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

November 23, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L109 - Wed 23 Nov 1988 / Mer 23 nov 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NURSING SERVICES

TRANSIT SERVICES

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

MINISTER’S ANNOUNCEMENT

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

LAMBTON COUNTY AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

TRANSIT SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

PROPOSED INCINERATOR

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WAGE PROTECTION IN INSOLVENCIES

NATIONAL SALES TAX

OIL CANADA LTD.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

BUSINESS ASSESSMENT

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

FUNDING OF GENERAL FARM ORGANIZATIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TABLING OF INFORMATION

BINGO LOTTERY LICENCES

VISITORS

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (SUITE)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Reville: The Ontario Nurses’ Association, Local 162, is involved in a labour relations matter with the Etobicoke General Hospital. The nurses there have not received a salary increase since April 1, 1987. They are being paid less than their counterparts in other parts of the province. The negotiations process has broken down and the union has filed for arbitration under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The hospital is demanding from the union major monetary concessions, concessions that would reverse clauses that have been in their collective agreement for a number of years. The administration tells the nurses that these actions are necessary because of the budget deficits. The hospital in the past has never operated with a budget deficit and these provisions were never necessary before.

Of course, the government will allege that this is a matter between the hospital and the nurses’ association, and nothing could be further from the truth. What is happening in this province is that the Ministry of Health is forcing nurses to deliver services for less pay and under grim working conditions, and that is not appropriate. It is high time that the Ministry of Health provided adequate funding so that nurses could be compensated properly and so that their working conditions could be conducive to giving care.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cousens: The Toronto Transit Commission’s plan to raise adult fares in January 1989 is not unexpected. Each year the Toronto Transit Commission is forced to increase its fares under the users’ fair share policy. Transit users in Metro understand that increased demand for service places an additional burden on the TTC to deliver.

What concerns me, however, is the fairness of a provincial policy that seems to place more of the burden on transit riders until the Ministry of Transportation gets its own house in order. Has the increase in provincial funding kept pace with the increase in fares? Where is the government’s commitment to transit services? What is its direction?

A while back, several priorities for transit were set out in Network 2011, among them the Sheppard subway line. Today, we in Metro and greater Metro are unsure of this government’s direction and commitment. If the government is going to encourage greater use of public transit, is it going to provide consistent funding for more lines, more trains and more service overall? Is it going to provide the needed funding to increase the efficient use of these services?

The province needs to entice those in the greater Metro area to use public transit and to leave their cars at home. What programs are in place to provide integration of neighbouring systems with York, Durham and Peel?

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. McGuinty: The removal of the Lord’s Prayer from our schools’ opening exercises has provoked reactions from concerned people. Some with compelling argument support the move on the ground that some people found the prayer to be offensive, some say that the mechanical reciting of the prayer involved little more than a cold ritual without meaning and others maintain that the “Our Father” has a kind of symbolic significance.

The issue may serve a useful purpose as it draws attention to a problem we encounter in our public school system, the question of religion and values. In our society there is a real problem posed for the school, for the school must serve children who come from families divided into hundreds of religious and antireligious bodies.

This is pluralism with a vengeance. This is a fact and the fact has implications. The school must attempt a so-called neutrality on the great issues of life. It must operate within limited horizons, and this is reflected by the removal of the Lord’s Prayer from the opening exercises.

This is an important issue, for there are ways in which the fortunes of a free society are intimately linked to a morally informed and sensitive citizenry with values and standards which are more than mere habits, which go down below the soil of custom into the rock of clear conviction and are founded on a philosophy of life.

The liberal state depends upon the morality of its people. The state cannot create this morality. It has to take it for granted. Many people feel they want the help of the school in this regard, and the state which is not cognizant of this fact may very well deprive itself of the kind of citizens --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time has now expired.

MINISTER’S ANNOUNCEMENT

Ms. Bryden: Yesterday the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) unveiled the details of a new regional geriatric program to be established in 1989 in Metropolitan Toronto. An RGP is a co-ordinated system of specialized health services for older people with complex health problems.

The Minister of Health delegated to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) the responsibility to make the announcement of this program yesterday at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, one of the seven hospitals and geriatric centres to share in the program.

While I heartily agree that we need to develop a much broader program for delivery of geriatric services to the million senior citizens in the province, I do not think the announcement of this long-overdue addition to our health care system should have been made outside the Legislature. After all, the Metropolitan Toronto program is going to involve startup costs of $1 million and annual operating costs of $5.7 million when the program is fully operational.

The minister should have recognized that members of the Legislature expect to hear about new programs in the Legislature before public announcements are made. Members would then have an opportunity to comment on the program’s adequacy and to respond to media inquiries about the program. I would have told them that the program should have been extended to the whole province as soon as possible.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mrs. Marland: Later this afternoon, I will be presenting a petition from the Best of Five campaign, a group dedicated to having all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, receive their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than the present seven- or 10-year rule. Eighty members of the campaign led by Marion Hazelton from the Peel area will be on hand to see their petition presented.

There are presently 23,462 retired teachers in Ontario. An amendment to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act addressing the proposal I have outlined could benefit 14,589 retired teachers. These people are not asking for retroactive awards but simply a recalculation of their present pensions to ensure a fair and equitable pension for their future for all retired teachers.

In 1986 the estimated cost was $65 million. Today that has dropped to $50 million. Money from the pension surplus should be used to fund the recalculation.

I hope the government takes the request seriously and moves in a positive direction on this legitimate and worthy proposal; and I might add, it probably eventually will cover some of the members of this Legislature.

LAMBTON COUNTY AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

Mr. Smith: I am pleased to stand in my place today to announce the opening of a new facility in my riding of Lambton. On November 10, 1988, I had the pleasure of participating in the official opening of the Lambton county agricultural office located in Petrolia. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) and the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Government Services, were in attendance to join in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for this new facility.

I am pleased that the creation of this agricultural office will better serve the rural needs of the communities in Lambton county due to the additional space provided for the people and for the 14 full-time staff to utilize. This new building will enhance the staff’s ability to serve the rural community and will offer a meeting place for local agricultural organizations.

The facility features a large boardroom, two computer rooms, a demonstration kitchen and ample parking. I might just add that this new building is approximately two and a half times larger than the old one and the parking lot is approximately four times larger.

The opening of this facility marks a new era for agriculture in Lambton and will contribute to my riding’s development. The erection of this building enforces the government’s commitment to improve and update services to our rural communities across Ontario.

I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Government Services for their assistance in this package.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Ms. Bryden: Yesterday the Toronto Transit Commission announced plans to increase fares on January 1, 1989. While they claim the proposal amounted to an average increase of only five per cent, the cost of an adult Metropass will go up by 6.5 per cent and a senior’s pass by 7.6 per cent, as well as a student rate at the same amount.

Is this the way to encourage use of public transit? I urge the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) to sit down with the TTC and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and work out a new cost-sharing formula that will put a larger percentage on the province so that we can save the building of highways, we can save the building of expressways and we can save the pollution that comes from the use of auto and bus transit.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Mr. Pouliot: There are no ministers here.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Ministers are here. Cabinet has just ended. The rest are on their way. They will be here directly, if the honourable members opposite can give me specifics. I know the Leader of the Opposition wants the Premier; I have already sent word that his presence is requested.

ORAL QUESTIONS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier (Mr. Peterson), but I also have a question for the Minister of Housing. In the absence of the Premier, perhaps I could proceed with that question.

This morning the retiring chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority --

An hon. member: Retiring?

Mr. B. Rae: -- retiring involuntarily, I might add, thanks to the actions of the minister and the Premier -- held a press conference in which he had some very critical and well-documented things to say about the administration of the Ministry of Housing and the neglect of public housing by this particular minister and by her ministry.

In particular, Mr. Sewell commented on the fact that he has put forward proposals to the ministry over the last two years for some very significant redevelopment on various sites which are now occupied by Ontario housing and which he believes should be improved and renovated.

I would like to ask the minister: Can she explain why her ministry has refused and has failed to proceed with these particular proposals? The Three particular proposals I am referring to are Finch-Birchmount, Edgeley Village and Moss Park.

Mr. Speaker: I think the question has been asked.

Mr. B. Rae: Can she explain why none of these proposals has been given the okay?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: This government and this minister are committed to regeneration of our Ontario Housing Corp. stock. We have, in fact, been working actively with our partner, who is the federal government, on doing this. We are committed to doing it and we will proceed with regeneration as we work through our partnership with the federal government, the board of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority and the Ontario Housing Corp.

It is because of our commitments to this that the board of Ontario Housing Corp. set up a committee on this entire question, examined the question and came out with some policy decisions about how to do this.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Sewell does not set up committees; he gets things done. He gets the architects to do the work and he puts forward the proposals. The minister is blaming Ottawa for the problem, just as the Premier was blaming Ottawa. I think we can begin to see the emergence of a pattern.

Mr. Sewell said, “The problem seems to be the ministry and the minister. They have dug in their heels and seem prepared to do anything they can to sabotage these opportunities. It is a real pity, given the housing crisis and the sad state of existing projects.”

I would like to repeat my question to the minister. Why has she failed to proceed with specific proposals, architects’ designs included, which have been on her desk in some cases for over a year and which she has failed to do anything about?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think the member opposite may not be fully aware of the realities we face. Our housing stock, which is managed by the Ontario Housing Corp. all over the province, is jointly owned by ourselves and the federal government. In order to achieve a reasonable way of dealing with regeneration all over the province where there needs to be work done, in order actually to proceed, we need to work with our partners. We are committed to regeneration. We will be moving on it as quickly as possible, and we have done some backup work to make that possible.

Mr. B. Rae: The fact of the matter is that the card of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority net with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. MHC said it was eager to proceed. It has not had problems with the suggestions.

What the minister is saying has been documented as being incorrect by Mr. Sewell, and I think it is important that the House should know that her side of the facts is completely at variance with those that have been put forward by Mr. Sewell.

