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

December 16, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L081 - Tue 16 Dec 1986 / Mar 16 dec 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FOREST MANAGEMENT

TABLING OF INFORMATION

MUSEUM RENOVATION

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT CENTRES

TOURISM IN EASTERN ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

ADVOCACY SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SHORELINE PROTECTION

TABLING OF INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOMES

SUNDAY TRADING

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

DAY CARE

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

HOUSING POLICY

ADVOCACY SERVICES

STEEL INDUSTRY

IDEA CORP.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

SKILLS TRAINING

LIABILITY INSURANCE

PETITIONS

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

COURTHOUSE

MOTION

REFERRAL OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS AMENDMENT ACT

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT / LOI DE 1986 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE COMTÉ D'OXFORD

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT / LOI DE 1986 MODIFIANT DES LOIS SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

Mr. Gordon: I would like to address my statement to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and ask them to intercede on behalf of technical teachers in this province, who have found that because of the new Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions curriculum guidelines in the high schools and falling enrolment, their jobs are in jeopardy. They are finding it more and more difficult to carry on.

Many of these teachers have sufficient years in the teaching profession that they would like to take the opportunity of the new three-year window of opportunity to retire. Unfortunately, the years they spent acquiring their experience as tradespersons before entering teaching are not counted as pensionable years because they do not belong to a registered retirement savings fund.

We understand that a change to the Income Tax Act would be very helpful in this regard, and I ask both the Treasurer and the Minister of Education to intercede on behalf of these technical teachers. They could not have made the contribution they have made to education in Ontario without that former trade experience. I think we would be serving well people who have served us, our children and the educational system of this province well if we were to intercede on their behalf.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: The Ministry of Labour's inspectors complained early last year about their lack of training. They presented their concerns to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) in May, which prompted the minister to hire McKenzie and Laskin to review the ongoing workings at 400 University Avenue; but before the report has even been released the Ministry of Labour is moving forward with training for the inspectors, which was what led to the original complaint anyway.

The tenders to provide training have been accepted by the ministry. Training will be done by the community colleges, using the Industrial Accident Prevention Association -- can members imagine, with its wonderful track record in occupational health and safety? -- and the Workers' Compensation Board, which will do a major part of the retraining.

It is interesting that the training is just a piecemeal, Band-Aid solution. Why did the Ministry of Labour not wait until Laskin had concluded the inquiry and reported some time this week? Why did it not consult the union involved? No dice; in fact, the Ministry of Labour, with its in-house training program, has taken the same individuals who have been trying to train the workers before. The two people training the inspectors now are known, by the way, as the dog-and-pony show. The Minister of Labour has continued the dog-and-pony show by simply moving it around, in the face of the Laskin investigation which will report within the next three or four days.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. G. I. Miller: I am delighted to inform the House that an agreement has been reached for the management of the Backus woods. As many members know, the Backus woods near the town of Port Rowan have long been recognized as one of the best, if not the best, remaining examples of Carolinian forest in the country. Nowhere else can you see tulip trees, black gum trees and opossum.

This agreement follows policies similar to those used for provincial nature reserves in Ontario. Basically, it means the Backus woods is to be managed and protected for its natural value, especially the large Carolinian trees and the rare plant and animal species.

One of the stumbling blocks that prevented a management agreement earlier concerned the issue of cutting and salvaging trees. This new plan will allow trees to be cut only if necessary for approved management purposes or to remove damaged trees that may be a hazard along trails and roads. However, wood from such cuttings or from wind-topped trees can only be salvaged if doing so will not hurt the surrounding habitat.

I would like to note the special contribution made by the Ontario Heritage Foundation, which has agreed to establish a trust fund to provide yearly funding to the Long Point Region Conservation Authority for management and maintenance expenses for the woods. I hope other organizations will be encouraged to follow the heritage foundation's lead in this area.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: Every member knows that questions in Orders and Notices are an important tool created so that all members may obtain information rightly owed to the people of Ontario. Questions in Orders and Notices are an important exercise in democracy and are often the only means by which detailed information on various aspects of the government may be obtained by the people of Ontario.

There are currently 117 unanswered questions in Orders and Notices. Although the questions deal with a wide variety of subjects, they all have one thing in common. The answer to every question is a matter of public concern. It seems this government chooses to ignore the public's concern.

My colleague the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) tabled a question in December 1985 regarding government travel using government and charter aircraft. As of today, more than one year later, the people of Ontario have heard nothing. I tabled a question in May regarding government cabinet meetings in various parts of the province. Seven months later, the people of Ontario have heard nothing.

I find the arrogance of this government astonishing. With all the talk about no-walls, no-barrier government, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his cabinet consistently ignore the rights of the people of this province. The free hand of spending so evident in the frequent sojourns of this government does not extend to explaining and accounting to the people who foot the bill.

MUSEUM RENOVATION

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to see the provincial government has approved a $250,000 grant to renovate the Sault Ste. Marie Museum. This is an important project for the local historical society, and it has been worked for long and hard by many in our community. After months of delay, we are finally going to see the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture come on side to fund this project.

Under the second phase of the museum restoration project, the front entrance to the building will be restored to its original state, the second floor will be completely renovated and handicapped access will be improved. The museum will transform a downtown heritage building into a cultural centre.

While I applaud this long-awaited announcement, I must deplore the way in which it was handled. I would like to know why the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) and her staff did not even extend the courtesy of an invitation to myself, as the local elected representative who worked for this project, to be in attendance at the announcement earlier today.

Further, I would like to know the rationale that justified having the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) make the announcement in the absence of the minister. That member does not represent Sault Ste. Marie or an adjacent area and has no role in that ministry. This is clearly blatant political opportunism of the worst kind by this Liberal government.

I sincerely hope the Liberal leadership will review its worst memories of the previous Conservative government and work towards its much-proclaimed open government, which we are not seeing today.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT CENTRES

Mr. Callahan: In the light of all that good news from the opposition side and all those nice statements, I would like to rise and thank the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for allocating some $21,000-plus to the region of Peel for the establishment of rehabilitation centres for alcohol and drug treatment. I would also like to thank them for the $200,000-a-year operating fund.

All too often the members in this House seem to use members' statements time to be critical. I am sure the people in Ontario are picking up on the lack of content and substance of the members opposite when they do nothing but criticize.

TOURISM IN EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Villeneuve: I rise to report the further decline in the Liberal government's efforts to promote tourism in eastern Ontario. For some months, the people of Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and Cornwall have witnessed a deterioration in the government's commitment to tourism in this area. In a continuation of this decline, we learned last week that the St. Lawrence Parkway Commission would be closing the scenic Long Sault Parkway over the winter months. In previous years and under previous governments, this parkway was kept open year round. I say to the members of the government that it is a shame. We should be promoting tourism, not discouraging it.

13:41

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Elston: Our government has no higher priority than to see that every nursing home resident in this province receives the care and attention he or she requires and that the quality of life for all nursing home residents is one that promotes their security and independence.

I am therefore pleased to introduce in the House today the Nursing Homes Amendment Act. The amendments reflect the views and suggestions of many interested individuals and groups following broad consultations. I am also introducing the Health Facilities Special Orders Amendment Act to ensure the provisions in both pieces of legislation are consistent in language and intent.

The Health Facilities Special Orders Act is the legislation which empowers the Minister of Health to suspend a nursing home licence and to take control and operate a home when a licence has been suspended.

The amendments to the Nursing Homes Act cover five major areas: the rights of residents, residents' councils, quality of life, nursing home ownership and financial disclosure.

The fundamental rights of residents will be enshrined in law, and nursing homes will be required to operate in such a manner that all residents are accorded the full dignity and courtesy to which they are entitled.

Paramount among these rights is the principle that a nursing home is, first and foremost, the home of its residents. In fact, this is the fundamental tenet upon which all our amendments are based.

The rights of residents will include proper shelter, food, clothing and care, the right to privacy, the right to participate fully in decisions regarding their medical care and treatment, the right to information and the right to pursue their personal interests.

At the very heart of this initiative is our unwavering commitment to ensure that nursing home residents have not only the best possible care but also the best quality of life. Nursing homes must meet not only the physical needs of residents but also their psychological, social, cultural and spiritual needs.

A copy of the residents' rights will be posted in each nursing home, and each resident, along with his or her representative, will also be given a copy. In addition, contracts signed upon admission will be deemed to include the undertaking that the homes will be operated in accordance with these rights.

In order to give residents a stronger voice in the day-to-day management of their homes, we propose a number of amendments that will represent a significant departure from the past. We want to challenge residents to take more responsibility for their lives and we want to encourage their families and friends in the community to become more active in the affairs of the homes.

As a society, we cannot accept the warehousing of our elderly. We must create an environment that respects their independence and nurtures their involvement. Accordingly, residents' councils will be set up at every nursing home wherever at least three residents or their representatives request one.

Further, in order to provide advice to the residents' councils and safeguard residents' rights, an advisory committee will be established. The residents' council advisory committee will be made up of between three and 10 members. Up to seven members will be selected by the residents' council and up to three members will be appointed by the minister from the local community. The residents' council advisory committee will investigate complaints from residents and will work to resolve any disputes.

The committee will meet regularly with nursing home owners. It will examine the ministry inspection reports and financial statements and review the allocation of money for food, supplies and services. Further, the committee is authorized to report to the minister any concerns or recommendations it may have about the operation of a nursing home and to convey to the minister the views and opinions of the residents' council on such issues.

This legislation also authorizes the minister, with the consent of the advisory committee, to appoint an adviser who will assist the committee in carrying out its responsibilities. This residents' council adviser will report directly to the committee. The adviser will be empowered to enter a nursing home at any time to meet with a resident or a member of the residents' council. The adviser will also be able to review the records of the nursing home, including its financial statements, when instructed by the committee to make an investigation.

These are considerable powers. For the first time, residents will be able to get meaningful financial information about their homes. Through their advisory committees, they will have established forums for reviewing complaints, meeting with nursing home owners and making recommendations to the minister.

