resources development for further discussion.” Of course, that is the purpose of public hearings. But he is not waiting for the public hearings; he is saying it now.

The minister goes on to say, “We would offer to the committee for its consideration one possible approach to the stop-work issue.” I hope I am not being too precious on this issue, but look at the choice of words the minister uses there. He does not say that, “We offer the committee one approach to the whole question of not allowing an operation to operate in an unsafe way.” He does not say that. This is a value-laden way of wording it. He says, “We will offer the committee for its consideration one approach to the stop-work issue,” as though we have got to deal with all this stop-work. He has really loaded his statement with his choice of words.

He goes on to say, “We are very mindful of the need to recognize that where the internal responsibility system is working, and an effective partnership to control workplace risks does in fact exist, decisions ideally” should continue to be made jointly “unless the parties decide otherwise.” So what he is saying is: “Leave the status quo in place. Don’t worry about it. We won’t give anybody the right to shut down an unsafe operation; we’ll let the present system remain.”

Of course he goes on, “However, where the health and safety record and the demonstrated commitment of the employer to sound health and safety practices are unacceptable, alternative approaches should be considered.” In other words, someone is going to have to decide whether or not the health and safety record of the employer is acceptable or unacceptable.

I do not know who makes that decision, but presumably the minister knows who will decide that. Will that be a subjective decision? How will he know whether it is an unsafe or a safe one? What is he going to do with the mining industry, where he has so many deaths every year and an incredible amount of injuries? Every mining operation has an unacceptable health and safety record. They are trying, but the record is unsatisfactory. What is he saying about that? I would be interested in knowing what the minister is going to do and who is going to make a decision as to whether or not it is acceptable or unacceptable.

“One approach could be that the health and safety agency could direct that measures be taken to attempt to improve the situation and create an incentive to strengthen the joint responsibility system.” I am not sure what that means either. Is it like waving a wishing wand that things will get better? I do not know what he means there.

“And create an incentive.” What is an incentive? Is he talking about negative incentives? Is he talking about positive incentives? Negative incentives would be, for example, an increase in the worker’s compensation assessment on the employer. It could be shutting the workplace down. I do not understand it. It could be fines, but there may be no law being broken. The minister is using strange words to try and tell us what direction he is heading with this.

He says one measure is still going on with ways to avoid the stop-work issue, as he would call it. “One measure could involve giving both certified members independent authority to stop work in situations of immediate danger. A second measure could involve the assignment of a ministry inspector to the workplace…up to full-time at the employer’s expense, to bring about improvement.” Members should think about that one for a minute. The minister is saying, if there is a problem in the workplace, maybe there should be a full-time inspector, at the employer’s expense, in the workplace.

I really thought it was very clear to members of this assembly. I can remember, when the standing committee on resources development toured on the mining safety question, that we deliberated for some time on the question of the internal responsibility system and we concluded -- and I know and I am going to quote him in a minute -- that the former Minister of Labour, the member for York Centre (Mr Sorbara) felt very strongly that the only alternative to the internal responsibility system was an army of government inspectors in the workplace.

Is that what any of us wants? Do the employers in this province want an army of government inspectors at their expense out there? I do not think so. I surely do not. I do not think that the workers in this province want it. Employers do not want it. So what is he talking about? It is a silly solution, when there is an easy one at hand, and it is the original bill, without these amendments.

I was really taken aback when I sat in my place and I heard the minister say that one possibility of dealing with the unsafe workplace is to have an inspector in the workplace, “up to full-time at the employer’s expense, to bring about improvement.” Well, I would like to know how many inspectors the minister is prepared to hire. I would like to know, in a place like Inco, with an unacceptable record, how many inspectors he is going to have in a place like that. This completely contravenes the entire principle of the internal responsibility system, and I am really surprised that the minister would even consider that.

The members can see there are reasons why we are worried about what the minister is about. Well, we do know that this bill is going to be referred to the standing committee on resources development, a group of legislators who take their work very seriously, and I say that quite seriously. They will hear the presentations, presumably all across the province, and I assume as well that business and labour will make presentations to the committee.

I assume that, but -- and I am not counselling this -- I can tell members it would not surprise me if the labour movement said, “Blow it out your ear.” They thought they had a deal on this bill, and the government betrayed them; it really did. If the minister does not believe me, he should ask them. They will tell him.