By way of final supplementary, I want to ask the minister how she can explain the rejection by he MTHA of a very practical proposal which was made, which was going to go ahead and which has now been cut back on; that is, a simple proposal that every single unit should have a superintendent with clear responsibilities and authority for renovation and repair within a building. You cannot go into an Ontario Housing building without finding elevators that do not work, fridges that are on the fritz, people who are living in conditions that are inappropriate and unacceptable, and she has refused the one major reform that would make a difference -- to have a superintendent on every site.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The whole question of proper maintenance is a very serious one. The idea of having superintendents is a very good one, and in fact the issue here is under discussion n negotiations between the union and the management of MTHA. There is no disagreement about this as an appropriate way to help manage the building more effectively, but it has to be worked out as part of the negotiations between the union and the management of MTHA.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to stand down the second question? Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

PROPOSED INCINERATOR

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, if he would return to his seat. I know the minister is aware of a proposal for Augusto township by a United States-based firm called Environmental Services Co. Inc. to construct a hazardous waste incinerator. The company has been told it has to follow the Environmental Assessment Act because of a ministerial directive. It is not, however, a legal designation under the act and, as a result, many questions are being raised about how the minister’s staff is handling the project.

So far, Ensco has breached the act by only identifying one site. They have already purchased the property, which is also a questionable step, and they say they will be going ahead with the project despite local opposition, making a mockery of the presubmission, public consultation stage of the process. Has the minister instructed his staff to give private sector projects certain exemptions from some parts of the environmental assessment process? Why is Ensco not required to follow the act to the letter, as are public projects?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In fact, I have discussed this with the member previously and I am pleased that he has raised it in the House to clear up some of these problems. The situation will be that they will be required to follow the Environmental Assessment Act if, indeed, they ever put a formal proposal before the government of Ontario.

What they have done, in effect, is to make inquiries about what procedure they would have to follow. The member is quite correct, as far as I know, certainly in ascertaining the degree of opposition in the area, because of (

a) the fact that no other options are looked at and (

b) the somewhat surprising way in which it was brought to everyone’s attention.

The member also knows that the people in his area who were on the council that made the invitation are no longer on council, as far as I know. I can tell the member they will be required to follow the full provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act should they decide to proceed with an application of this kind. They have not submitted any formal proposal.

At that time, when a formal proposal is submitted, I then have the opportunity to designate it officially. I have announced that it is going to be designated if they are going to do that, and if they actually do put forward a proposal I will proceed with that designation.

Mr. Runciman: We would like to know how the minister is going to require them under the act, since it is not part of the act. On July 28, the ministry officials met with Ensco representatives. They indicated at that meeting that they were going to take a hands-off approach in respect to this proposal.

This American-based company has looked at a small rural municipality without professional staff, easy pickings for that company. I think it is incumbent upon that minister’s staff to play an active role. He is always talking about being proactive. Here this ministry has taken a hands-off approach and left this municipality to hang out to dry. I am asking the minister why he has adopted this hands-off approach with no consultation or assistance provided to that municipality. When are they going to play a proactive role?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the minister hear the question all right?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: One day I get questions from that party saying, “Why are we going so tough on proposals that come forward?” This proposal has not been submitted to us. The next day I hear, “Why are we taking the opposite tack?”

I can assure the member -- and I know the concern people in his area feel -- that they will be required to go through all of the provisions in the Environmental Assessment Act. If every time I did not like something or ministry officials did not like something that was about to be proposed we said, “Don’t bother proposing anything,” the province would, in effect, come to a standstill.

What will happen is that if they submit such a proposal, the Ministry of the Environment and a number of other ministries will evaluate that proposal very carefully to determine whether it is acceptable in any way. If there is an acceptance of the proposal after it has gone through the review, then there is a hearing where the people have an opportunity to make known their views. As members know, with the new intervener funding policy that the government of Ontario has, they would have that available to them.

But to this point in time no such proposal has been received. They should know we will make them go through the very strictest provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mrs. Marland: It is very interesting to hear this minister be so casual and offhand about this particular incident. We have people whose property values are now being diminished in the area of this incinerator. When he says we stand in the House and ask for this approval and that approval and then we come in and balk at something like this, the point is that this is an incinerator we are talking about; we are not talking about a sanitary landfill project.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mrs. Marland: Based on the fact that the minister is now saying he might allow this to go through an environmental assessment, it is very interesting to us to hear him say that, because I do not know how he can assess something environmentally when he does not have a benchmark against which to measure the operation.

In this case, we are talking about an incinerator. Could he tell us how he would plan to proceed to evaluate through an environmental assessment this kind of proposal by Ensco when he has already told the House that the clean air act will be at least two years away?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member would know, for instance, that right in my backyard, if you will, about 20 miles from my house as the crow flies, the proposal for the Ontario Waste Management Corp. facility has been put forward. Among the proposals is a component of the OWMC facility that is an incinerator. The Ministry of the Environment will evaluate that according to the criteria that are available in various places, including the World Health Organization information, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, our own testing and Environment Canada.

There are a number of different areas, and as the member knows there was an incinerator approved by the Environmental Assessment Board, I think with 39 or 40 provisions or conditions, in Peel just a short time ago. If the board were to approve it, presumably it would put some conditions on it. The board could still turn it down. There are a number of proposals before us at the present time, including the hazardous waste facility in West Lincoln, which is 20 miles from my house.

Mr. Brandt: I stand down my question and defer to my colleague on his question.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. You wish to stand down or give up your turn?

Mr. Brandt: I wish to stand down the leader’s question at this time until the Premier (Mr. Peterson) arrives.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board. The minister will be aware that the Rowan Task Force on the Investment of Public Sector Pension Funds has recommended that public servants have some influence and participation in the administration and, indeed, the investment decisions made about their pensions. I wonder if the minister can tell the House whether he is in agreement with that recommendation.

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to pensions, we have a whole series of issues that we are now dealing with and taking time to study in relation to what our options are. We will be making decisions with respect to those in due course. I can tell the honourable gentleman that we see the approach on pensions as being best aided when we have the best available advice provided to us as we sit around considering these studies. In due course, when that consultation comes to an end, we will make announcements with respect to our pension policies.

Mr. Philip: A year ago, this task force was tabled with the minister. He has been sitting on this report for a year. It has some very specific recommendations, and they are recommendations that can be fairly easily implemented in terms of legislation to allow his 80,000 employees to have some say in how their pensions, which belong to them, are invested. Why is he not prepared at least to take those specific recommendations and bring them forward in the form of legislation immediately?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to dealing with pensions, as I have said to the honourable gentleman, we like to take some time to consult with the various people involved in pensions. It extends much beyond just the public service employees with respect to all of the things that government makes decisions about.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that there is a good deal of dialogue taking place with respect to pensions between government and employees and others. I can tell the honourable gentleman that we are, in my mind anyway, making progress in discussing the issues at hand. I am not prepared at this point to make announcements or statements that will compromise the discussions we are having in a very real and meaningful way with the public service employees’ representatives.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that I am aware of the interest to move forward with discussion on these and to come to final decisions, but I think the best interests of the public and the best interests of the employees are met by ensuring the fullest possible consultation with them.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Harris: I would like to go back to the Minister of Housing and follow up on a couple of the items that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae).

The minister has said numerous times over the last few weeks in response to questions that she is counting on the new chairman to continue the agenda of reform that has been set for the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. In view of Mr.

Sewell’s comments this morning, specifically the advice to the new chairman when he said, “She is going to have to find some way to get the minister out of the way in terms of implementing the kinds of reforms that are required,” and given that the minister has said she wants the new chairman to continue the reforms, some of which were mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition today, my question to the minister is this: Will she now end her obstructionism and permit the new chairman to get on with the reforms that are required?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am very delighted that the new chairman will be taking her job tomorrow. She has a history of commitment to social causes. She is an outstanding individual in terms of what she has achieved in her own life against great odds. I think she understands extremely well some of what the people who live in our housing face as problems.

I am delighted to be able to support her and the board of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority in doing the work that is really important here, and the work that is important is doing whatever we can to improve the quality of life for our tenants. That means helping them to live in buildings that are well maintained. That means helping them to live in an environment in which they do not have to tolerate drug dealing going on around them. It means working effectively with the board of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority to improve the lives of our tenants. I am delighted to continue to do this with the new chair, as with the old.

Mr. Harris: The minister was very obstructionist with the old chairman; I do not think anybody could deny that. She blocked the 20,000 new units. She blocked the superintendents into the homes. She blocked every reform proposal that he brought forward.

I want to ask the minister this. The MTHA has been called an authority without authority. Under the operating agreement it states that the Metro Toronto Housing Authority can only change staffing complement with the consent of the ministry. It must have its budget approved by the ministry. It can fill senior positions only with individuals approved by the ministry -- not the political appointments, the senior positions; we all know about the political ones -- and cannot alter wage rates without the consent of the ministry.

Is the minister prepared to look at this operating arrangement, where everything that the Metro Toronto Housing Authority has to do comes under her direct control as minister?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Ontario Housing Corp. is the body that makes policy decisions about housing authorities all over the province. There are 58 of them. One of them is the one for the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. They are governed under

an act of this Legislature that was passed long before I came here. So far, that act has served us well in all the housing authorities all over the province. We are always prepared to look at improvements to the act if we think they will make a difference in making the lives of our tenants better.

The most important thing I can say is that I am committed to doing everything possible to make sure that the lives of the people who live in the buildings we manage are as good as they possibly can be. That is why we appoint people to the housing authority boards, together with the federal government and with the city governments. I believe that there is lots of work left to do. I know that the new chairman relishes the work that is left for her to do and that she will get a commitment from the rest of the board to work with her, and I believe that the member will see us continuing to improve the lives of the tenants in our buildings.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ms. Collins: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As the minister is aware, there is an increasing realization that economic development should not be at the expense of the environment. Would the minister tell this House whether the Premier’s Council will consider as part of its mandate the development of an internationally competitive industry in the area of environmental science and technology?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure members will know that the Premier’s Council was established to assist the government in preparing itself for the advent of the new technological age and to make us internationally competitive. One of the areas that we see as a great growth potential is in the whole area of managing the environment and providing research and equipment to do that kind of job.