Also for the first time, agents of the residents' councils will be given full standing as parties before the Nursing Homes Review Board. In addition, residents or their representatives may make submissions at board hearings. These measures will give residents a strong voice in matters affecting nursing home licences.

Further to enhance the role of councils as spokespersons for residents, I am pleased to announce today my ministry will provide $50,000 in funding to the Ontario Association of Residents' Councils.

Other amendments will improve the residents' quality of life in several important ways and enable the minister to enforce the act more effectively. First, the legislation will authorize the minister to enter into a contract with a specific nursing home to provide funding for additional services where there is a proven need. For example, such necessary services may include hiring additional nursing staff or developing new programs for the care of residents with Alzheimer's disease.

This arrangement will allow us to target our resources more efficiently and effectively, to ensure we receive value for every additional dollar spent and to recover or withhold funds when the level of service is inadequate. In short, there will be greater accountability.

Second, the legislation also requires anyone who believes a resident has been harmed, as a result of unlawful conduct, improper or incompetent care or neglect, to report it to the director of the ministry's nursing homes branch. Anyone reporting such incidents will be protected from reprisal. Nursing home owners will also be required to forward all written complaints concerning residents' care to the director.

Staff members from my ministry have met with the Ontario Provincial Police to discuss the issue of reporting criminal incidents in nursing homes. Both parties are now working on setting up a means of responding to such incidents in the most effective way possible. Other options are available in cases that do not involve criminal conduct; for example, prosecution under the act or revocation of a licence may follow. I want to stress that my ministry will take appropriate action on every report it receives.

Third, our proposed legislation provides that if a resident is physically unable to appear in court to give evidence, a justice of the peace may be appointed by a provincial judge to take the evidence from the resident at the nursing home. Residents unable to attend hearings before the Nursing Homes Review Board may also give evidence in their nursing homes. In addition, the liability of a nursing home owner regarding violations of the act is clarified in these amendments. Penalties for noncompliance will be increased to maximums of $5,000 for a first offence and $10,000 for subsequent offences.

Changes in ownership of nursing home licences and management contracts are likely to affect the daily operations of homes and can have a direct bearing on the quality of care therein. Therefore, the proposed amendments will expand and strengthen the ministry's authority to regulate these changes. For the first time, there will be stricter reporting requirements on shareholder ownership, so that the minister will be able to determine not only officers and directors but also who has controlling interest in a nursing home.

In approving or refusing a licence, the ministry will consider the past conduct of those with controlling interest. Their honesty, integrity and competence to operate a home will be assessed. The minister's right to issue or refuse a nursing home licence on the basis of the public interest will also be expanded to take into account criteria such as concentration of ownership and the balance between profit and nonprofit ownership.

A nursing home's financial affairs and quality of care are also linked. Nursing home owners will therefore provide the ministry with annual statements of profit and loss for each home. These financial statements, indicating sources of revenue and how revenue is being spent, will be posted with the annual relicensing inspection reports for the information of residents and their families.

The regulations will prescribe financial disclosure, but clearly our intent is to provide residents with meaningful information. For example, we will require each nursing home to provide a detailed accounting of its expenditures for services and supplies.

Senior citizens living in nursing homes deserve the very best possible care and standard of living. This government will be satisfied with nothing less. I am confident these important amendments will meet our objective.

Mr. Andrewes: With respect to the statement of the Minister of Health, it is rather interesting that such a bold statement of facts as they exist today would require a lockup and all the excitement that went on in the intervening time, particularly since one could quite nicely read the whole report in the Toronto Star this morning.

The minister proposes in his amendments to the Nursing Homes Act to create residents' councils, which exist now in most nursing homes. He proposes to create a residents' council advisory committee; that is simply a transfer of the role of the Nursing Homes Residents' Complaints Committee, which the minister has abandoned. As well, the residents' council advisory committee simply becomes an executive committee of the residents' council that exists now.

Basically, we have a statement of fundamental principles in this legislation. We have what resembles a very weak bill of rights, adding to the fluff the minister has created. If there is any new accountability in this legislation it arises out of a rather greater concern, that the transfer of this accountability is now in the hands of the residents' council advisory committee. It is an abdication of the minister's responsibility for accounting to the residents of nursing homes and to their relatives.

The residents' council adviser, the quasi advocate that the minister proposes in his legislation, has no qualification spelled out. There is no independence from the government for this adviser. We have no new amendments; the amendments are defensive. We have no new program or new dollars. The minister does not address the issue of equality of residents in long-term care facilities across Ontario, whether they are in nursing homes, homes for the aged or any other institution.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I want to take a couple of moments to respond to the Minister of Health. We in this party are very pleased that for the first time in many years a piece of legislation to reform the nursing homes system will be debated in the Ontario Legislature. That is a big step forward.

There are two aspects we are proud of. The original draft bill did not have a bill of rights, but thanks to the pressure that was put on by groups such as Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities and by people such as the leader of my party and other members of our caucus, this bill has a bill of rights it. We are proud that we were part of that process.

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: I remind all visitors in our galleries that they are not to participate in a demonstration in any way.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We are also pleased that a

section of the bill refers to financial accountability, something this party has been fighting for for many years. We will want to see that

section amended so that instead of all the power being granted to the cabinet and being dealt with in regulations, those powers will be spelled out by the members of the Legislature where they should properly be spelled out.

Other aspects of the bill are incredibly weak. The advocacy procedure in this bill is an absolute disgrace and cannot be called advocacy in any way, shape or form. It will be one of the jobs of this party to make sure that is changed when the bill goes to committee for clause-by-clause. There is no movement in this legislation away from the private-profit system, which I think is at the root of the rotten care many residents receive in the nursing homes of this province, and that has to change.

I am only supposed to take a short time, so I want to finish by saying that one of the real disappointments in this bill is that so much power is granted to the minister through regulation. The fact is that in the lockup his officials could not answer any of our questions with respect to what might happen with the regulations. If the minister wants to have a thorough and fair discussion of the nursing homes bill, he should file those regulations with the committee so we can properly see what the intentions of the minister are. We do not intend just to say we are going to trust the minister.

We have been burned too many times in the past and so have the residents of nursing homes in this province. We want it in law and we want to know the government's full intentions.

ADVOCACY SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce today the appointment of Father Sean O' Sullivan to conduct a review of advocacy for vulnerable adults in Ontario.

The impetus for this review comes in part from a submission made last summer by an organization called Concerned Friends of Ontario Residents in Care Facilities and entitled Advocacy Ontario. It was a submission I encouraged the organization to prepare because of my own conviction that there is an unmet need for nonlegal advocacy for vulnerable adults living in institutional care settings and in the community. Vulnerable adult populations include the frail elderly, the developmentally handicapped and the psychiatrically disabled.

In part, also, the impetus for this review comes from the many other organizations that agree on the need for more and better nonlegal advocacy but want careful consideration to be given to ascertaining the best method or methods for delivering advocacy services. These organizations, which also represent vulnerable adults, have put forward a variety of other models for the establishment of independent advocacy services in Ontario.

My colleagues the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Ruprecht) and I share the conviction that vulnerable adults must be heard and that health and social services must respond to their needs.

While we agree on this basic principle, there are still many unanswered questions. It is important to ensure that whatever system of advocacy we put in place will respond to the real needs of the vulnerable adult population. Advocacy must be structured so as to be effective and meaningful. It would be a disservice to everyone to act hastily and to cobble together a solution that failed to address the real problems facing our vulnerable population.

Accordingly, I have asked Father O'Sullivan to conduct a review of independent advocacy for vulnerable adults living in institutional care settings and in the community. He will provide an independent and thorough review of the concept of advocacy and develop various options for the establishment of advocacy services. He will also consider ways in which advocacy might be co-ordinated with existing case management and other service delivery systems and with existing legal and volunteer advocates in the community. Father O'Sullivan will be supported by three advisory groups representing consumers, providers of services and affected ministries.

I have asked Father O'Sullivan to report within six months so that the government can give timely consideration to his recommendations. This review should be seen as the first step on the road to a more effective and sensitive delivery of services to vulnerable adults in Ontario.

Mr. Andrewes: I congratulate the Attorney General on his selection of Father O'Sullivan to review the role of advocacy. I assure him Father O'Sullivan will have this party's co-operation in doing his work.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Today, the Attorney General, or minister of all things as he has become, along with his sidekick the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), the minister without power for the disabled, seems to have been mugged by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services in his incapacity to come out with what we know was his policy. I had printed for him, on page 21 of Orders and Notices, the act he wished to bring in. Instead, all he has been able to do is produce a review by Sean O'Sullivan of the basic needs for advocacy, which those other two ministers are basically stopping being brought in in Ontario.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am pleased to report that this morning in Toronto federal and provincial ministers reached an agreement that will have positive and far-reaching implications for the occupational health and safety of Canadian workers. Specifically, ministers agreed to establish the work place hazardous materials information system, which is known as WHMIS.

What this means is that workers everywhere in Canada will soon have the right, by law, to clear, contemporary information on potentially hazardous materials in their work places. Linked to that right, manufacturers, distributors and users of the materials will be obliged to provide workers with the information they need to make informed judgements about their work places and informed decisions about the healthiest and safest ways in which to work.

As the members know, this assembly has already given first reading to Bill 101, which provides for both worker and community right to know. In other words, we in Ontario have our own machinery in motion. Today's agreement means we will be able to integrate our worker right-to-know provisions with WHMIS and be part of a national effort rather than having to proceed on our own. I think this has constructive implications for Canadian nationhood and this day therefore can be described quite properly as a historic one.

Once WHMIS is in place, here is what it will provide for workers in Ontario and throughout the country.

First, containers will have to be clearly and understandably labelled so the potential hazards of the substances in them are recognizable at a glance.

Second, producers and distributors of potentially hazardous materials will have to provide complete and comprehensive health and safety information to users. This information will come in the form of material safety data sheets. In addition to providing basic physical and chemical data, the sheets will set out potential health hazards, how to prevent them and how to take effective first aid measures should they materialize. The data sheets will also provide information on fire and explosion hazards, means of extinguishing them and special procedures.