I suspect they will feel they have so much at stake here that they will make presentations to the committee, but the government will look pretty stupid if it holds hearings on this bill and only the business community makes presentations. I am telling the government it would not surprise me if they did that.

The committee will debate the amendments that are presented to it, either government amendments or opposition amendments, and we will proceed as we always do. Votes will be taken and we will see how it shakes down at the end. But I am really unhappy with the signals that the minister has given about changes he wants to make.

Now, it is possible, of course, that the presentations made by people before the committee will be so strong and so compelling that the minister will not get his way and that members of the committee will not simply take direction from the minister. They will say: “No, Mr Minister. All the evidence we have heard tells us that you are doing something that you do not need to do here.” We will see.

I have been around this place a long time, and invariably when the minister indicates that he wants something in a committee, the government members toe the line and the minister gets what he or she wants. We will see, and we will see what the presentations are like. I do hope that presentations are made from both sides, but as I say, it would not surprise me -- because I do not think the labour movement should have to grovel for a safer workplace. I do not think a safer workplace should be up to the bargaining process.

I think it should be up to the Legislature to ensure that workplaces are safe, and I would understand the people in the labour movement if they said the betrayal had been of such magnitude that they simply did not want to be demeaned by the process any further. As I say, I am not predicting that, but it sure would not surprise me.

Do members know what bothered me a great deal? It was when the minister indicated that he did not want to allow certified inspectors, worker or management inspectors, on the job to shut down an unsafe operation, because if the members look at the bill carefully, the safeguards against a frivolous work stoppage are substantial.

I will give members an example. An operation can be shut down under the following conditions:

“23a(1)(

a) a provision of this act or the regulations is being contravened,” in other words, a law is being broken; “(

b) the contravention poses a danger or a hazard to a worker; and (

c) the danger or hazard is such that any delay in controlling it will cause serious risk to a worker.” If those three conditions are met, the operation, under the original bill, can be shut down.

Now, if a certified worker inspector or a certified management inspector shuts down the place frivolously, out of anger or pique or whatever, then there is a very serious censure of that person. I was reading from

section 23a, and under subsection 23c(9), if the worker, or whoever, shuts down a place for frivolous reasons, that person is decertified. That is a very serious thing for somebody who takes the job seriously and has become certified by the central health and safety agency. Further, “If the certificate of a member is revoked by the agency, that person is ineligible to be recertified.” It is not just a tap on the wrist. There have not been abuses up to now, so why is the minister worried about this?

I was reading some comments just the other day by the former Minister of Labour, and this was in a publication called OH and S Canada, occupational health and safety. This was in the July/August 1989 edition. It is a Southam Business publication. They were interviewing the member for York Centre, who at that point was responsible for the bill, before he got dumped on his ear.

Mr Dietsch: Who got dumped on his ear?

Mr Laughren: Mr Sorbara.

Mr Curling: Lateral transfer.

Mr Laughren: Why does the member not ask him if he feels it is a lateral transfer?

This is what he said. He was talking about the right to shut down a place. “Some people have the wrong impression that the government is interested in investing in individual workers the discretion to decide whether plant A is going to be operating today or not. That’s absolute nonsense,” said the former Minister of Labour.

It goes on: “As well, a good part of the amended act will not apply to small business, he points out. This sector has been very vocal in protesting the bill,” the small business sector.

This is a direct quote: “Ninety per cent of the businesses in Ontario, they tell me, have under 20 employees.... So in some respects this bill exempts 90 per cent of the businesses in the province.” That is because businesses with fewer than 20 employees do not have to have the health and safety committees in the workplace. That is why he said that.

It goes on to say: “‘Anyone who has significant responsibilities in the workplace is under pressure to act reasonably,” says Sorbara. ‘What we’re trying to do is place qualified, trained, knowledgeable and responsible people in the shoes of workplace inspectors to do what inspectors would do under similar circumstances. Our inspectors aren’t primarily out there to look for opportunities to shut down a workplace and deny people an opportunity to earn a living. But they have a duty when there is imminent danger to order that something stop.’

“For example, Sorbara says, inspectors might lock out a machine because it’s unguarded or because workers nearby do not have the right protective equipment. An employer couldn’t use that machine until the problem was solved.” In other words, under the old act, a worker could refuse to work there, but the operation could continue with some other worker. That is why this bill is important.