Ms. Collins: Could the minister tell this House what initiatives have been undertaken by the Premier’s Council to promote Ontario-based expertise in the area of environmental science and technology?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: One of the centres of excellence that was established was established at the University of Waterloo, and it is a centre of excellence in ground water management. What they are doing is looking at the whole area of waste disposal, hazardous waste storage and the whole area of ground water equipment management. That is an area where we think we can become leaders in the world. We are very excited about it and we think it is an area that is going to show a great potential and great results for us.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition might like to place his question to the Premier.

WAGE PROTECTION IN INSOLVENCIES

Mr. B. Rae: Following some questions that I was putting to the Premier yesterday, do I understand it correctly that it is the position of the government of Ontario that plants will close and that, indeed, some companies may go bankrupt as a result of the free trade agreement, which takes effect on January 1?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the government has said that there are a certain number of vulnerable industries. I think we have identified those areas.

Obviously, what happens depends on a great number of corporate decisions that are made by individuals and by corporations. Many of them are not resident here. I think my honourable friend will have a fair fix on where those vulnerabilities lie. Obviously, we will be working with those industries to try to keep them here so they will not close their doors and will be working with all sectors to keep our economy competitive.

At the moment, there are no clear guarantees one way or the other. I do not think anybody is in a position to put a precise figure on that. We will be watching that corporate activity very closely. My honourable friend has read about some of the ones that consider themselves perhaps in some difficulty as a result of the trade agreement.

Mr. B. Rae: In April 1985, when the Premier I am sure will remember there was an election campaign on, he stood outside the gate of a factory in Kitchener and promised the workers there that he would bring in provincial legislation requiring companies to justify that decision to close.

On November 26, 1985, which was three years ago, his government received a report from Donald J. M. Brown, QC, who is someone known well to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Wage Protection in Insolvency Situations, which refers specifically to three things that Ontario is constitutionally capable of providing: It can create a trust fund, it can establish a fund or it can create personal liabilities for employers and for senior officers and directors of corporate employers.

In fact, on November 26, 1985, the then Minister of Labour is quoted as saying that he can and will go ahead with provincial legislation this spring -- that was the spring of 1986 -- if in fact the federal government fails to act, and we all know the federal government has failed to act.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: These are two very specific things that fall clearly within provincial jurisdiction, and if the federal government were to do them, they would be ruled unconstitutional by any court, and the Premier knows that: plant closure legislation requiring a justification for that closure and legislation amending the Employment Standards Act to protect workers who are affected by bankruptcy.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can tell us why he has not moved in those two critical areas that would help workers.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is right. There are a number of areas under which we have the constitutional jurisdiction to act, and one looks at those all the time. These policies are constantly under review, and we are analysing how we protect our people, how we protect our jobs and how we keep our economy competitive. All of those things are looked at. All sorts of punitive legislation could be passed, no question about that. This House has the power to do so.

Would that make us more competitive? Would that really sustain the jobs? Would it really assist us to build a higher standard of living for the people of Ontario? Those are the questions.

I understand generally the line the member is coming from on these matters. He can ask himself whether it is going to help investment, help our factories or help businesses here in that regard. We think we have put in place a reasonable set of protections, but as my honourable friend knows there is in some cases no protection against certain actions that people would take.

Mr. B. Rae: My definition of punitive legislation is when workers are told on a Monday that they should not bother coming in on a Tuesday because there is nothing for them, when they have not been paid three or four weeks’ back wages and when they are the ones who are being punished because this government is failing to act. That is my definition of punishment, and that is what affects working people; it is when a government fails to protect those very people it talks about being worried about.

I am giving the Premier two very specific areas where he can do something on behalf of working people as we head into an era of tremendous change, when commission after commission has told him that he can act and he should act.

I would like to ask the Premier again. Let’s focus specifically on the question of bankruptcy. Is the Premier telling us that legislation that gives priority to wages instead of giving it to creditors, that makes sure everybody who gets laid off gets some severance pay and has some money in his or her pocket as he or she faces a very uncertain world is his definition of punishment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not get the impression this government is trying to punish anyone. My honourable friend, I am sure, would have some advice on new areas of legislation. I can tell him that the government is always looking at those, looking at them in terms of the real effect on workers; how we can assist, how we can keep jobs here and how we can keep the economy growing. I say to my friend, if he has advice on these matters, I am delighted to have it.

NATIONAL SALES TAX

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier as well. I wonder if the Premier would share with this House whether it is the intention of his government to participate in a national sales tax.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is absolutely no indication whatsoever, and I do not know the details. There has been no indication with respect to that.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to inform the Premier that an assistant deputy minister from Treasury appearing before a provincial committee studying this matter in fact indicated that most of the technical details have been worked out relative to the question of Ontario participating in a national sales tax, as proposed by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Wilson, at the federal level.

That being the case, the fact that an assistant deputy minister in a fairly senior position within the government has indicated that most of the technical details have already been worked out, is the Premier prepared, assuming Ontario is to join in a national sales tax, to make the same commitment to the people of Ontario that the Minister of Finance made at the federal level; namely, that any introduction of any change in the tax scheme will in fact be revenue neutral? The commitment has been made federally. Is the Premier prepared to make that commitment provincially, if he enters into the scheme?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not prepared to make a commitment we are going to enter into the scheme. I think my honourable friend probably should understand that. I am not saying that there are not discussions going on, but I think the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will stand in this House and say this. I say to my honourable friend that the Treasurer will make the decisions on these matters, not some bureaucrat.

Mr. Brandt: These meetings, as the Premier is well aware, have been going on for some time, and I think it is fair to the people of Ontario, particularly now that the rhetoric of the federal election has been concluded that all of the misstatements with respect to the amount of revenue that would be generated by a national sales tax can perhaps be put into a more accurate perspective. Let me just share with the Premier that the amount of revenue being generated by his sales tax at the moment is some $7.8 billion.

According to the assistant deputy minister at these committee hearings, the parameters under which he was asked to work were very simply that this particular tax was in fact to be relatively revenue neutral. In other words, there would not be a net increase to the people of Ontario. All I am asking the Premier to indicate today is exactly the same commitment made by the Minister of Finance federally.

With regard to either the national sales tax or some other tax mechanism that is agreed upon, will he give a commitment that he will not look at that as another cash cow to take more money from the people of Ontario and will he keep the total revenue in the ballpark of the $7.8 billion that he is now collecting? That is a very easy question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If I may say so, my friend is in a somewhat difficult position. He is accusing the federal government of creating a cash cow for itself. That is what my honourable friend is doing. Let me say to him there has been no commitment from this government on entering into any kind of national sales tax and I think my honourable friend should understand that very clearly. It is a different tax. We have a retail sales tax that everybody is aware of and that taxes a number of things, including business inputs. The tax base would be substantially different in this tax, and I can tell my honourable friend that there has been no commitment to go ahead with that whatsoever.

OIL CANADA LTD.

Mrs. Grier: I want to ask a question to the Minister of the Environment about a company, called Oil Canada, with which I know the minister is familiar. Oil Canada has a refinery here in Toronto where it takes waste oil, rerefines it and sells it as a pure product. This company has been in business for about 10 years and handles up to 10 million gallons a year. Can the minister tell the House whether he approves of this kind of recycling and reuse and, if so, what policies or practices his ministry has to support it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have in fact met with officials of that company who have expressed concern that when the price of the product goes down, as the world prices of oil are -- there are times when we consider that to be very good from a consumer point of view, but not necessarily from an environmental point of view -- the company has problems. They have had discussions with me and asked me to discuss with other ministers what possible actions could be taken in conjunction, for instance, with the federal government to determine whether some sort of support could be made known to them.

I think the concept of recycling oil, of rerefining oil is a good one. I certainly support their efforts to have the federal government assist them in this regard.

Mrs. Grier: I guess we have another example of putting it on to the federal government. The meeting the minister spoke about took place many months ago. The minister promised the representative of the company at that time that he would assist it in promoting the sale of its product. They have heard nothing since.

Last July, the Canadian Association of Re-Refiners wrote to the minister asking for help because the price of crude oil was dropping. They have received no reply. Because of this inaction, Oil Canada is due to close this week, putting 55 employees out of work and affecting about 350 indirectly employed people, because their jobs will be at risk too, and, far worse, putting 10 million gallons of waste oil a year out there with nowhere to go.

Mr. Reville: Down the sewer, that is where it goes.

Mrs. Grier: Down the sewers, into landfills or, even worse, being resold as home heating oil. How is the minister going to deal with this problem and why has he failed to deal with it so far?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is interesting to see where the member wants money to be put in and on occasion where she does not. There are some cases, of course, where the New Democratic Party objects very strenuously to governments providing funding to various companies within Ontario, and I understand that from the philosophy of the New Democratic Party.

In this specific case, the New Democratic Party wants the government to provide funding to the private sector to allow a company to go on, because essentially that is really what would be required. The member would know, and the member did not mention, as the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) does not mention, that of course there is another company in Ontario that deals with rerefined oil as well. It is a company, called Breslube Enterprises, located in Breslau, Ontario. That company is also dealing with rerefined oil.

I suppose that if they happen to be in trouble, the member will be up saying that the government of Ontario should provide them with some funding. I think we have to decide where members want government to intervene to provide money for these companies and not. I recently saw the letter from Mr. Fisher to the federal government. They were looking for its assistance. I said I would certainly be happy to support that contention, that they may on a national basis, in a national energy program of reusing oil --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. My constituents, Cathy and Bill Jordan, applied for assistance under the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons early this summer for their son, Christopher, who is not independently mobile, is visually impaired and has a seizure disorder.

To this point in his life Christopher has been dependent on physical support from the members of his family in order to move about. Christopher is now adult in size and they desperately need to install a stair guide and modify their family bathroom in order for Christopher to have mobility within their home.

The Jordan family made application for this interest-free loan through the government program last summer. They have had their renovation plan approved by the Ministry of Housing and we now have a contractor lined up to do these required renovations.

What will the minister tell the Jordans, who are now at about number 100 on a waiting list of over 200 in eastern Ontario, to have this kind of work done? What will she tell Christopher Jordan?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Under the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons, we have indeed been able to do what you have described here, which has helped a large number, in fact 750 families, to make the kinds of improvements to their households that would allow disabled members to live within them more comfortably.