Third, WHMIS will require employers to provide workers with the education and training they may need to apply and interpret the material safety data sheets. Should the providers of materials be concerned that detailed information may lead to a breach of a trade secret, they will be able to apply for an exemption. There will also be an appeals mechanism.

It appears WHMIS will take approximately two years to be fully operating in all pans of the country. I hope our own Bill 101 will be passed by this assembly and receive royal assent before the end of the current session so that as many requirements of WHMIS as possible may be satisfied promptly.

I remind honourable members that in addition to the core national standards for labelling, data sheets and training, the Ontario system set out in Bill 101 prescribes the creation and maintenance of substance inventories for not only the workers but also the community at large through the medical officer of health.

In the long term, the prevention of work place illness and injury is the key to ensuring worker health and safety.

Three things lie at the heart of a preventive occupational health and safety system that works: credible, understandable, pertinent and accessible information; the capacity to make effective use of that information; and an unqualified commitment by the work place parties to their individual and mutual responsibilities.

WHMIS will play a major

part in getting good information to workers and helping to ensure they can make effective use of it. In that regard, today's agreement constitutes a benchmark in the fulfilment of workers' rights in Ontario and everywhere in our country.

Mr. Gillies: I fear Christmas must be getting awfully near, because I find myself in the position of having to offer a rare compliment to the Minister of Labour and to congratulate him and his colleagues.

Mr. Ferraro: Even Scrooge has changed.

Mr. Gillies: I might have to turn in my rat ears over this one. I want to congratulate the minister and his federal and provincial colleagues on arriving at the long-awaited WHMIS agreement. It is a very constructive step forward in the area of health and safety in the work place.

As I became aware in discussions several months ago, the minister will be aware that the federal minister was somewhat concerned at one point about the posture Ontario was taking in these discussions. My understanding through my sources is that the input of our provincial ministry into this process was for the most

part constructive and probably led to a better agreement than would otherwise have been.

I congratulate all the federal-provincial ministers for arriving at this. I have waited since Bill 101 was introduced for a flood of complaints from industry about its ability to meet the regulations, and that has not happened. Let us hope it works. With the goodwill of the majority of employers and workers it can work.

Mr. Martel: I will not be as kind to the Minister of Labour as my friend to the right. Let me quote Bob Sass, the former Associate Deputy Minister of Labour in Saskatchewan: "Information in itself will not reduce worker risks. Information is not power, power is power, and industry has all the power under occupational health and safety."

Let me give one simple example that the Minister of Labour could have cleared up. A company in St. Catharines had a data sheet. It removed the data sheet and took that

section from the data sheet which said, "This substance is possibly carcinogenic." The minister knew that and did nothing about it. With this Minister of Labour, workers do not have a chance of survival, despite the bill.

SHORELINE PROTECTION

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I wish to advise the House that the province will implement a long-term program for the management of shorelines along the Great Lakes.

I am pleased today to table a report by the Shoreline Management Review Committee that recommends long-term solutions for managing the Great Lakes shoreline. The committee, chaired by the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), has made fundamental recommendations in four categories: jurisdiction, prevention, protection and emergency response. We are acting on a number of these recommendations right now, and others will be announced in the coming months.

Our first action has to be prevention. This government will be drafting a provincial policy governing shorelines immediately. We must also ensure that we have the most up-to-date mapping possible. We must be able to provide people planning shoreline development with good advice on protective works, floodproofing and effects on adjacent property. There is some mapping of hazard lands carried out under the Canada-Ontario flood damage agreement, but there must be more.

In addition, the public will have to contribute to the important decisions affecting the shoreline. At the suggestion of the committee, I will appoint a Shoreline Management Advisory Council to regularly solicit public opinion and advise the government.

Also, we must act on the issue of protection for the existing development. I have asked my staff, in conjunction with representatives from the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Treasury and Economics, to report back in three months with a comprehensive means of protecting large, vulnerable stretches of the shoreline.

Mr. Pope: Good luck. You guys are batting zero in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have already written to the federal Minister of the Environment to request his support. In the meantime, the government will allocate an additional $700,000 for this fiscal year to expand the technical advisory service program to shoreline property owners and for the provision of sandbags for emergency protection. We will allocate another $1 million to the low-interest loan program. This will bring the total annual level of funding to $4.5 million--and will stem the flow from those people in that corner.

Mr. Warner: What a joke.

Mr. Swart: Thank you, King Canute.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: My colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) has complimented the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). I wish I could do the same for the Minister of Natural Resources, but in all good conscience I cannot, because his so-called long-term solution to a very immediate problem is totally inadequate.

The problem is here now. The minister is well aware that the circumstance we are facing at present is historic highs in terms of water levels, not only with the Great Lakes system but also with inland waterways, as my friends have indicated, particularly my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce).

The amount of money the minister has allocated is virtually an insult when one recognizes the tremendous devastation and damage that is going on in this province. The increase of some $1 million to the municipal program to assist municipalities and home owners to fight high water levels is totally inadequate.

The statements made by his benchmate and colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to the effect that he has not turned down anyone who has requested assistance simply does not bear up in the light of the fact that many municipalities across this province are coming to him on a regular basis, asking for assistance, for funding that is simply not available.

The minister has to get on with the job.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We have not turned anybody down.

Mr. Brandt: They have so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sarnia has completed his response.

Mr. Hayes: I would like to respond to King Canute, the Minister of Natural Resources. It appears that all the minister is doing in this report and long study is designating shoreline property as a hazardous area and doing nothing about the problems, that is dealing with the levels of the Great Lakes. He is not addressing the problem. He is still shirking his duties and continually putting the blame on the federal government. Now that he has taken his head out of the sand, he is in water over his head.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have placed a number of questions under standing order 29(a), on May 27, June 4, June 23, November 4 and November 13. Standing order 29(

a) says I am going to get an answer. It is difficult to get answers out of the swamp, so I want to make a presentation to the guardian of the swamp. It can serve as a reminder during the Christmas holidays that he has to find a way to drain the swamp, so that answers will come to the surface.

Mr. Speaker: Not including the presentation, the member has a point of order. I am sure the government House leader will take note of that.

Mr. Harris: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: Briefly, we associate ourselves with the remarks of the member for Sudbury East. We would be glad to contribute out of our caucus funds to the cost of the gift and associate ourselves in any way we can.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not on the point of order.

14:13

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs.

Mr. Foulds: Pick on somebody your own size.

Mr. Grossman: Okay, the second row. Given the rather outrageous recommendation put forward by his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) yesterday, that rather than increasing inspections in homes for the aged, that rather than tightening up procedures as recommended by the Provincial Auditor, he has instead decided to step out of that field, I wonder whether the minister can tell us whether he supports totally the recommendation by his colleague and whether he is satisfied with a situation where only six inspectors are responsible for all the homes for the aged?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I do not think it is any surprise to the Leader of the Opposition that I get along very well with my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services. Moreover, I support the philosophy with which he is running his ministry. When the issue was raised one or two weeks back and questions were put to him, he made very clear what the philosophy of that ministry and our government is.

While we are talking about homes for the aged, we must also talk about the whole spectrum of institutional care. In the early part of 1987, I will be making a rather complete statement indicating the four main areas of work I will be undertaking at that time, including the development of a new extended care act.

Mr. Grossman: The last thing the seniors of this province need is a new announcement from the minister outlining four new studies he is going to undertake in January, almost two years after he came into office.

We have seen the results of one study done by his colleague. The results of that study contradict totally the white paper the minister put out in June of this year. I want to read to him from his own recommendation:

"The central initiative will be the development of new extended care legislation. The intent is to develop a single improved act which will apply to all providers and establish uniform criteria in such areas as inspection services, programming, staffing, quality of care and physical plant standards."

How does the minister reconcile that recommendation, which he made with regard to increasing and standardizing inspection, with the incredible statement made by his colleague yesterday that he is going in exactly the reverse direction and taking all that away?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I do not think that is the case at all. I have indicated we are going to change the system that was developed by that member's government of 42 years and make it a system that will address itself to the needs of the people it serves.

Mr. Grossman: Those grand statements, which were written for the minister a year and a half ago, have to be measured against what his colleague is prepared to do.

Let us get it straight. This afternoon the minister's colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) rose and attempted to portray an increased vigilance over nursing homes. The Minister of Community and Social Services rose yesterday and did not even try to portray increased inspection of homes for the aged; he went in the opposite direction.

Mr. Harris: At least he is honest.

Mr. Grossman: He said he was not interested in it. He thought it should not be his responsibility. He said he thought the provincial government should not inspect the homes for the aged. He said he believed the situation, in which there are no guidelines for food in those homes, no provisions to prosecute violators and no standards for inspection, is quite acceptable.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: He is prepared to walk away from it and leave it to the homes and their boards themselves.

Seriously, how does the minister justify the complete contradiction between his two colleagues and a total contradiction between the position of his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services and his own position?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: First, I take objection to the interjection from the Progressive Conservative House leader, who said, "At least he is honest," the implication being that I am not. I object to that. I think it is a cheap shot.

Second, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) and I have been working very diligently on a program, a package, for the first time ever. We did not come out with a staff paper, as the party opposite did a few years ago. We have come out with a statement of government policy, the first time any government in this dominion has done so.

Beyond that, let us take one example of something we have done that the former government talked about but did not act on. Members opposite have talked about the needs of the Alzheimer's patient in this province. In 1984, the previous government set up one poorly funded demonstration project in Ottawa and no other programs anywhere in the province. We have established 27 programs since January of this year. We are putting our action where our mouths are.

Mr. Grossman: If the minister wants to suggest that less than $2 million for Alzheimer's patients is a major breakthrough, he will have to answer for it.

14:20

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Grossman: My next question is for the Minister of Labour, if he can try to explain the Sunday shopping circumstance. On behalf of the people of Ontario, I would like to seek some guidance from him.

On December 4, the Toronto Star reported this headline: "Store Staff Cannot Be Forced to Work Sunday, Scott Says." I know the minister wants me to ask the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), but he is going to get it.

Mr. Speaker: I hope so.