Mr Sorbara says: “That’s the kind of thing we are thinking of. Now we’ve got a couple of options.” This is an interesting quote, and this is why I stressed what the minister said a few minutes ago about hiring inspectors to do the job. This is Mr Sorbara speaking: “Now we’ve got a couple of options. Either we can hire every fourth person in the province to serve as a labour inspector, or we can begin a process which, in the fullness of time, when fully in bloom, will give us a system where the workplace parties themselves are taking more responsibility.”

Now that is the internal responsibility system. That is what it is all about. Mr Sorbara saw that. He said we are not going to hire every fourth person in the province as an inspector when it can be done on the job, and done better on the job. Yet, here is this minister saying in his opening remarks that perhaps they are going to have to hire inspectors, paid for by employers, to do the job on the job. I cannot think of anything more ridiculous, and I do not understand why the minister agreed to gut the bill this way; I really do not. I am very disappointed.

The other argument that was used by some people was that unorganized labour was not represented on the health and safety agency, that it was management and organized labour; and on committees and so forth. The member for York Centre argues “it isn’t as big a problem as people would have you believe,”

“After all,” and this is a quote, “‘organized labour -- the trade unions -- hold beliefs that are not diametrically opposed to the interests of other workers. There’s not a conflict of interest there,’” he says. “‘The substance of what organized labour is talking about is not inapplicable or unrelated to problems that exist in workplaces that are unorganized.’” That argument was a red herring, I think most of us felt.

The member for York Centre saw that this bill was not a dangerous piece of legislation, a threat to management in the workplace. He understood that. This minister though, for some reason that I guess is made clear by the remarks of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, has agreed to go along with pulling the rug on the bill in its original form. We will see as we proceed through the process.

I hope there is full participation in the hearings across the province. I hope we do not try to hold those hearings before we have time to do them properly, for example, when the House is in session. But that is not a decision for the minister to make, and he has not indicated that either, I might add. I do believe that the standing committee on resources development has dealt with a number of health and safety issues and compensation issues and has an ongoing interest in it. I must say the members of that committee have worked very hard when they have been handed issues like this and have done a good job, in my opinion, in dealing with them. I think the minister understands that.

So I do hope that we have a full-blown, participatory process here all across the province. I urge the minister to keep his mind open on these issues and, just because he has made an opening statement on second reading indicating what he wants, that he does not insist that be the end result, if the hearings indicate and the evidence during the hearings is such that it is not necessary to do those things, and if the members of the committee feel that there will not be interference from the Minister of Labour.

Members can call me naïve, they can say I have been around here too long to even think things like that, but we are dealing with an issue that is extremely important here, and I think we all understand that. It is health and safety that is at stake here. Surely to goodness, if we err on one side, it is on the side of health and safety, not on the side of management rights. I think that is where I come down on any issue of health and safety, erring on the side of safety rather than on management rights.

I understand why there was an enormous lobby out there. I think the concerns were largely unfounded, but I also know that it was very effective.

The former Minister of Labour could not have read the opening speech on second reading that the present minister did. He could not have done it. He would have choked by page 4 or 5. Once he got started saying what amendments he was going to propose to the committee, he really would have choked on his own words, because he could not have swallowed that. He simply could not have.

So it is not fair for the minister to say that the changes which he is proposing are not substantial. They are substantial. Why would he propose them if they were not? If they were not substantial, he would have let the committee process have its way and then have government members, as a result of the hearings, propose some amendments. But he has not done that. He has said, “No, before you even start out there, these are the amendments, the changes we want to make in this bill.”

That is a worrisome beginning to this process because I really think the minister should be condemned for not having confidence in the committee process to say “There’s Bill 208,” and for not saying to the business community: “You go out there and you make your case to the committee. Don’t come and lobby me here. Go and make your case to the committee in the public hearings just like everybody else will have to.” That is not how it was done. It was done behind closed doors and that is how these proposals came to light. That is not the right way to deal with the committee process around here.

Why would we bother with this lengthy committee process, the time, the money spent travelling the province, if the outcome is predetermined? It is a waste of time for those of us who serve on the committee. It is a waste of time for the people who make presentations to the committee. If the minister has predetermined all the major changes, forget it. Barrel them through. Do not worry about the committee b