When our program was originally started, we allocated about $1.5 million to it. We have now spent $7.5 million. The allocation for 1988-89 is $3 million, so we are working through the people who are asking for this kind of help and we are continuing to do that work.

Mr. Sterling: There are many families who have already had their plans approved by the ministry, received estimates which are usually only valid for about three months; they usually have a contractor lined up to do work over the winter and it is usually cheaper to do this during this period of time, because small renovation project contractors are not as busy. Would the minister consider waiving the condition that if an applicant who has his plans approved goes ahead with the work, he will not be denied future funding if he has to go ahead in order to accommodate people like Christopher Jordan?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am prepared to look into that, but the reason for making the decision to give funding only before someone has started is to control the costs. There are good reasons for that method of doing it but I am prepared to look into it.

BUSINESS ASSESSMENT

M. Morin: J’aimerais poser ma question au ministre du Revenu.

Mr. Wildman: Why don’t you just walk over and ask him?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Then you wouldn’t have the benefit of the answer.

M. Morin: Pardon?

A constituent of mine, Susan Jacobsen, owns a small wholesale business in my riding. Mrs. Jacobsen is concerned about the discrepancy in the rates at which various kinds of businesses are taxed. Wholesalers are taxed at 75 per cent of assessment while retailers are taxed at 25 to 30 per cent.

I am aware that property tax initiatives were deferred in 1978, when Ontario municipalities failed to reach a consensus regarding the implementation of specific tax reforms.

My question is, when can we expect a review of the business tax in Ontario and what would be the time frame within which the minister would anticipate some concrete results from such consultations?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I thank my colleague, the member for Carleton East, who poses a very important question which has been on everybody’s mind since 1967 when a commission --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am surprised the opposition did not ask this question.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Exactly. In 1967 a commission was instituted and a second one was instituted in 1977. As the member pointed out, no consensus was reached and for that reason I have established a committee of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Revenue and also the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

I am pleased to report that I am expecting a final comprehensive report very shortly, in 1989, which will be introduced to cabinet, and I intend to bring in the proper legislation.

Mr. Morin: Thank you. By way of a supplementary, may I ask the minister: how can I best advise Mrs. Jacobsen on the steps that she should take to have her assessment review, pending consultations with the municipality?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaitre: If my colleague the member for Carleton East can provide me with the specifics, I will certainly look into it. I will have the commissioner of my regional office look into it and provide him with an accurate answer.

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the accident this morning at 10 o’clock to 19-year-old John Ramos at 7 Bishop Avenue, north of Finch Avenue East and Yonge Street?

The release I have simply says: “The elevator was travelling upward, apparently out of control, when the deceased attempted to jump from the elevator to the 10th floor. He became lodged between the elevator and the underside of the 11th floor, then falling to the bottom of the elevator shaft. He was taken to North York Branson Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.” Will the minister tell us what he can tell us about this accident?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have before me on my desk a report that I assume the member for Hamilton East is reading from. I cannot tell him any more than he has read into the record; that is, an accident did happen at 10 o’clock this morning and John Ramos, age 19, was pronounced dead at Branson hospital. There is an ominous note in here because of the tragedies that occurred at Scotia Plaza, but I do not have any other information on the incident and I cannot report further to the House.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister tell this House how many health and safety committees we now have on construction sites across the province? The minister knows that we have been after him for months and months about the fact that up until recently we had only two. Can he now tell us how many health and safety committees there are on construction sites and when we are going to have health and safety committees on each site in the city?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: What I can tell my friend the member for Hamilton East is that I hope it is not too long before the regulatory regime in this province will require joint health and safety committees at virtually every construction site possible.

FUNDING OF GENERAL FARM ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Premier. He will remember that two weeks ago he promised the Ontario Federation of Agriculture action within one week on the issue of instituting a checkoff for funding of Ontario farm organizations. Since he was not able to meet the commitment made at that time, can the Premier tell the House when his government will introduce such checkoff legislation for the financing of farm organizations?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To the best of my knowledge, my honourable friend was not at the meeting and his facts are incorrect. We did have a discussion. We indicated to the OFA that we are sympathetic with that proposal. There have been meetings with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). He spoke at their convention. The member may well have been there. I am sure he enjoyed his speech, if he was. I think he indicated his approach. They are working now on some of the details.

Mr. Villeneuve: The Minister of Agriculture and Food got a standing ovation for stating that the government would, again, institute a checkoff method of financing farm organizations. However, we think that the government and the Minister of Agriculture and Food are now backing down on this.

Could the Premier confirm today that he will be initiating, as soon as possible, funding via checkoff for farm organizations and also provide any information that he has regarding any challenge that could occur under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if this were initiated?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I think he is right. I read the same

article my honourable friend did, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food got a standing ovation at the OFA, which is a remarkable achievement; I am sure an experience never shared by my friend opposite.

Mr. Villeneuve: He is backing down.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say that the government is not backing down. They are discussing the details. It is complicated in terms of its implementation, whether it should be tied, what mechanisms should be used. There has been a variety of suggestions, including a property tax rebate or a tax on certain commodity groups, as I think my honourable friend knows. Those discussions are ongoing right now. I cannot tell him what the final result will be, but as I said, the government is comfortable with the idea in principle.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. As the minister knows, one in six children in Ontario live in poverty, 44 per cent of these children have parents who work for inadequate minimum wages, and 20 per cent of those who receive food from food banks are children under the age of five. Those children and their families now face a triple threat: not just the onset of winter, but also the re-election of a government in Ottawa that has done nothing in four years for the poor in this country and the institution of a free trade regime that will have ominous repercussions in terms of the dislocations of many of the working poor.

Why is the government to which this minister belongs not even now announcing such measures to protect the poor, of which they will be in desperate need, such as a minimum wage of at least 60 per cent of the average industrial wage; lilting the asset ceiling for social assistance which now drives families into deeper poverty and prolongs their climb back into independence and prosperity, and other such measures proposed in the Thomson report that are a needed bulwark for them in the current circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will recall that two years ago we recognized that families on social assistance moving into the winter months had a particular problem with respect to winter clothing, and we provided additional assistance. I believe it was $80 per child at that time, and that, of course, has gone up with the cost-of-living increase.

As the honourable member knows, at the present time under our existing legislation, we do not have the authority to provide assistance to working families except in the situation where a local municipality can accept the fact that either mother or father as the head of the family and the nonworking parent can therefore qualify for social assistance.

With respect to the Thomson report, the honourable member is also aware of the fact that this government is reviewing it. We are receiving reaction from groups who are going to be impacted by it. I have indicated that an announcement with respect to our next rate increase would be coming fairly soon. I cannot tell him when we are going to be able to make an announcement with respect to specific enactment of any of the Thomson commission requests.

Mr. Allen: The minister and the government do have jurisdiction on the question of minimum wages, for example. But he must be aware, surely, that free trade is going to leave the poorest in Ontario much more exposed and more vulnerable than ever: for example, to low minimum wages; to absent, exploiting foreign owners; to the destruction of social programs; to the dislocations economically which inevitably are going to come and which will leave, as every economic dislocation does, a deposit of poverty that under normal circumstances would be permanent and ongoing unless severe and important measures are taken to counteract that.

He will also need to have assurances, he knows, from the new federal government with regard to the cost-sharing of various programs that enable him to do things in this province for the poor.

I wonder whether the minister is even now, for example, approaching the federal government with such questions as to what its attitude is going to be around negotiations under the cap for increasing asset ceilings, for example; what its attitude is going to be to cost-sharing comprehensive disability insurance or expanding child care spaces in Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member knows that my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has been responsible for seeing to increases in the minimum wage in every single year in which we have been the government of the province.

With respect to relationships with the federal government and other provinces, two weeks ago I met the directors of income maintenance of all of the provinces of Canada, and there were two representatives from the federal government there. I spent personally four or five hours discussing with them the implications of the Thomson report, and my staff spent two days with them discussing the implications of that report as well.

The honourable member realizes that it is just as of yesterday morning that the new government in Ottawa took effect. No, I have not yet contacted them, but the member knows that I did, in response to a previous question, forward a copy of the Thomson report to the federal minister on the same day that he and I got our reports. I have not yet heard back with respect to their reaction to it.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Government Services, and it concerns the flagrant abuse of the rules of this Legislature. I have had two questions on Orders and Notices since December 15, 1987, and I have yet to receive a final reply.

The first question concerns the cost of new furniture and television sets for the offices of the ministers, their staff and all members since June 1985. His interim answer was tabled on December 29, 1987, and he indicated that I would have a reply on or about February 29, 1988. I also have another question with the same dates on it. We are now ending November 1988 and I have yet to receive a reply.

I believe the rules of this House say that I should have a reply within 14 days or a date indicated by the minister. Does the minister know what is going on in his ministry, and when will I have the replies?

Hon. Mr. Patten: First of all, it was not just my ministry. Second, the minister asked a question that pertained to the purchases of equipment throughout the government. I assure the member that the information is forthcoming. I believe when the information is forthcoming, he will see the extent of information that is there related to the question he asked.

Mr. McLean: I do not know how much longer I am going to have to wait, and I do not believe the rules of the Legislature say that I should have to wait any longer.

On 10 different occasions his ministry has delivered furniture to my constituency office. I have asked for the costs of what the government has paid for delivery on 10 different occasions to my constituency office. Is his government out of control? Is his ministry out of control? If he does not know what is going on, why does he not resign?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What a waste of time. Order.

Hon. Mr. Patten: My colleagues here are suggesting that I be kind and, in fact, I shall be. The information, as I have said, is being amassed at the moment. He has asked a question that I think raises a very important point, and that is that yes, we are obliged to respond to the member. As I suggested before, when he sees the report, which is probably about an inch thick, it raises the question of how long it takes and the legitimacy of certain questions that might be directed to the auditor instead of making the request of my ministry to spend the kinds of resources that I think were spent in this instance; but the report will be forthcoming and is imminent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter has been dealt with.

BINGO LOTTERY LICENCES

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would like to ask him a question in connection with the issuance of bingo lottery licences. I thought the members opposite would appreciate it.