Mr. Grossman: So do we.

It goes on to quote the Attorney General as saying, "Any employee who does not care to work on Sunday and who is employed in a trade that is registered by the act is not obliged to work on Sunday." So the Attorney General said.

We called the Ministry of Labour this morning and it answered, "Swamp speaking," and said as follows, "If an employee does not accept work on Sunday, the employer has the right to terminate his or her employment with proper notice or pay in lieu of notice."

Mr. Speaker: Question now.

Mr. Grossman: Who is right, the Attorney General or the minister's staff?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think it would be more useful if the Leader of the Opposition--who has apparently discovered something that party never discovered when it was in government, that is, labour issues--would tell us the question that was asked. It is very difficult to try to guess what the question was. The Leader of the Opposition has offered to us what the response was. I would like to suggest it would be important to know the parameters of the question that prompted that response.

Mr. Grossman: With regard to our party in government, I can only refer to the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), whose judgement I never question, who has called this minister the worst Minister of Labour in 11 years. I rest my case.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind members it is not necessary to make personal comments.

Mr. Grossman: In order to ask the same question, so that he cannot try to duck behind that, I have in my hand a quote from the Attorney General saying: "Store staff cannot be forced to work Sunday. Any employee who does not care to work on Sunday and who is employed in a trade that is registered by the act is not obliged to work on Sunday."

Does the minister agree with the Attorney General that under the current legislation an employee cannot be obliged to work on Sunday?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the Attorney General was commenting on the fact that under the act as it now stands the opening of those stores is illegal, workers who would be working on Sunday would be working in a store that would be open illegally and it would be important that the employers not require the employees to do so. The Attorney General has put the issue very clearly. It is important for the House and for those who are watching to remember that on Thursday this week we will hear from the Supreme Court of Canada and then we will know what situation we find ourselves in.

Mr. Grossman: Now we know why he asked me to ask the Attorney General instead of himself. He is responsible for the Employment Standards Act in Ontario. It is this act that determines--

Mr. Martel: Tell him what it says.

Mr. Grossman: He will find it in the Revised Statutes of Ontario right over here.

The Employment Standards Act gives the minister the responsibility to determine what employees can be required to do and what limits should be placed on the circumstances in which they work. The Attorney General, his colleague, has said employees cannot be forced to work on Sunday. Regardless of what happens in court this Thursday, there will be stores open next Sunday, and employees want to know what their rights are.

Will the Minister of Labour give a straight answer to the employees of this province? Can employees be forced by their employers to work on Sunday? If not, what is the legal authority for him to say they cannot be forced to work?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am simply going to repeat that I think the Attorney General, in making his comments, was referring to the provisions of the Retail Business Holidays Act. He was not referring to the provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

The Attorney General has spoken quite correctly. It is important for us to see what will happen on Thursday. At that time, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, we will see what situation exists then and employees will realize what their situation will be this Sunday.

Mr. Rae: I want to stress that the comments of the member for Bellwoods prompted a lot of discussion in our caucus, and it was a very close decision in terms of rating who has been the worst Minister of Labour in the past 11 years. However, the present minister still won the award.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Rae: I wanted to put that information before the House, Mr. Speaker.

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health arising from his announcement today with respect to nursing homes. In prefacing my question, I want to give credit where credit is due to the members of my party and my caucus, who for a generation have raised questions in this House with respect to the nursing homes industry that other parties did not have the courage to face up to. We take pride in the fact that some small steps have been taken in this legislation to correct a situation that is desperately in need of reform and of change. Change has been very slow in coming.

Can the minister assure the House that any infringement of the bill of rights that is set out in the Nursing Homes Amendment Act in a new subsection 2(1a) will be considered a contravention of the act as set out in

section 19? In other words, will it be enforceable?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable gentleman for his comments. With respect to responsibility for these reforms, these steps forward in dealing with nursing home residents, this party stands to be counted with regard to improving the lot of people who are living in nursing homes. I do not think the member would want to accept all the credit for that situation.

I even suspect there are people in the official opposition who likewise want to see residents in nursing homes provided with better care. That is why I think these reforms and amendments will receive wide support when they are dealt with in second reading and appear before a legislative committee.

As I said in my statement, the basis upon which these amendments are offered is that the residents are in a nursing home and these statements of principle under which the operation of the home will be carried on will be deemed to be part of contracts, if they are not included specifically in contracts signed by residents when they enter homes, and could be enforceable there.

If we find the quality or standards of care to be provided is not in existence, we can enforce them through the pull-back mechanism or in reviewing a request for further licences and other items.

Mr. Rae: The minister has not answered my question directly, which leads me to think the answer is no. It is extremely important.

The minister has put a

section in this bill that has been played right across the province in a number of newspapers, including the Toronto Star this morning, saying he has finally been converted on the question of a bill of rights with respect to seniors. What I am trying to find out is whether there is the power to enforce. We know the minister has completely dropped the ball on advocacy, as has already been stated very eloquently this afternoon by my colleagues the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke).

What I am trying to determine is whether, if an inspector finds a resident has not had the opportunity to communicate in confidence, to receive visits or to consult in private with any other person without interference, that in itself amounts to a contravention or a breaking of the act. If it does amount to a breaking of the act, how is it going to be enforced?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Elston: I indicated to the honourable gentleman how some enforcement provisions under the amendments would take place in terms of the flowing of funds and the accountability required under provision of services.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the gentleman with respect to the question of advocacy. He may have a particular position. We are looking at the advocacy position. We have provided a situation in the amendments where we are supporting the development and strengthening of residents' councils to encourage ongoing dialogue between the people who are living in those homes and the representatives of the people in those homes to ensure the complaints are dealt with in an independent fashion.

I can also tell the member that the Minister of Health continues to be extremely involved in the activities within the homes and will continue to pursue the remedies set out in the amendment act and the remedies that are still in existence under the current legislation.

Mr. Rae: I still have not heard an answer to my question and I have asked it twice. This can only lead me to believe the bill of rights is not enforceable, which is precisely the problem. As my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) said, information in itself is not power, power is power.

Can the minister justify for this House the decision not to require the establishment of advocates for every nursing home so residents would be able to raise complaints without fear, not as a matter of his discretion but as a matter of basic right?

As the minister will know, it is fear, concern about reprisal and concern about future care that pervades the atmosphere of a great many nursing homes when it comes to complaints and infects the whole complaint process today in the nursing home system. Can the minister explain why he dropped the ball when it comes to giving power where it belongs?

Hon. Mr. Elston: No ball was dropped. In fact, encouragement and strengthening of the residents' councils is a fine component of recognition of the valuable work done by the residents' councils that have been established and are functioning. We are looking at establishing further councils.

We encourage the complaint procedure by providing some protections under the sections in the amendment act, as he probably has already seen but failed to indicate. These amendments will assist in accommodating those complaints. We will be providing assistance to people who have complaints by a means of providing evidence to a justice of the peace, for instance, to assist anyone who is in a nursing home and might not be able to get out to testify in front of any tribunal that he might wish to be in front of.

It seems to me we have improved considerably the lot of people in those homes. I look forward to the support of the members of the House so we can proceed with further improving the quality of care of the people who reside in nursing homes in this province.

DAY CARE

Mr. Rae: I want to go now to the Minister of Community and Social Services and take up again the question I raised with him yesterday because it is so fundamental. The events of today cast further light on what a critical juncture we are at in this province.

The minister will know that back in 1972 the nursing home system in this province was changed, a new Nursing Homes Act was introduced and funding was introduced for the first time on a universal basis to private-profit centres. He will know that since then the number of nursing home beds in the province has increased by more than 30 per cent. The number of beds in the not-for-profit sector, the nonprofit sector, has increased by a mere eight per cent when it comes to extended care. The balance between the two has been tilted totally by the decision to go to universal funding.

Armed with that kind of information, can the minister explain why the Liberal Party is so determined to move full steam ahead with funding for-profit child care centres when we know perfectly well the result is going to be the growth of chain developments, multinational developments from the United States, just as it has been in the nursing home sector? We are going to have precisely the same problems in the 1980s and 1990s with child care as we had in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s with nursing homes.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not agree with the analysis of the future made by the leader of the New Democratic Party. The point I made in response to his questions on previous days was that we had an existing situation serving more than half of the supervised day care spaces in this province. There are children in those spaces now. There are families who have chosen, for a number of reasons -- in some cases because they had no other choice -- to use those commercial day care spaces.

The only point we are making is that while that is the situation, it seems to us reasonable, fair and just that we should offer the same kind of economic support to those families as we do to families using the nonprofit sector. It seems unreasonable to me that we should say to families using the nonprofit sector that we are prepared to provide additional funding to keep the rates down, to keep the wages up and to provide for low-middle-income people to be able to afford the service but that we are not prepared to provide the same service and the same support to families who have chosen the commercial sector. I do not think that is fair.

Mr. Rae: In fairness, the minister knows full well the reason families have chosen commercial care in many cases is that they have had no choice in terms of what was being provided to them in their neighbourhoods.

Since we keep hearing the language of fiscal responsibility from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), and since we have limited dollars to spend, I wonder whether the minister can explain to this House why the Liberal Party, when faced with a choice between opening new nonprofit centres and financing commercial centres that already exist, chooses to channel and funnel money to profit operations rather than opening up new nonprofit centres, creating more spaces and more choices for those parents who right now do not have any choice?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In response to a similar question raised by the leader's comment from Ottawa, yesterday I believe it was, I pointed out clearly that the statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and my own statements indicated the position of this government is that new initiatives will be in the nonprofit sector. We have said that clearly. I said it yesterday. I repeat it again. New initiatives will be in the nonprofit sector. That is clear.

Mr. Rae: Let us also be very clear. We have not heard it in the House; we had to listen to the Premier saying it in Vancouver and we had to listen to the remarks of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who apparently was speaking for child care on that day. The minister has also said--let him correct me if I am mistaken--that a new initiative is coming and that the initiative involves direct assistance on a per diem basis for nonprofit operations and for-profit operations.