With many local nonprofit groups and charities participating in bingo events in order to raise much-needed capital for their programs, can the minister please clarify the reasons for the different levels of prize money and the different levels of authority?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The current levels of $3,500 --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a thing.

Mr. Ballinger: You’re lucky.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Is the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) finished?

An hon. member: That’s one for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Thank you. They pay more attention when they are calling the numbers up in Mississauga at the bingos.

The present $3,500 limit was set by order in council back in 1974 and it has not been changed since. The reason it was set at that time as being the limit of municipal responsibility is that it was felt, and still is, that once one got above the $3,500 figure, the bingo was beginning to attract people from other municipalities.

In the honourable member’s situation a very large giant bingo, as we call them, in Mississauga, giving a very large prize board, would begin inevitably to attract people from neighbouring municipalities such as Etobicoke. It was felt, to be fair to neighbouring municipalities and bingo halls and to the charities in those municipalities, that the province ought to have a handle on those very large prize boards. That has been our view in the past, and certainly that is the reason we have limited the right of municipalities to get involved in these very large bingos.

Mr. Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was under the impression that when a member was named in the House, as you named the member for Durham-York, he has to leave.

Interjections.

Mr. Mahoney: I do have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I have other things in mind at the moment.

Mr. Mahoney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is always nice to get encouragement from your colleagues.

In many large urban communities particularly, where the bingo business has become so competitive, the groups that do rely on the funds that they raise from these events are looking to offer larger prizes so that they can attract more people and therefore make more money. I wonder if the minister would consider allowing municipalities to have the authority to approve prizes up to $5,500, above the $3,500 level, particularly in large urban communities?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are always willing to look very carefully at the suggestions made by my friend the member for Mississauga West.

I would remind him, however, that that cuts both ways. Certainly while charities in Mississauga and his community might be the winners this week in terms of having a bingo with a large prize board, if there were a competitive situation where there was a very large bingo taking place in another nearby municipality, the very charities that he wants to protect might be victimized in this case. So we have stayed with the $3,500 figure. It may be time to have an appropriate look at it.

I must tell him -- I will just make this as a final point -- that certainly we have had no pressure from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or, indeed, from any municipalities, including the city of Mississauga.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: If I could have your attention, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation from France, including members of the French National Assembly.

The members are Jean-Pierre Bequet, Claude Birraux, Maurice Briand, Nicole Catala, Jérome Lambert, Alain Vidalies and Jean-Marie Demange. Please welcome our visitors.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is signed by a large number of teachers.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. Tatham: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

“Pensions: We Pay; It’s Time We Had a Say!

“Our pensions come out of our paycheques and determine our future. We want a say over how our money gets used, so we can get a fair rate of return on our savings and turn extra earnings into improved benefits. We want to keep our pensions indexed. We want the same rights as private sector workers and unions to negotiate our pensions.”

It is from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and is signed by 136 signatures. I have affixed mine to the bottom.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

Miss Nicholas moved first reading of Bill 191,

An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: No explanation?

Miss Nicholas: I would love to make an explanation.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry.

Miss Nicholas: The bill requires motor vehicle dealers to notify purchasers within 14 days of entering into an agreement for the purchase and sale of a new motor vehicle of the expected date of delivery. This date is made a term of the agreement. I look forward to debating it in the House in a couple of weeks.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) adjourned the debate. The member for Cambridge.

Mr. Farnan: I have here a cartoon I wish I could share visually with all members of the House, but I will try to describe it, because it in fact captures the essence of the problems of injured workers and those who have to deal with the Workers’ Compensation Board and their perception of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

This cartoon shows two women talking over the garden fence, and in the background the husband of one of the women is banging his head against the wall. His wife remarks to her neighbour, “George is conditioning himself for his visit to the Workers’ Compensation Board.”

I think all members of this House may identify with that cartoon. We can identify with that cartoon because we have the experience on a very regular basis, certainly on a weekly basis when we are back in our constituency office, of meeting injured workers who are dealing with the Workers’ Compensation Board and recognizing their frustrations and their despair.

When we talk to others who deal with the Workers’ Compensation Board, whether it is legal clinics or worker adviser offices or trade unionists, the message is the same. I know that in Cambridge at least half of the individual cases that are on my files of individuals seeking support with their problems and their concerns relate to the issue of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

There is no need to describe the kinds of despair that individuals have in dealing with the board. I am sure all members will identify with the individual who comes into your office with a very large and thick file, a file that he has been working with for several years trying to get some justice, an individual who has been to every possible source where he feels there may be some help. When you look into the eyes of that particular worker, you can see written in his eyes the despair, the humiliation, the desperation. Very often, they are beaten men and women.

They have come to the end of the line, and you will probably gather that, although they are coming to you, they are doing it more out of routine than any real hope that their situation will change.

I know that as a newly elected member back in 1987, as soon as I was elected and had established an office, a succession of injured workers came to see me. I can recall one individual who had a belt tied around his complete package; it was that large. He came in and he put the file on the desk with the belt holding it together. He just sat it on my desk and said: “This is the background of my case. Can you help me?” Simply to go through the documentation in any kind of thorough manner would take several evenings.

I think we have a situation where there are basically thousands of people out there frustrated with the system, knowing there is real injustice in the system, who are desperately hoping that things will change.

The fate of working people who are forced to put themselves into the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board because of work-related injuries and illnesses is a scandal; and it is a scandal that this government cannot dissociate itself from. This government has been in power now for some three years and the best it has been able to come up with is Bill 162. As I will comment on later, Bill 162 does not address the real problems of injured workers in our society.

Only about one in 65 injured workers will ever receive any retraining, and only one out of five workers receiving continuing compensation say they have regained their pre-injury standard of living.

Thousands of workers are injured every year and the numbers have steadily climbed, from 344,000 in 1983 to 442,000 in 1986, an increase of over 28 per cent in three years.

I have to stop and think. The question that was asked by my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) about the unfortunate and tragic fatal accident of the young 19-year-old worker who died on a construction site in Ontario today really drives home to us the importance of this debate.

While New Democrats have been demanding consistently, year in and year out, that there be health and safety committees on every work site in this province, and while as recently as just months we had only two sites where we had this particular form of committee, it certainly reflects very poorly upon this government. When I listened to the minister’s answer, that the government is reflecting on the situation and maybe things will change, it simply was not good enough. I think we have to ask ourselves, how many young men and women will die? How many workers will be injured before we address that particular aspect?

Simply to procrastinate, I know you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, is morally irresponsible, and it is unworthy of this government. I can assure members that New Democrats will continue to press the government to do what is right to ensure health and safety in the workplace so that the number of cases that end up at the Workers’ Compensation Board can be radically reduced and these people can have a normal, healthy life instead of having to go through the awful despair experienced with the Workers’ Compensation Board.

The number of injured workers in Ontario who now receive a permanent pension is 106,000, an increase of 29 per cent since 1983. Almost all of them need rehabilitation, yet only six percent get any rehabilitation service and only one in four of that small group receives job retraining. This is a terrible indictment of us as legislators and of this government in particular, because instead of tinkering and fine-tuning, we need a radical response to a desperate situation.

These are not just statistics. Every individual we are talking about is a breathing, living, warm human being with a family, children and responsibilities.

As I talk here today, flashes are going through my mind of individual friends back home in Cambridge who sit down across the table in my office. I know what they have gone through over many years and I know the tragic consequences to family life, to their own emotional stability as well as their health, and I know that not just their lives are being wrecked and crushed but the lives of their spouses and the lives of their children.

So when I say an increase of 29 per cent and I throw out a figure of 106,000 receiving a permanent pension, each one of those individuals and each individual who deals with this board, the 442,000 -- let us face it, we are approaching half a million people and we are saying that of those who need rehabilitation, only six per cent get any rehabilitation service and only one in four of that small number gets job retraining.

That, my friends, suggests to me that we are giving up on these individuals. In a sense, we have abandoned them, and I believe we do it at our own peril because they are a rich human resource. They are fine individuals who can contribute and want to contribute, and indeed their dignity as individuals demands that they be allowed to contribute to our society. We as legislators have a responsibility to ensure that they have the opportunity to do so.

Behind the statistics, I want members just to allow themselves to think of the people in their riding that they have sat and talked to, injured workers. What do members see in their eyes as they talk to them? Do they see neglect? Do they see humiliation? Do they see misery? Do they see despair? Do they see hopelessness? That is what! see. I see human lives destroyed.

But always there is flicker of hope. I suppose that is part of the human condition. Although they have been everywhere -- they have been to heir union, they have been to the worker adviser, they have been to the legal clinic and they have been to the previous member, and there is a new member of provincial parliament or a new individual who has come in as a worker adviser -- they say, “Maybe if I go to this individual, there might be a chance.” Hope springs eternal, and I suppose when we lose all hope we have lost the reason for living. But there is a small flicker of hope that perhaps justice will prevail.

I suppose when the government takes an initiative and says, “Okay, we are going to look at the Workers’ Compensation Board and we are going to introduce a new bill, Bill 162,” in the eyes of the workers this bill only represents a small flicker of light. That is all. It only represents a small flicker of light because they have a feeling that they have seen it all before. They have been down this road before and nothing has changed. Fine-tuning of the board has not resulted in any significant change in their condition.

The government may like to refer to this bill as reform legislation. We saw what reform legislation was back in 1985 with Bill 101. The significant thing about this bill is that it will do a lot. The problem with the bill is that it will not do anything to help the worker.

My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) very clearly pointed out that if this bill is passed, it will affect injured workers, those hurt in the future, those who in the future will require rehabilitation, those who will require recognition of permanent disabilities and those who will need job security.

It has dramatic future implications that I do not think many people realize, and because it has such dramatic implications it was rather sad that the Minister of Labour attempted to rush this piece of legislation through. The Minister of Labour is on record as saying that he wanted to have this legislation through the House before Christmas. He wanted it through without having proper public input, despite the fact, as my colleague pointed out, it had very broad implications to injured workers; we talked, in terms of numbers, of 440,000 people.

There was not broad-based consultation, and of course New Democrats, realizing the implications and realizing that this bill deserved careful scrutiny, fought the approach of the minister. We have demanded public hearings and the minister basically said no. He was asked again and he said no, and he was asked again and he said no.

However, let us be clear that injured workers, people who work in legal clinics, Office of the Worker Adviser offices, trade union movements, all of them realize --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you finished?

Mr. Farnan: No, I am not finished.

The Deputy Speaker: In that case, we would appreciate it if the individual conversations would stop so we could listen to the member for Cambridge. You may continue.

Mr. Farnan: I find it rather sad that on a debate like this, which means so much to the injured workers of this province, a government backbencher has nothing better to do but to interject. I am sure if he wanted to participate in the debate he had ample opportunity. I think all of the members of the House had the opportunity to debate this issue. Simply to sit there and to interject while the workers of this province and the legislation that affects them are being discussed is unworthy of a Liberal backbencher and unworthy of this government.

The record will show that out of frustration and out of fear that this bill was going to go through without the injured workers of Ontario having an opportunity to make comment on the bill or to give their input, the injured workers of Ontario came to Queen’s Park and participated in a demonstration. Following upon that demonstration, only then did the Minister of Labour, only then did this Liberal government agree to a series of public hearings. That is sad; that is very, very sad indeed.

I want to make a brief comment about the discretionary power of the board. I am very wary personally, and I can tell members that the injured workers in Cambridge whom I have spoken to are very wary of the discretionary power of the board as it is included in the new bill, because whenever the board has had discretionary power, the injured workers have recognized that this power has been exercised not with justice, but very often to discriminate against them.

On too many occasions in this bill where the board has to deliver services, it does so where it considers it appropriate and not where the legislation states that the board will deliver the services. I think members should understand that the more that is put into the discretionary power of the board, the more injured workers will be critical.

If we think that the current system of workers’ compensation is unfair, dehumanizing and miserly, we should wait until we see what happens with the new improved version that the Liberal government is putting forward. If the government gets its way, workers injured on the job will get even less than they do today. Bill 162, the Liberals’ proposal for the Workers’ Compensation Board, would give injured workers two payments instead of one, but the new pension will be smaller. Even today’s meat chart would seem generous in comparison.

Let’s look at an example. Let’s say there is a 45-year-old skilled worker with a 10 per cent permanent physical disability. Today that worker would get a monthly pension for life of $191. Under the new Liberal proposal, that worker’s monthly pension would be $23. From $191 monthly pension, that worker’s pension would be reduced to $23. In addition, the WCB could also give the worker a second payment based on what it thinks he could earn, but if the board decides he has recovered or if he goes back to work, the second payment stops.

We believe that this system will mean less money for injured workers. It is an insult. The beautiful expression that the minister has used throughout his comments on the bill is that the bill is, I think he calls it, “revenue neutral.” Do members know what that says to the hundreds of thousands of injured workers? What it says to the hundreds of thousands of injured workers is: “You are suffering now. We are not going to spend any more money. You are going to continue to suffer.” It is very, very simple.

There will be a little bit of juggling around. There will be a little bit of smoke and mirrors. There will be a lot of the use of the right buzzwords, a lot of progressive-sounding words that are meant to impress people that real change is taking place. But the message is very clear when the Minister of Labour says this legislation is revenue neutral, because an injured worker who is struggling to make ends meet, struggling to keep his dignity and the dignity of his family, sees no reprieve.

If the Liberals get their way, it should be very clear that injured workers may still not be able to return to their employer. Bill 162 sounds good. It says that employers should rehire workers within two years of their injury, but there are so many loopholes that this guarantee really does not mean anything.

Bill 162 will not help if you are a construction worker. It will not help if you have been off work for more than two years. Even if you are rehired, the new bill says the employer only has to keep you for six months. Worst of all, injured workers who are already on a pension are left out. All those injured workers who have fought for years for reform of the Workers’ Compensation Board cannot be rehired. All those who fought so hard for fair treatment get absolutely nothing. Is this the Liberal government’s form of justice?

If the Liberals get their way, the Workers’ Compensation Board will have even more power over workers’ lives than it has right now. Let me tell members that injured workers right now believe it already has too much control, but under this Liberal proposal -- I should say under this proposal of the Liberal government -- the Workers’ Compensation Board will decide what an injured worker might earn and the board will say what jobs the worker can do.

I think we have to accept the fact that, in reality, there are some individuals who can be retrained and there are other individuals who cannot be retrained. I am not going to go into all the details, but certainly for some individuals it is significantly more difficult to redirect them into employment. In some communities there are immigrant workers who have worked all their lives in one industry and who perhaps have some difficulties with the language.

We know that very often there are industries that are being affected by trade fluctuations. I am thinking of the textile industry, the shoe industry, where there are significantly large numbers of immigrant workers. This legislation is scary if you are an immigrant worker in a vulnerable industry, because not only is your job in peril but also there is very little option if you are injured at work.

For the first time ever, some of the rights of injured workers will be taken away. For instance, Bill 162 says you cannot appeal the size of your pension to an independent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. What kind of system is this? We have partisan differences and we take shots at each other from time to time but, by and large, I think we like to view each other as being honest and fair. Within any justice system that makes sense, within any justice system that is fair, there is a right of appeal.

There is something wrong, and I ask the members of the Liberal government: How can they enforce a system on the injured workers of this province where their future is, in many cases, ruined? Here they are coming before a tribunal or coming before the Workers’ Compensation Board, which will make a decision on their pension, and having made that decision, there is no recourse of appeal. What happens when there is a bad judgement? What happens when it is an unfair settlement and there is no appeal process? Can the Liberal government, can individual members of this government, reconcile their consciences with that situation?

For the people who sit across from us in our constituency offices, I would say, more than anything else, it is the feeling not just of despair but of unfairness. If you have an appeal process that you can go to and present your case, there is always the hope that justice will be brought back into the system. But this new legislation, Bill 162, says an injured worker cannot appeal the size of his pension to an independent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. That is a real tragedy.

It is ironic. The next line I was going to say reads as follows, “In the next 24 hours, someone in Ontario will be killed on the job.” We heard my colleague the member for Hamilton East stand up in the House today and report the tragic death of a 19-year-old construction worker. Almost every working minute, someone is injured, and thousands die each year from cancer, heart or lung disease caused by work.

Just as we are sitting here, just as we are making this speech, from the time I stood up to address this House until the time I sit down, there will be 20 or 30 individuals whose lives will be for ever changed as a result of a workplace industrial accident. These are the people who today left their families with their dreams intact and tomorrow will sit down with their lives shattered. These are the people who will come to our constituency offices three months from now and say: “Mike, I can’t understand it. I’ve been to the WCB. I can’t get any answers. I can see things are going from bad to worse.”

This bill, Bill 162, does not address the problems of the workplace and the problems of injured workers. Anyone could become a victim of a workplace accident or disease. Everyone deserves a compensation system with a decent income, rehabilitation and then a job again. It is a complete cycle. It has got to be from the time of the accident through treatment to rehabilitation and back to work.

Ontario’s Liberal Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised to improve health and safety in the workplace and to restore confidence in the Workers’ Compensation Board. He has not done that. There has been no legislation to improve health and safety. My friend the member for Hamilton East has pointed out that despite the repeated calls of New Democrats for health and safety committees on industrial work sites, there are only two such committees as of a couple of months ago.

We had a death today. We had a death just the other day. The question is, how many people must die? How many people will be injured? We have construction sites all over this province without health and safety committees, and that is a moral crime. It is a crime that this Liberal government must take responsibility for. It has been in power for three years, and as it procrastinates, people are being killed and people are being injured. That is not good enough for the people of Ontario. This bill will increase the distrust that injured workers have of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

In conclusion, I simply state that we must make sure that injured workers can live with dignity and that they can be treated fairly. My friends, I have heard the expression used around this House and in the halls of these chambers and buildings when people talk to each other about the Workers’ Compensation Board. They refer to it as the swamp. Is it not a tragedy that the members of the provincial parliament of Ontario talk about the Workers’ Compensation Board as the swamp?

When I talk to a Liberal member or a Conservative member in the corridor and I use the expression “the swamp,” they know what I am talking about. I do not have to explain it to them because they have been into the swamp themselves. They have gone into the workers’ compensation bureaucracy and tried to solve the problems of their constituents. They have been caught up in the bureaucracy, and the problems have not been solved.

We are lucky because we are going in there on behalf of someone else, but for that individual whom we represent when we approach the WCB, his dignity is at stake. His life is at stake. Very often his marriage is at stake; very often the continued existence of the family unit is at stake; very often the lives of his children and the quality of the lives that his children will lead are at stake.

Bill 162 is a very, very sorry response to the hundreds of thousands of real human stories that are out there, real human beings who are suffering. I can pledge right now, as our critic for this area, the member for Sudbury East, has done already, as our leader will do later today and as my colleagues in this debate have done as they have addressed the issue, that we as New Democrats will continue to fight to stop this bill. It is a fight we are very proud of. We have carried this flag on behalf of injured workers, we pressured the government for public hearings and eventually the government has succumbed. I hope as the committee travels this province it will do one thing.

Mr. Reycraft: Do we start next week?

Mr. Farnan: I am hoping the committee will listen.

Mr. Reycraft: Let’s go next week.

Mr. Farnan: Here again we have a government minister coming in, in the middle of a debate, he has not heard what has been going on and wants to interject; he wants to shout out nonsense. Right at a time when we are discussing the problems of the injured workers of this province, we have a minister of the crown come into the debate who has not heard a word that has been said, and that is the minister’s response to injured workers. That is an insult to the injured workers of this province, and he should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Take it to committee. You’re scared to take it to committee and have a public meeting on it.

Miss Martel: No, we’re not. Talk to the minister. He’s the one who didn’t want it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Cambridge has the floor.

Mr. Farnan: As this committee makes its rounds, let me say simply this: I ask the Liberal members and the Liberal government to listen. In my short period in this House, I have seen a committee make the tour of the province on Sunday shopping. While the province spoke with one voice unequivocally and people said to the government, “Don’t go through with this legislation,” the government has continued to press forward.