How can the minister stand in his place and say all the new initiatives are going to be in the nonprofit sector when the major initiative on the part of the Liberal Party, the big-ticket item when it comes to expenses, is going to be a direct subsidy to profit operations in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As part of the previous question, the member referred to scarce dollars. Again, both the Premier and I have said very clearly that because of those scarce dollars, in Ontario and elsewhere, for day care and a whole range of other social programs, I was going to Ottawa--as he had spoken to the Prime Minister to see whether the federal government would be prepared to share with us the cost of that initiative.

I have said very clearly in the House, and I will say it again, that we had great difficulty facing that kind of initiative without traditional federal cost-sharing and that no decision would be made to move forward on those kinds of initiatives, or how we would move forward on those kinds of initiatives, until we knew clearly whether the federal government was going to share in it. When we know that, we will make our decision.

14:40

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

Mr. Andrewes: I want to go back to the Minister of Health on the amendments to the Nursing Homes Act.

Section 17 deals with the appointment of a residents' council advisory committee. What statutory powers does this committee have to enforce its findings or determinations?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Through the amendments, the committee will have the ability to search into questions that are of interest to it regarding the carrying on of operations in the facility. It can discuss problems with the owners, and it can report directly to the minister. I have the ability to do some of the things I spoke about earlier in the provision of services before being reimbursed for money.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that I am paying very close attention to supporting those committees in their endeavours, if they ask me to, by appointing an adviser to assist them.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister has given this committee the right to gather information and the power to report to the minister. He has given it less power than his own inspectors have now. What he has really done is to give them responsibility without any power to enforce that responsibility. If a nursing home owner simply says, "No, I will not do what the residents' council advisory committee says to do," how is the minister going to enforce that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The opening remarks by the gentleman in reply to my statement was an indication that I had given my responsibilities away to the residents' council. I can tell him the minister remains responsible for the enforcement of this act; I will continue to do that and monitor it in a manner that is appropriate from the information that is made available to me.

It is very interesting that the gentleman who is the leader of the new Progressive Conservative Party laughs about people's responsibilities. When he had an opportunity to move in this area, there was no particular movement with respect to the nursing home sector. I cannot understand why that gentleman keeps remarking that more should be done when he had such a long time to deal with this problem. The honourable member did not do the things that were required to ensure that people of this province have fine opportunities to enjoy life in a manner to which they should be accustomed.

These amendments will help us deal with the quality of care issues, and I am pleased the people in the third party are willing and hoping to assist us in discussing this issue in the House, as it should be. I look forward to the constructive input of the honourable members, which I hope we will receive in committee. The former minister might want to tell us why he did not do anything during his tenure.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr. Reville: I want to say "Happy birthday" to the Minister of Housing. I will bet he does not have a briefing note on that.

The Minister of Housing was going to come to grips with the housing crisis on December 16, 1985. How did he do? There are more people in hostels, more people on the streets, more people on waiting lists, more disappointed perspective home buyers and fewer vacancies in rental accommodation.

Now that the Assured Housing for Ontario policy has been exposed as empty words, what is the minister going to call next year's housing policy?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the honourable member for recognizing a year of achievement. I think the member is saying that in 1985, when the previous government set out assisted housing, only 7,195 of those were approved. In 1986, this government approved more than 15,000 units, and that does not include the 3,000 we have to put forward again to arrest the decay in affordable rental units.

My honourable friend is quite right. It is a very sad case that we have taken up in this province, but we are coming to grips with it, as he will see. He was very much an active part of Bill 51, which has made those units even more affordable to those tenants.

Mr. Reville: Speaking of affordability and achievements, I have a document called About Rent Review. It has the minister's name on it and it is lovely, well printed, with a lot of words in it. It took about a year for Bill 51 to come to fruition with the support of my colleagues to the right. However, what the instructions say is that in about 60 days the tenants of Ontario can call up and find out what is going on. What kind of government would say you cannot find out what is going on but in the meantime have a happy holiday season? What kind of government would produce jokes like that?

Mr. Speaker: That is not very supplementary.

ADVOCACY SERVICES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Can he tell the House specifically why he has chosen to reject, at least for the time being, patient advocates for the nursing homes? Was it the cost of putting in that program? Was it the fact that he believes residents do not need the protection of a patient advocate? Why did he reject that option?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman's comment is not appropriate in either situation. He knows we are studying the psychiatric hospital patient advocacy program now, under the guidance of Professor Allan Manson. We are reviewing the benefits and strengths of that system. In conjunction with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), we are looking at a system across Ontario. It seems to me a thorough analysis of that program is very helpful when we attempt to initiate or introduce new procedures into the province.

Mr. Grossman: If the minister's answer is that the Attorney General of studies wants to have a study instead of moving in the area, we understand.

In 1983, the Ministry of Health chose to implement the patient advocacy program in its own psychiatric institutions without having the benefit of a study, without finding an excuse to delay because it needed Father O'Sullivan or anyone else to study the program. At some stage a politician has to have the courage to step forward and say, "Yes, I would like the benefit of further study," but the patient advocacy program has been in place for three years. A study would be nice to have, but it is better to have immediate protection for for the residents of nursing homes and then see how the program works and adjust it if necessary.

Why has the minister chosen the route of the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) of having study after study instead of stepping forward and having a little bit of political nerve and putting in a patient advocacy program for the residents of those nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have indicated we are putting in place much strengthened residents' council activity which will assist the residents in meeting any concerns in a local home. Not only that, we have put up money to assist those people to develop their skills and have indicated that where a request is made we will provide them with some support people who will assist them in carrying out their function.

I do not know what the member has against the activities of residents' councils, but it seems to me we can assist the people who are living in these homes to deal with the questions of how the homes are operated and we can provide those residents with a manner in which they can deal face to face with the owners and provide us, as a ministry, with information that is required to provide us a way of enforcing in situations where care may not be there.

14:50

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Labour about Ontario steelworkers whose jobs are threatened by the import quotas on Canadian steel currently being proposed by Democrats in the United States Congress. At the same time, these jobs are being threatened by continuing dumping of offshore steel right here in the Toronto area. In the US, where our market share is increasing, Canadian steel is being targeted as the biggest problem facing the US steel industry. Senate spokesmen are saying that legislation on steel trade is very likely.

Can the minister tell us what he and his ministry are doing to protect the thousands of threatened jobs in our Canadian steel industry? Can he assure Ontario steelworkers that they will not be the next concession that will be offered to the Americans to keep us in the free trade talks?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The question would have been more properly addressed to my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) or to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who, as the honourable member knows, has been handling the lead responsibility in the free trade talks. This government's action in the free trade discussions and the role the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology have played make it abundantly clear that Ontario will not stand idly by while any discussions or activities threaten the viability of any industry, including the steel industry.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The Minister of Labour should be one of the strongest spokesmen for the workers of Ontario in protecting their jobs, which are being threatened in the current situation. The minister should also know that those jobs continue to be threatened by unfair trade and the dumping of steel into our Canadian market. Algoma Steel is losing business today to offshore producers, who have discounted heavy structural and plate steel from Denmark, Mexico and Spain currently sitting on docks in the Toronto area. What are the minister and his ministry going to do to protect the workers in the steel industry from unfair trade practices?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The question would be properly placed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, but I will take the question as notice on behalf of the minister and discuss it with him as soon as I can get in touch with him.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: We would again like to try to convince the Attorney General of the wisdom of a judicial inquiry into the Wyda matter, and I would like to put the following thoughts to him. When the Ontario Provincial Police report the results of its ongoing investigation, it will put that report before the Attorney General. He will decide which, if any, part of that report should be brought before this House and before the public.

In view of the circumstances of the case, and particularly in view of its political ramifications, would the Attorney General not agree that the more sage and judicious course of action would be for this matter to go to a third neutral party, a judicial public inquiry, where it could be adjudicated without any suggestion or hint of politics?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for his question. He probably agrees that the important thing is to have a complete and full police investigation and to have that report in hand at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Pope: We have no indication from the Attorney General or from anyone else in the government of the scope of the OPP investigation. He refuses to tell us that. Yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said, "If you do not like the fact that you are not getting any information, take the OPP into your confidence and talk to them." We are talking about a unanimous recommendation of the standing committee on public accounts. We are talking about a request in August for a forensic audit, which this government stalled and refused to co-operate with. We are talking about question after question concerning the Attorney General's involvement. I raised it again last Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is.

Mr. Pope: At first he denied he was at that meeting and then he said he was at that meeting. We are talking about a report being made to him when he was at a meeting with principals involved in the OPP investigation.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Pope: Since he was involved in this matter in July, why will he not get this off his desk and have a full judicial inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Scott: To paraphrase another, the reason the report is being made to us is that we are here and they are there. That is point one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is also to the credit of the New Democratic Party. I recognize that promptly.

To turn to the substance of the question, whatever the practice was during the time my honourable friend was the Attorney General, I want him to understand now there is no restriction whatever imposed by this or any other office on the ambit of the police investigation. They will run the investigation and they will determine exactly what they want to do and the way they think it can be most effectively done.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the plight of the gold and mixed-ore miners in Ontario. My friend the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) wants to hear this one.

Once the Muller report was received by the minister, he referred it, as I understand, to the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, which was to decide the criteria. This panel invited Homer Seguin of the United Steelworkers to appear before it on November 14. On November 12, Homer Seguin received a letter from the minister which stated, "I am informed by my staff that the evidence presented in this study is not sufficient to conclude at this time that the excess rate of stomach cancer is work-related."

Why did the minister appoint the panel of experts when his staff has given him all this expert advice? Why did he undercut the industrial disease panel by already deciding on November 6 that cancer was not work-related?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The Industrial Disease Standards Panel will review the findings of the Muller report. As the honourable gentleman knows, a number of claims by the gold and mixed-ore miners have been accepted in some areas over the years; many claims in many other areas have not. The Muller study findings will be reviewed by the panel, and advice will be given to the Workers' Compensation Board about where new claims and new approvals for work-related claims ought to be given.