I want the government, please, at least to do this: Listen to the injured workers of the province, listen to the people who deal with the injured workers and deal with the WCB and let the legislation reflect that. The best way they will reflect that voice will be to withdraw this legislation, start anew and let’s have some real reform.

Again, as New Democrats, we pledge that we will fight to make the changes that will benefit injured workers, will benefit their families and will give them real dignity. Bill 162 does none of these things.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to compliment the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) for his comments and the serious viewpoints put forth, but I think I must bring to his attention one comment I had difficulty in following. It is on page 5086 of the debate on October 20, 1988, and this is the Minister of Labour speaking. He says:

“I look forward to the constructive comments and considered proposals that will ensue, no doubt. I look forward to seeing Bill 162 out of this assembly to a committee and, ultimately, into the heart of the worker compensation system, which will be fairer and more effective as a result of it.”

I think the member for Cambridge implied that the bill was not going to a standing committee of the Legislature, and I thought I would correct the record by reading that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there any other comments or questions? The member for Halton Centre.

Interjections.

Mrs. Sullivan: Are we on rotation?

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry, we are on rotation. The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs. Marland: I certainly did not mind yielding to the member for Halton Centre (Mrs. Sullivan), because I would like to have heard some interesting educational comments, which I am sure will be coming from the government side of the House on this bill in this debate.

I just want to say in response to my colleague in the New Democratic Party, the member for Cambridge, that although some of his pleadings are indeed quite eloquent and certainly sincerely put forth on behalf of injured workers in this province, we certainly must realize that he is speaking to a government which has well demonstrated now, in three and a half years, that it does not listen, it does not care to listen, and when there is a major responsibility that it feels it does not wish to deal with it simply passes that responsibility off to another level of government. Sometimes it is the federal government; sometimes it is the municipal government.

I am certainly hoping they will act on the petition that I presented in the Legislature this afternoon on behalf of another employee group: namely, the professional teachers in this province, who simply would like to have this government amend

an act that affects their pensions, and therefore their future, simply to make an equitable pension for all teachers. It would be very encouraging if this government were to realize that equity for pensioners, especially when there is a surplus in their pension fund, is all they are asking for.

I hope this government will listen a little more than it has in the last three and a half years, because that is the promise it made to the public in Ontario.

Mrs. Sullivan: I appreciated the words used by the member for Cambridge in terms of some of the pain we have seen injured workers go through in dealing with the current workers’ compensation system, and that indeed is one of the reasons that this bill is before us.

I am really quite concerned, however, at one of the illustrations that the member used in his remarks to compare the proposed bill with the current legislation. The speaker indicated that a worker at 45 with a 10 per cent disability would receive a lifetime pension of $191 under the current bill and $23 under the new bill.

I am afraid that the member does not understand the bill in its entirety. The reason I am as concerned as I am is that I have seen this illustration used before and it is incorrect, because what the member is referring to is the noneconomic-loss award, the pain and suffering award, and he has not taken into account the other part of the dual award system that is included in the bill, which is, of course, the economic-loss award. The combination of the two means that there is an enormous difference and the illustration, in fact, is not accurate and will not work.

Mr. Farnan: I will not use up the full time, I do not think. I just want to comment on the information or the position that was put forward by the member for Halton Centre in questioning the statistics that were used.

I want to refer the member for Halton Centre to the debate that took place on October 20, when my colleague the member for Sudbury East, on page 5098 of that particular debate, very clearly went through a detailed breakdown of how these figures are arrived at. I would remind the member for Halton Centre that my colleague the member for Sudbury East has worked for a considerable amount of time with the WCB, is very knowledgeable and extremely knowledgeable in the area and did quite extensive research in the area.

If time permitted, I would read to the member from Hansard the very detailed and accurate manner in which my colleague presented these facts. They are of great concern, I will tell the member, to the injured workers of Ontario.

Indeed, the second part of the equation that the member for Halton Centre talks about is also part of the equation that the injured workers are themselves concerned about, because that second part of the equation can mean very little in terms of real support to some workers, and the tragedy is may mean no support to some workers.

Mr. Mackenzie: I do not intend to take a long time, nor will I be original in terms of any new arguments that have been made in this debate in this House, but this debate is important enough that I want to highlight a number of the points that were made by my colleague the member for Sudbury East. I think there are questions, as I said when this debate started, that the government and Liberal members are going to have to answer -- indeed, if they can -- in this piece of legislation.

There are two or three areas where, for reasons that escape me, this government has really made some bad moves. One of them obviously is the Sunday shopping legislation, where they are not in tune with, I think, a majority of the people. In spite of arguments -- and that is what bothers me, even about the hearings on this bill -- I am not sure they are listening or their ears are open at all, no matter what workers in this province are going to say.

But there is Bill 162, and if any area should wave red flags or danger signals to a government, it is the area of workers’ compensation, because it is an area that is a mess and that we have had trouble with for a long time and where there need to be some changes. They have brought in a bill that once again appears to be, unless there are some answers that we have not figured out as yet, totally unacceptable to injured workers.

I do not know whether the government is doing any work on this or not, but I am wondering if it has a single injured workers’ group, a single union, a single legal community so far in Ontario that thinks this bill has any merit. I would like to know if they have. They may have one or two. I do not know of one right across the province, and these are the people who are directly involved: the unions, the legal aid, clinics, the injured workers’ groups and, surprisingly enough, a fair number of members, who also have some expertise in this area. The government literally has here a bad bill, and I cannot understand it.

Another area is, I guess, allied in some of the labour areas, and I think the tragic death of John Ramos underlined that here today. I cannot for the life of me understand why we have to wait months and months, almost a year, for a whole series of amendments, when a very few amendments would at least deal with the construction problem that caused the death of another worker here today. That could have been done months ago. It could be done next week, and the minister knows it. It does not need the kind of delays we have had.

There are one or two areas where the minister is just walking a slippery slope, and I do not know why, because it is not necessary and he could do a lot to regain some of his own credibility if he took a look at these particular issues.

Okay, Workers’ Compensation Act: As I said, my pitch is not new, but I think it is worth doing. This bill does contain some of the most significant changes we have seen in the Workers’ Compensation Act since the last bill, Bill 105, in 1984-85.

That actually contained some considerable improvements, such as the establishment of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, the expansion of the Office of the Worker Adviser, a number of moves that were useful and certainly moves that I know have been used by one heck of a lot of government members, and other members in this House as well, to ease some of the workload and to try to resolve some of the workers’ problems and Workers’ Compensation Board cases. There were some benefits in the last bill.

In the current bill, unless we are totally misunderstanding it, we do not see them. I think the speech that my colleague made on October 20 in this House was about as good and intelligent a speech on WCB as I have ever seen made, and it was point by point. Sure, at times we get a little partisan, but I did not have the impression that day, while she made her arguments very, very strongly, that she was being partisan. She was speaking as to what she had seen, and not only she.

Members should understand that we sat down for two or three days with the very groups I am talking about -- injured workers, union representatives, community and legal workers -- and went over the bill. What was outlined to this House was a

summary, really, of the concerns they all had and their reading of the new legislation of the Workers’ Compensation Board, Bill 162.

The points that were made, and I am not going to reiterate all of them necessarily, were that there have to be answers by this government. There has to be an explanation that holds water -- not just an explanation, because we do not accept that any longer -- or there have to be changes in the legislation, or the minister is really going to have himself some trouble with Bill 162.

Let me just go over them by headings. Rehabilitation: The Minna-Majesky task force strongly recommended the right of total rehabilitation -- physical, mental, social, vocational and economic -- for every injured worker. Bill 162 gives the board continuing power to provide rehabilitation services if it considers this appropriate. There is not a statutory right to it. Further limits have been placed, for the first time, on rehabilitation assistance to a worker seeking employment: a maximum of one year. Finally, a worker can apply for a supplement only if he or she has already begun a rehab program. At present, supplements are awarded if you are waiting to start a program.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Bob, that’s not true.

Mr. Mackenzie: Well, if these can be satisfactorily answered -- but the minister is going to have to answer every one of them.

The minister stated that the bill will oblige employers to reinstate injured workers in their jobs. That being said, the bill immediately excludes the following classes: construction workers, 323,000 workers; industry with fewer than 20 workers, about 20 per cent of the workers in the private sector; classes or subclasses that may be exempted in regulations. How do we know whom they are going to hit next in this?

The employer’s obligation lasts only two years, an employee can be terminated six months and one day after being rehired and the employer will have fulfilled his obligations. In some cases they could pay somebody for two years or hold him for two years and get rid of him. The board decides if the employer has met his obligations, and there is no appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. I think there are a number of questions that have to be answered, and a number of those question marks will make this bill simply not good enough and will give the minister nothing but trouble for a long time to come.

Current pension versus new noneconomic loss benefits, points that were outlined, not all of them but some of them: While current pensions under the meat chart are totally inadequate, they are generous in comparison to the new lump sum benefit. Under the new calculations, the pensions granted are much smaller than at present. The principle of a pension for life or a disability for life is destroyed, since pensions under $10,000 will be given out immediately as a lump sum.

Further problems are that only two reassessments are permitted, and only if there is significant deterioration not anticipated at the time that the rating occurs. I leave that to the members’ own imaginations without going into explanations, because, as I said, I am just going to go over the highlights once again that have been raised. At the time the rating occurs, the board appoints the practitioner who will conduct the assessments. The amount of a pension cannot be appealed to WCAT.

To take a look at a new benefit for future loss of earnings, this benefit and the new pension for noneconomic loss replace the present pension for life. This component is probably the most complicated and is one of the points the Minister of Labour uses when he is trying to sell this bill. The bill says that if a worker gets a pension or is totally disabled for 12 consecutive months, he or she is entitled to this bill. The amount payable is 90 per cent of the difference between what the worker earned before the accident and what the board believes he or she is capable of earning after the accident.

This is called “deeming.” It is already happening at the board with pension supplements, and the minister knows it and knows there is a problem there. The board deems a worker capable of performing a job on the basis of personal characteristics such as education and language. It checks with Statistics Canada to see how much the job pays, and if the worker will make more with this phantom job, he or she is refused a supplement.

This is occurring whether or not the worker even has the job, and we have had some prize cases, a few of which we have raised in this area. The point is that few workers are going to actually qualify to receive this benefit, even though the Minister of Labour is telling everyone that they will get 90 per cent of their pre-accident earnings until the age of 65.

If the benefit is granted, it is reviewed after two and five years or whenever the Workers’ Compensation Board considers it appropriate in the circumstances. The bottom line is that the change from the present pension scheme to the dual system represents a drastic cutback in workers’ benefits and dramatic savings to employers. There is little security for injured workers, and the discretionary power of the board is increased even further. I think my colleague the member for Cambridge points out the concern that workers have there universally in terms of the discretionary power of the board.

These represent just some of the worst details. I did not try to cover them all, but there are specific ones, point by point, that are going to have to be answered before this bill begins to pass muster.

I want to conclude my remarks by simply saying this: The minister has said, and said it in this House, I can recall, that this bill is going to be revenue neutral. If he ever gave a wrong signal right from the beginning of the debate, that was it. He has also said, in answer to some of the more heated exchanges in this House over the last few weeks, that this bill is what we are trying to do in terms of a worker who has injured his back and is living on an inadequate income, that this bill will give him more or solve that kind of a problem in terms of the pension that he or she will have.

When it is revenue neutral and when you are going to give that worker more -- if indeed we accept that some workers are going to get what they need, and in many cases substantially more than they are now getting -- I want to ask the minister and I want to ask every Liberal member sitting in this House, from whom are they going to take it away? If they are going to give some more and they have a revenue-neutral bill, and some of those are going to be substantial increases that they are talking about, who wants the problem of telling the injured workers in the province of Ontario: “Hey, you are getting too much.

We have to give John Doe more because he has a serious back problem and this bill is revenue-neutral -- no more money involved. We are going to have to take some off it.”

The minister himself has said there will be adjustments. Do they honestly want the job, any one of them, with the problems we have already had, with the inequities in workers’ compensation legislation in the province of Ontario? Do they really want the job of deciding who they are going to take away from so they can give a little more to somebody else? I do not doubt for a minute that if they do a real, in-depth investigation they will find the odd cheater in the system. We found that in terms of cheating, whether it is social welfare or WCB, it is an extremely small percentage, but they might find the odd one.

They might find the odd case where there has been a misassessment, or maybe somebody really is not entitled to that much, although I will tell them, when it is an injury and you are off work and you have to pay the bills and keep your family, that is a pretty difficult decision to make, that maybe we have given you $10 or $15 or $20 a month too much or whatever we have done.

But once they have got to a position where, to sell what they have here they are going to have to cut X number of workers -- and I suggest to them that if they are going to solve some of the gross inequities in what workers are getting, it is going to mean a considerable amount of cutting -- I would not want to be the one who has to go to those workers and tell them, “Hey, to give somebody else a just and fair pension, we have to cut back on what you are going to get.” The minister should stop and think about that and every member in the Liberal benches should stop and think about that.

When the hearings are held on this bill, and when workers and community legal aid workers and unions and other interested parties come before them and make their arguments -- as I said at the very beginning, I have not yet heard of one of these groups in Ontario; maybe there is one and there are a lot of them and they are involved in workers’ problems that think this bill is anywhere near the answer -- when they raise their questions in those hearings, it is not just the two New Democrats who will sit on that committee.

It had better be the six or seven Liberals who sit on that committee who are listening to what those workers say, because otherwise they are really asking for a pile of trouble. If their minds are as closed as they appear to be on the Sunday shopping bill, I have not got an awful lot of faith in what is going to happen to workers.

I can tell them, they have seen a demonstration here. They have seen them keep their organization together over the years. They have seen them demonstrate probably a couple of times a year in this Legislature. They have seen themselves get lobbied. They are going to see workers more angry, more upset, and there are going to be one heck of a lot of community groups that are going to be alongside them, unless they give some specific answers to the kinds of points that my colleague raised, which I attempted to summarize once again here today. Those have got to be answered, the changes made, or this bill is simply no good.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any questions or comments arising out of the speech of the member for Hamilton East?

Mr. Morin-Strom: It is with considerable concern that I come to speak on Bill 162, this government’s attempt to do something about the workers’ compensation system. Certainly as an elected member -- and I would think that most elected members would have the same experience -- I think there is no part of the government of Ontario that we see more in our day-to-day working with individuals in our local communities, which is of tremendous concern at the local level. We get more people coming into my office in Sault Ste.

Marie who are having problems, who are having fights, who are having real injustice done to them when it comes to their treatment by the Workers’ Compensation Board. It is the most serious single area of activity of this government in terms of causing serious impact on the day-to-day lives of families across this province. For years we have had governments that have attempted to do something in terms of wrestling with the workers’ compensation system, but with very little effect. It has been a tough area and the efforts to date have been not very impressive at all.

Sure, in recent years, particularly under the minority government of 1985-87, there were a few important reforms. For example, in 1985 all WC benefits were indexed to inflation. We had the establishment of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal and then we had the establishment of worker adviser offices as well, the kind of offices needed to provide professional advice and counselling to workers in the fights they were having to wage against the Workers’ Compensation Board to ensure just and equitable treatment. Those have been benefits that have assisted workers to some degree, but the fundamental problems remain.

The workers’ compensation system in Ontario is not working. Discriminatory and inconsistent in its application, petty and inadequate in its coverage, clumsy and frustrating in its administration, workers’ compensation has lost the faith and the trust of the very people it should be serving, the injured workers of Ontario.

There are difficulties in analysing Bill 162 with precision. Many of the changes Bill 162 will bring about will be implemented and operated through regulations which will be formulated later and, it should be noted, which are outside of this legislative process and outside of the bill we are addressing today. It is unfortunate that the government has not been much more specific in this bill in terms of where we are going to go with the workers’ compensation system and enforcing on the Workers’ Compensation Board some discipline in terms of fair and equitable treatment of the workers of this province.

Of greater concern, many of the new sections of this bill are subject to enormous discretion on the part of that board. This gives the minister his out in terms of who he can blame for the problems of the compensation board, but we would point out that the enormous extent of discretion that has been built into the current regime has not resulted in fairness and justice for workers to date and that adding to this discretion is not likely to be of benefit to workers in the long run.

There are many things that are questionable, arbitrary, unfair, wrong and unacceptable about Bill 162. Today, I will discuss just a very few, because the time is limited. I will start with the minister’s statement on June 20, 1988, when he tabled Bill 162. It goes on at some length about the good things the government is doing and will be able to do more of or better once Bill 162 is implemented. Then it notes: “The overall financial impact of these reforms will be revenue neutral. They will reallocate resources within the workers’ compensation system.”

This pretty much sums up the significance of Bill 162. Every positive step is accompanied by a major regressive move, whether it is increased discretionary power in the hands of board functionaries, financial cutbacks, decreased access to benefits or what have you. They rob Peter to pay Paul. Whatever benefit comes to injured workers from Bill 162 will come on the backs of other injured workers. That is reactionary cynicism at its worst.

The whole history of the workers’ compensation reform in Ontario is a sad testimony to the continuing power of the employers whose only concern is to limit their own costs and financial risks. Ontario’s working men and women pay the price with their health, their backs, their blood and their lives.

In the throne speech of November 3, 1987, the Liberals promised to “take steps to ensure a healthy and safe environment in the workplace.” However, since the Liberals have formed the government, work-related accidents and fatalities have steadily climbed. The Workers’ Compensation Board statistics confirm this disturbing trend.

Meanwhile, the simple truth is that things are just not getting any better. More workers are getting hurt and dying on the job every year, and the minister has not done anything to change that from occurring.

It is very much like the problems we are facing in the health care system today. Rather than address the problem of the health care needs of ordinary Ontarians and their families, the government has become obsessed with the cost of providing it. Never mind that a major part of the cost is due to their receiving improper health care in a needlessly expensive manner; never mind that an endless stream of expert advice says to provide health care through a variety of health professions and in the community, rather than in institutional settings, no, the Liberals simply charge ahead and target hospitals for budget cutbacks.

The same thing has been happening with the worker’s compensation system. Rather than clean up the workplaces of the province, the Liberals want to focus on the cost implications of unhealthy and unsafe workplaces. It is their blind spot and the same fundamental error as they try to come to the assistance, not of the employees but rather the employers who are having to foot the bill. In this case, however, the error is a tragic one because while the minister reassures himself and his government colleagues that big changes are under way, men and women are dying and being injured in record numbers.

And the legislative changes to address the problem? The minister might have something this session and he might not. He does not want to remember that a package of legislative changes that would do the job was accepted at second reading by this House way back in February 1987 and subsequently ignored by this government.

I refer, of course, to the bill in the name of my former colleague Elie Martel. His draft legislation from the previous minority government session received second reading approval from this House in February 1987. But where is it today? If the minister has a better idea, where is it? Where is the action on worker health and safety now that there is a Liberal majority? There is no action from this government.

Where is this government’s concern for working men and women, now that it does not have to listen to their concerns through the mechanism that we had from the accord agreement during the minority government years? In Bill 162, if the Liberals get their way, workers on the job will receive less than they do today in many, many cases. Bill 162, the Liberals’ proposal for the Workers’ Compensation Board, would give injured workers two payments instead of one, but the new pensions will be much smaller. Even today’s meat chart, notorious as it is, would seem much more generous in comparison.

Let’s look at an example that was detailed by my colleague the member for Sudbury East previously in this House. If you are a skilled worker, 45 years old, with a 10 per cent permanent physical disability, today you would get a monthly pension for life of $191. Under the new legislation that is being proposed in this Bill, the Liberal proposal, your monthly pension would go down from $191 to a meagre $23 a month.

In addition, the WCB would be giving you a second payment, based on what it thinks you could earn. But if the board decides you have recovered or if you go back to work, the second payment stops altogether. We believe this system will mean less money for most injured workers and it is an absolute insult to those workers.

If the Liberals get their way, injured workers may not even be able to return to their employers. Sure, the words in the bill sound good. The bill says that employers should hire workers within two years of an injury, but there are so many loopholes that this guarantee really does not mean anything.

Bill 162 will not help you if you are a construction worker. It will not help if you hav