Mr. Martel: I did not tell the following to Mr. Seguin in a letter; the minister did. He signed the letter. "I am informed by my staff that the evidence presented in this study is not sufficient to conclude at this time that the excess rate of stomach cancer is work-related."

The results of the Muller study identified a 90 per cent increase in lung cancer and a 138 per cent increase in stomach cancer in gold miners, using the health worker effect comparing gold miners with nickel miners. This information is serious, and one must remember this study speaks only to those who worked in the gold mines between 1955 and 1977.

Why did the minister appoint the Industrial Disease Standards Panel and then undercut it by saying there is not sufficient evidence?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will take a look at the letter. The honourable gentleman has read one sentence from it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have spent the past while listening to a lot of nonsense from that side. I have heard a lot of nonsensical so-called facts.

15:00

Mr. Martel: You cannot dispute one fact, nor have you tried.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member asked his question and he is going to get a response. When they are reviewed, they turn out not to be the facts.

Mr. Martel: That is not true and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the members take their seats?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is very clear from what the minister just said that he has accused my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) of presenting incorrect information to this Legislature. I ask you to review the transcript. It was clear that the inference, the insinuation was that my colleague was not telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard a dispute of facts.

Mr. Martel: Oh, no.

Mr. Speaker: I heard another member state deliberately, "That is not true." I think we are getting a little carried away.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have to show some respect.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking you to review the transcript.

Mr. Speaker: I am willing to do that, but we have to try to calm ourselves, and I say that to all members. I will take a look at it but I particularly--

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, I will not make further comment at this time.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Did the minister or his ministry staff promise financial support for the 1986 crop to the growers supplying Natural Fry?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That is not what I would call an accurate statement. This minister was prepared to go before cabinet with a submission to render assistance to the potato producers who had marketed their potatoes to Natural Fry, which recently went into receivership, pending a third-party equity investor in Natural Fry. The third party that had indicated an interest decided at the last minute that it was no longer interested and the banks immediately put Natural Fry into receivership.

I have since taken steps to advise the potato board that I will consider establishing a financial protection program for the potato producers if that is the wish of the potato growers. If it is their wish, then I think we can work something out through the financial protection program for the potato producers who sent their potatoes to Natural Fry.

Natural Fry has been purchased by a company. Although we have been trying to find an opportunity to meet with the owner or to discuss the matter with the owner, he is in New Zealand and we do not know at this time what the owner's intentions are for Natural Fry. We suspect he is going to continue to operate Natural Fry in the province.

Mr. Stevenson: We have statements from Walter Davidson, Brian Cornish, Rudy Heijman and one Ross Whiteside clearly indicating that there were promises by Brian Slemko, George Collin and the minister's deputy clearly indicating that financial assistance would be forthcoming. Furthermore, there were statements from Campbell Soup and a bank manager, who is prepared to state he had calls from the ministry staff saying financial assistance would be forthcoming and therefore to go ahead and advance loans for the 1986 crop to those growers.

Is the minister going to come forward now and assist the growers his ministry hung out to dry on the 1986 potato crop?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: My ministry did not hang anyone out to dry. I am prepared to dispute the statements the honourable gentleman just made in this House. I tell my honourable friend that no member of my staff--no member--indicated to any potato grower that this minister was going to get financial assistance for him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: My, oh my. Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unbelievable. New question. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has been standing for some time and he would like to ask a question.

Interjections.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development, who I understand is to meet shortly with the minister from Ottawa who is responsible for the Canadian Jobs Strategy, Benoît Bouchard. At that meeting, will the minister attempt to get the $130 million which the federal government has not spent in Ontario and apparently is obliged to spend in Ontario in job training?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is right; I am meeting the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration on Thursday morning to discuss these very matters. He points out, or at least he alludes to the fact, that the federal government has not been spending the funds it made a commitment to spend under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I do not want to confirm the precise figure, but $130 million is rather close. The federal ministry has not spent those funds and Ontario suffers accordingly.

I am going to be raising that issue with M. Bouchard on Thursday morning, along with a number of other concerns that we in Ontario have about the Canadian Jobs Strategy, as well as concerns other provinces right across the country have.

Mr. Warner: That mushy answer is not acceptable.

Mr. Hennessy: There is a tiger for you.

Mr. Warner: Thank you. It is strange where you get support from, even from those who do not understand the issue.

The minister entered into the agreement and we have been gypped out of $130 million. He knows the Canadian Jobs Strategy is not much more than a slush fund for private industry, one of the results of which is that immigrant women do not get the kind of skills training help they deserve. I want to know what the minister is going to do to enforce the agreement which, unfortunately, he signed.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I really had the impression initially that my friend from Scarborough-Ellesmere understood something about the Canadian Jobs Strategy and some of its problems, but the fact is that through his supplementary he has indicated he does not understand what he is talking about.

15:10

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I entered into an agreement between myself as Minister of Skills Development and Flora MacDonald, the then minister, for a regime of training under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. It did not represent an endorsement of the entire strategy, which goes well beyond training and which is spending for job creation right across Canada.

The Canada-Ontario agreement on training has specific provisions dealing with training that may be done under this larger policy called the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I am not going to apologize on behalf of the federal government because under its Canadian Jobs Strategy it has failed to undertake the project it said it would undertake. I will raise it with the minister on behalf of this government.

LIABILITY INSURANCE

Mr. Callahan: My question is addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and deals with the report prepared for the minister in November 1986 by the Advisory Committee on Municipal Insurance in Ontario. It is of particular significance to my riding of Brampton, even though the members opposite do not think it is important

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Callahan: There will be a decision shortly with reference to a rather large liability case in Brampton. One of the recommendations made by the advisory committee was:

"The committee also recommends that subsection 4(4) of the Occupiers' Liability Act be expanded to include the following premises as being subject to the lesser duty of care as set out in subsection 4(1) of that act...vacant, undeveloped premises owned by a municipality or local board thereof, as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please; quickly.

Mr. Callahan: In lieu of going through the roundabout process of amending the act, will the minister consider raising the liability for municipalities for acts that occur on their vacant land to that of gross negligence as opposed to simple negligence?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The honourable member knows the report is in the hands of area municipalities throughout this province. We are supposed to get their responses and their statements by the end of 1986. In January, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) will be introducing the report.

PETITIONS

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Cousens: I beg leave to present a petition from several hundred condominium owners in the riding of York Centre residing in Thornhill:

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

"The undersigned beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario strongly urging the government to review the current treatment of condominiums with regard to assessment so that condominiums will be assessed on the same basis as owner-occupied, single-family residences."

At present, the government is allowing discrimination to take place against condominium owners and this should change immediately. The people from my riding ask that the government act on it promptly.

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Brandt: I beg leave to present a petition signed by 923 constituents from the riding of Sarnia:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario." The petitioners are indicating their opposition to Bill 7.

COURTHOUSE

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Last Thursday, at the close of question period, I asked the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) what he was doing to clear up the ongoing misunderstanding between himself and the legal community in Ottawa regarding the number of courtrooms required.

At that time, the Attorney General said, in a somewhat peevish and impatient manner, that if I had been in the Legislature several weeks earlier, I would have heard his total and complete explanation about this problem. It was at the close of question period last week, and because it was at the very end, I did not have an opportunity to state for the record that I was in the Legislature several weeks earlier; and not only that but also that I had raised the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suppose that is a point of information. As members all know, they can correct their own statements. I think you were trying to correct someone else's statement; therefore, it is not a point of order.

Mr. Baetz: It is a point of explanation.

Mr. Speaker: I see.

MOTION

REFERRAL OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the supplementary estimates of the Office of the Assembly be considered in the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly following routine proceedings on Wednesday, December 17, 1986, and reported to the House on Thursday, December 18, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved first reading of Bill 176,

An Act to amend the Nursing Homes Act. Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have no comments but I have a companion bill to introduce.

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved first reading of Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Health Facilities Special Orders Act.

Motion agreed to.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT / LOI DE 1986 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE COMTÉ D'OXFORD

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 178,

An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître propose la première lecture du projet de loi 178, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur le comté d'Oxford.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The legislation will alter the boundary between the township of Norfolk and the town of Tillsonburg. This will implement an agreement negotiated by the two affected local municipalities and their respective upper-tier municipalities, the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and the county of Oxford. The legislation will also make a number of minor housekeeping amendments to the County of Oxford Act.

15:20

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT / LOI DE 1986 MODIFIANT DES LOIS SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 179,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to Municipalities.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître propose la première lecture du projet de loi 179, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur les municipalités et de certaines autres lois relatives aux municipalités.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Ce texte législatif propose une vaste gamme de modifications fort utiles à la

Loi sur les municipalités. Par exemple, il vise à permettre à tous les conseils municipaux d'accorder des prestations supplémentaires à des employés en retraite. Les conseils pourraient également choisir la désignation de leurs membres, soit échevin, soit conseiller municipal.

Le projet de loi propose aussi un certain nombre de modifications connexes ou complémentaires à plusieurs autres lois, dont la

Loi sur les aménagements locaux et la

Loi sur les élections municipales.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved third reading of Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to

section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Scott has moved third reading of Bill 7. All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will say please "nay." In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 167,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The bill will remove the need to amend the Assessment Act each year to prevent the automatic introduction of full market value assessment across the province.

As the members of this House well know, the provincial takeover of property assessment in 1970 was accompanied with the promise of province-wide implementation of market value assessment. Each year for the past 12 years, province-wide market value reassessment has been postponed. In 1978, it was deferred indefinitely because of a lack of consensus among municipalities on appropriate and necessary tax reform measures to accompany its implementation.

It is not the intention of the government to impose province-wide reassessment at market value. For this reason, the bill will amend the Assessment Act to remove the automatic requirement that assessment rolls for every municipality in Ontario must be returned at full market value. In

summary, the bill will provide for the return of assessment rolls at current levels to ensure stability in the local tax base. The government will continue to offer, as a local option, three major reassessment programs: full market value under

section 70, an approach taken in 138 municipalities since 1970; equalization of assessment based on market value under

section 63, voluntarily implemented in 468 municipalities since 1979; and region- or county-wide reassessment, implemented for the first time in 1986 in the regional municipality of Sudbury and involving seven municipalities.

As well, we are presenting 100 impact studies this month to municipalities considering reassessment under these programs for 1987 taxation. Included are the county of Brant and the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk.

Second, Bill 167 deals with condominium assessments. As a result of a Supreme Court of Ontario decision in 1984, approximately 190,000 condominium assessments are reviewed each year in relation to current market value. Last year, about 25 per cent received increases or decreases in their assessments. Condominium households are the only property group treated in this way for property tax purposes.

The bill provides that condominium assessments, like all other property assessments, will not be adjusted each year. The bill will also direct the courts and appeals tribunals in the matter of condominium appeals to adjust the assessment of the condominium so it is at the same level of market value as that of all other single-family homes and condominiums in the neighbourhood. In this way, the bill will ensure that condominium owners are placed on an equal footing for property tax purposes with all other home owners.

Mr. McCague: We will be supporting Bill 167 from the Minister of Revenue. I welcome the

section on condominiums. I think the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) tried to persuade the minister to do this last year, and even though it did take a year we are pleased to see it in there.

The minister will be pleased that we are supporting this. As I recall, the honourable member who is now the Minister of Revenue et al would never let other governments pass this bill for any more than one year because he wanted a yearly reporting of this. He was always saying: "You are doing the wrong thing. Change the process." The member has not been able to change the process, as he found out to his chagrin.

In the region of Sudbury, we welcome the

section 63 reassessments, the impact studies and so forth. They were all good programs brought in by the previous government.

Mr. Foulds: I appreciate the Minister of Revenue's comments. I wonder if the meeting to my right--

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not normally do this, but I would like to hear this speech. I would like not to hear the three speeches that are going on over here.

Mr. Shymko: Tell the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) to sit down and not disturb us.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to tell the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) to sit down and not disturb us.

Mr. Foulds: I have some very brief comments on this bill. It is actually a truly Liberal bill. In the tradition of William Lyon Mackenzie King, this bill achieves a kind of Liberal perfection, as they see it; that is, market value if necessary but not necessarily market value assessment. That used to be the credo of the Progressive Conservative government, but it went too far to the right and lost the last election.

This bill, if it does not deserve enthusiastic support, certainly does not deserve opposition. First of all, it removes the annual embarrassment to all legislators of having to postpone the implementation of market value assessment on a yearly basis. Let us be frank about it, that has been an embarrassment to all legislators in all parties. This minister wants to get off the petard that the Tories hoisted themselves with, and I have a considerable amount of sympathy for that.

More seriously, I think this bill and this amendment indicate just how difficult it is not merely to bring in tax reform, whatever field it is in, but actually to define what tax reform is. There is no doubt that when market value assessment was first implemented or first thought of and when it was thought of as being brought in on a province-wide basis, it was originally seen as a progressive move. However, we found some of the implications of the practicality of implementing it were not so progressive; that is, residential property would be assuming an increasing amount of the local tax base. I want to point that out to the Legislature and the province.

15:30

One aspect of the bill that I think receives universal approval is that there is no reason in the world why condominiums, especially individually owned condominiums, should be treated any differently from any other private residential property. In the strict sense of the word, they have been discriminated against in the legislation up to this point. It is a very healthy sign that at least we are getting condominiums synchronized with the taxation for residential property otherwise owned by individuals in individual dwellings.

That is a healthy step, because it recognizes that condominiums are going to be with us in the future and will probably represent an increasing share of our housing mix.

Since this is a debate on second reading and the principle, I want to spend a few moments on what these amendments to the Assessment Act fail to do. I want to deal with one case.

There is no doubt that my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) was very pleased with the statement by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) last week about the provincial government picking up some of the lost revenue for the township of Marathon. Communities such as Marathon -- in this case, Manitouwadge and White River -- have to service mines outside their jurisdiction and do not get a share of what should be the property tax assessed on those enterprises.

I would like the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue to give very serious consideration to making sure that whenever a mining development such as Hemlo is started, it is designated as part of the municipalities that have to serve it.

We did that in this province by enlarging the city of Timmins to the largest geographic municipality in Ontario so that it would incorporate the mines that town serves in its geographic boundaries and therefore make them subject to local assessment. After literally decades of struggle, the city of Sudbury was enlarged to incorporate the mines of Falconbridge and Inco.

Although it would be difficult in the Hemlo situation, because it is served by three different municipalities, there must be within the Ministry of Revenue and the Treasury the ingenuity and the wit to find a way to declare that property part of the municipalities that service the men and women who work in those enterprises.

The reason this suggestion I am putting forward is so important is twofold. First, it gives the local municipalities the control and the assessment over the local enterprise; therefore, it is not dependent on an annual handout by the provincial government.

The second reason it is very important is so that enterprises such as mining are not subsidized by the taxpayers of Ontario as a whole when the provincial government grant goes to those municipalities in lieu of those enterprises paying taxes.

After all, in northern towns almost every pulp and paper mill -- in fact, I believe every pulp and paper mill -- which is part of a resource-based and resource-dependent community, is within the municipal boundaries of those municipalities and therefore is taxed. The mining sector should be treated the same way. That would accomplish two things. First, it would give the local municipalities more of a tax base. Second, it would relieve the provincial government of having to subsidize those municipalities annually or letting them swing in the wind without the tax base they deserve, which was the case until the announcement by the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue a week ago.

I very much regret that the Treasurer did not take the opportunity to amend the Assessment Act in that way with this bill. It is a bill that does more than one thing. There are three or four clauses in it, and he could easily have done that.

In conclusion, what the bill does is not a great deal, but it does save us some political embarrassment. Where it removes the threat of residential properties taking up an increasing share of the local tax base, we support it.

Finally, it is a shame that an increasing burden is being placed upon property tax. This government has not been able to reverse the trend started under the previous administration, particularly in the last 10 years of its governance, that forced more and more of the social costs and the costs that should be borne by the provincial and federal revenues on to local municipalities.

I was reminded of this very forcefully last week when I made a presentation to the social assistance review in Thunder Bay. Because Thunder Bay is an isolated, large community 400 miles from Winnipeg and roughly 400 miles from Sault Ste. Marie, it receives a number of so-called transients who apply for social assistance. Under the provincial legislation, such people should be deemed to be resident in the municipality in which they make the application, but that does not happen. Often, they are offered a tank of gas and told to get out of town.

That is a shameful way for those people to be treated. People in our society requiring assistance should be treated with humanity and dignity. I need not go through all the arguments for doing that, but one of them is that it is our responsibility to be our brothers' and sisters' keepers. The situations I have described happen at the local administrative level because the local administrators look good to the local councillors if their budgets are underspent, particularly in social services.

Services such as that should be funded 100 per cent by the province. We should remove those kinds of services from a municipal tax base that is based on property. Although we have limited tax revenues available to us in comparison with the federal government, the municipalities have even fewer tax revenues and a lower tax base available to them. Property tax should be reserved for those basic things that service property, such as lighting, sewers, snowploughing, garbage collection, police enforcement and so on.

With those remarks, I conclude my contribution on second reading but indicate support for the bill.

Mr. O'Connor: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words with respect to Bill 167,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act, and indicate I can support the bill in all its clauses.

The principle enunciated in

section 1, that we need not go through this process annually, is an admirable one that perhaps should have been set out in the past. I would also like to make some comments with respect to

section 2.

15:40

I can recall almost exactly a year ago today, in December 1985, rising in my place in this House for a debate on the predecessor bill to this one, which was passed. We have needed to pass one in December of each of the last 10, 11 or 12 years.

At this time last year, I pointed out to the Treasurer, who was then in his place, as he is now, the difficulty and inequity the Assessment Act dealt to condominium owners, who under subsection 65(2) of that act were subject to market value assessment, notwithstanding that the municipality in which they were located may not have opted yet for a market value assessment program. Thus, they were reassessed annually on a basis that, in many cases, was unfair.

I urged upon the minister at that time that some step be taken to redress that inequity and to repeal the provisions of

section 65. I am delighted that the bill before us today repeals subsection 65(2) and substitutes therefor a

section which, in effect, freezes condominium market value assessment until such time as the municipality in which those condos are located opts for a full market value program.

This is particularly applicable to my riding, the town of Oakville, where there are a number of condominiums that have for the most part been subjected to significant increases in taxation annually because of the old subsection 65(2) and where the town is in the process of moving towards market value assessment in that our impact study has been completed, the results of which will be presented at a public meeting on January 8, 1987. It may be only a short time before all of Oakville will be assessed under a market value scheme, and thus fairness will prevail throughout the system to all property owners as well as condominium owners.

I compliment the Treasurer for this

section and for his sensitivity towards the plight of condominium owners, at least with respect to this problem they are enduring.

I regret he did not have the foresight and show similar sensitivity towards condo owners last week when we were dealing with the question of adults-only buildings and the very reasonable exemption I proposed for condominium owners in respect to doing away with adults-only buildings generally in the province. However, most condominium owners in the province know that I and this party attempted to assist them in regard to that problem and that it was the other two parties of this House that saw fit to ignore their plea in this regard.

I will therefore be supporting this bill in second reading and thereafter in its passage through this House.

Mr. Philip: It will come as no surprise that I rise to congratulate the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue on his learning experience. I can recall in very vivid terms how the minister argued with me during his first set of estimates against the very proposals he is now implementing.

In spite of the extensive research I tabled on the inequities in the city of Etobicoke and the city of Toronto to condominium owners, and in spite of the fact there were absolutely no arguments against the fact that under that system condominiums were being discriminated against, he refused at that point even to consider the kinds of reforms he is implementing at present. For whatever peculiar reason, he could not understand that the yearly reassessment in a hot market was creating a grave inequity to condominium owners in comparison to owners of other forms of housing.

As a result of this, I expect a majority of condominium owners in my area--based on research that was done, albeit a couple of years ago--should pay proportionately less in taxes compared to other home owners than in the past. This means that over the years they have actually paid higher than they should have.

I take a certain amount of satisfaction in saying it has finally come. At least this Minister of Revenue did not require, as the previous minister did, a major court case to bring in some kind of reform. At least this minister, unlike the previous minister, did not have to be dragged into it. He at least finally came to his senses and is implementing what we have been asking for, not just of him but for several years of the previous government.

It is good to see the Liberals for once on the side of the condominium owners. I am pleased with the conversion. I hope he will be similarly on side with some other issues, such as bringing forward the new Condominium Act, which is long overdue.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the indications from both opposition parties that they intend to support the bill in principle.

I simply want to make some reference to the fact that for the last 12 years we have had a repeated bill which enabled the assessment rolls to be returned at something other than market value assessment as is required under the Assessment Act.

I certainly did not stand in the way, as the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) has indicated, of the previous government changing what became a totally inane process. It was more or less a bending of the knee to the wisdom of St. Darcy McKeough, who had introduced the concept of market value. With his influence in the cabinet and across the province, he felt he would have no difficulty in imposing market value assessment without any delay and that three or four years would be sufficient; therefore, the Assessment Act that was brought in would make it mandatory that market value assessment be returned in the rolls.

They had a good deal of difficulty in this. Members may recall that the same predecessor, who really had municipal affairs bound into his ministry, Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, was also very much in the way of imposing regional government right across the province as well. While he was successful in imposing it on a great number of our population, that was finally stopped. Premier Davis had the good judgement to announce that there would be no further regionalization. The market value assessment program got stopped too.

I recall Willis Blair, well known to all members of the House in a number of capacities, was set up as a special hearing officer, chairman of a review committee to listen to the views of municipalities and others on how assessment might be extended at market value in a way that would be acceptable to all concerned. His recommendation indicated to the government that the difficulties would continue and the whole program was put in abeyance for a time in the 1970s.

In recent years it has picked up speed again and many municipalities have seen the wisdom of accepting market value assessment. Under my predecessors, the Ministry of Revenue implemented a process of impact studies, which allowed the elected members of the municipal council to look at what the actual effect would be, if not on individual properties at least in areas and communities. They could indicate whether some communities would have a larger proportion of increased taxation as opposed to others. In rural communities, the big question was, what would the effect be on the farmers?

The impact study enabled the municipal councillors to assess the community response, and in many instances the ratepayers themselves would at least have access to the information in general terms so that their responses would be made either more acute or more moderate, depending on the effects they felt would occur in relation to their own properties.

15:50

This concept and policy of establishing impact studies was and continues to be extremely helpful. In many instances, market value assessment decisions would not have been arrived at without impact studies, which more or less indicated the results would not be so traumatic and far-reaching as was thought by some people, who were rather nervous whenever they thought about these matters, particularly those people who continued to attempt to put some sort of political complexion on reassessment. I think that is a very detrimental approach to the benefit of the taxpayers and the good of the community as a whole.

In the days when I was expressing moderate reservation, the approach of an impact study had not been taken to the pinnacle of perfection that honourable members can observe at present, but because of this process, some rather reluctant municipalities were persuaded to go forward at considerable political risk to themselves, and I repeatedly extended as much of my personal congratulations to them as I could.

I think of the council and mayor of Mississauga, who went forward with market value assessment, and I believe the results have been generally acceptable, although from time to time the volcano of public opinion erupts in a rather moderate way. It seems to me that if there was ever a good example of how it can be done effectively by the assessors -- who are professional and well directed -- in a major municipality, with all the difficulties inherent in its size and economic complexion, and be reasonably well accepted by the ratepayers on the basis of overall fairness, that was a good example.

We have also gone on to allow regional reassessments, as in the special case of Sudbury, and we have delivered an impact study to the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. They are considering whether to proceed. Of the 838 municipalities in the province, all but 200 have now had the advantage, in my view, of market value assessment under

section 63 or

section 70.

Of course, some major urban areas are not yet reassessed. Metropolitan Toronto is the most important and largest one. I am glad to remind members that Metro council has indicated at least a reasonable support for market value assessment to occur in the next two or three years. There were reports in the local press in the past few days based on the wording of a letter I sent to Metro Chairman Flynn about the upgrading of the impact study, which is going to be brought up to 1984 values and made available by June 1987 to assist the Metro councillors in making their decision.

I am quite confident that having had the resolution passed by Metro council and being prepared to discuss with it the development of responsibilities for this matter and an understanding of the provisions already in the Municipal Act and the Assessment Act that will permit local and regional municipalities to adjust the impact on individuals, particularly those on fixed and low incomes, it can go forward in a way that will be understandable, accessible, fair and supportable to any reasonable person.

I appreciate the comments on condominium assessment made by the honourable members. I hesitate to agree very much with the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip). He has a way with words that makes it difficult for me to agree with him. He indicated there was a certain learning process as far as I was concerned, and I am not prepared to say he is totally incorrect in that observation. Condominiums are not extensively utilized in my part of the world. Many of my constituents are not sure of the meaning of that word and have so indicated to me. However, even in Brant county we are rapidly catching up with the times.

People are realizing that the concept of condominium ownership is a useful one that is rapidly extending right across Ontario.

I recall when the word was first used in this assembly. When the legislation was brought forward, the assessment of these living arrangements was based on a multi-unit building like an apartment building. It seemed to make sense, until it became apparent that the assessment in an urban area would be at least double that of an individual house. Court actions were entered into, and from a variety of judicial decisions there has been growing complexity and confusion in this matter.

Now the value of the average condominium unit is accelerating very rapidly. Without the freeze proposed in the amendment, condominium owners would experience substantial increases in assessment and therefore pay a larger share of the tax in any municipality. We agree with the comments made by opposition members and by many letter writers that the freeze should be extended to condominium properties identical with other properties, with specific advice given to the courts of revision and the courts in general. I am glad this change has been received enthusiastically and hope it will be seen as substantially improving and increasing fairness in the taxing of real property.

The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) mentioned the problems of taxation in areas of the north where the source of employment is outside the boundary of the municipality. I was very glad to make an ad hoc statement dealing with Marathon and indicating a specific transfer of $500,000 in the immediate future. We will be consulting with the councils of Manitouwadge and White River if they want to participate as well.

We have to come up with a more understandable and reasonable solution. I am not at all sure that extending municipal boundaries to include some gold mining property within some miles of the municipality is the best solution, although that may be the one that would be entered into. It is also possible that a formula for a special grant could be worked out that would be fair and equitable. Some sort of northern municipal support fund could be established, to be allocated in a way that would be seen to be responsive and sensitive to the changing needs of northern communities.

I do not know what the answer will be. The honourable member said very properly that with the very capable advisers available to me in the Treasury, the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and in consultation with the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is also Minister of Northern

Development and Mines, we will surely be able to come up with something, probably to be announced in the next budget, some time in May or whenever.

We ought to be looking at the role of property tax in this and I hope this will be seen to be done as we move forward in tax reform. I appreciate the support of the members. I hope this will go forward since it is somewhat late even now. There will be no difficulty. I am assured by the experts in the field who have done this for the past 12 years that the property tax rolls will go forward to the municipalities in a fair and equitable form. We will continue in our commitment to improving the quality of property taxation in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

16:00

ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bradley moved second reading of Bill 112,

An Act respecting the Enforcement of Statues related to the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am pleased today to speak in support of legislation that dramatically restructures the existing enforcement provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act.

The legislation will provide the courts with a wider range of appropriate effective sentences. It will reduce the cost and length of trials by making it easier to introduce uncontroversial evidence. It will remove barriers to conviction of corporation offenders. It will place a duty of care on top corporate officials. It will improve the efficiency of enforcement by ensuring that straightforward, simple requirements to improve environmental quality can be imposed by the court that convicts polluters.

Stiffer sentences are intended to deter convicted offenders from future violations and to strip them of the profits of their illegal activities, while innovative alternatives to fines will be available, including orders to clean up pollution and to take steps to prevent a repetition of the offence. The judicial process will be streamlined to avoid unnecessary expense and delay without interfering with the fundamental right of defendants to a full and fair trial.

The legislation will also reduce the opportunity for corporations to shift the blame for violations to employees and agents of the company. Indeed, the duty-of-care provision places pollution prevention responsibility where it rightfully belongs, at the top of the corporate ladder.

As Minister of the Environment, I intend to enforce the laws vigorously and even-handedly. This legislation, together with the uniform enforcement policy recently implemented by my ministry, will assist the ministry and the courts to apply the appropriate level of sanction to unlawful conduct. Minor infractions can be recognized as such and punished appropriately, while the courts will have the power to bring down the full weight of the law on flagrant polluters.

The key provisions of the legislation then are as follows: higher fines and imprisonment for serious offences; innovative alternatives to fines and imprisonment to ensure cleanup of pollution and prevent the repetition of the offence; the removal of some evidentiary barriers to conviction of offenders; provisions to ensure that fines levied by the courts are paid promptly and that court orders are carried out; the authority to require that financial security be put up for the abatement projects; and an unequivocal statement that executives and directors have a duty to take all reasonable care to avoid an unlawful pollution incident.

Some Ontario polluters have been profiting by polluting and impoverishing our environment, making us all suffer the consequences of acidic air, dirty recreational waters, contaminated fish, unpotable ground water and despoiled natural landscapes. Paying minor fines has been far less costly for some offenders than paying for effective pollution abatement equipment, implementing more careful operating practices and carrying out preventive maintenance to protect the environment. This new legislation will make it more expensive to violate the antipollution laws than to comply with them.

The new legislation must recognize the special place of corporations in society. The former fine structure failed to reflect the much larger financial resources available to corporations and the greater ability of their activities to cause widespread harm to the environment and to human health.

By incorporating their businesses, individuals obtain privileges they would not otherwise have, including more favourable rates of taxation. It is only fair they should also accept reasonable burdens of incorporation. Higher fines will also help to remove any unfair advantage that may result from this special treatment. Individuals do not generally carry on business on a scale capable of causing massive pollution. These noncorporate polluters are generally unable to pay extremely high fines for major pollution offences.

Inflation has also dramatically reduced the impact of fines, especially for