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

November 9, 1983

32nd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

VOTING ARRANGEMENTS

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FAMILY VIOLENCE INITIATIVES CO-ORDINATOR

HYDRO REACTORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS

HYDRO REACTORS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

SINGLE PERSONS HOUSING

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

FOREST MANAGEMENT

MATERNITY LEAVE

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

MOOSE HARVEST

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

HYDRO CORRIDOR

PETITIONS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX SALES REPRESENTATION ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

NONUNIONIZED WORKERS PROTECTION ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SENIOR CITIZENS

ROYAL ASSENT

NORTHERN ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION

SENIOR CITIZENS

NORTHERN ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

VOTING ARRANGEMENTS

Mr. Speaker: At the request of the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), I have reviewed the proceeding in the committee of the whole House last night. I find that when a standing vote was required on the first amendment to Bill 86, the Deputy Chairman asked for and received the unanimous consent of the committee to defer all divisions of the bill before it until 10:15 p.m. At that point he was required to cause the division bells to be rung to call in the members to vote on all the deferred divisions.

Although standing order 95(

h) does not state the time at which the members are to be called in for all the deferred divisions, a committee of the whole House may define on its own initiative the time at which the Chairman shall call in the members. When the time has been reached at which the committee has instructed the Chairman to call in the members, the Chairman must abide by the instruction of the committee unless the committee orders otherwise.

Mr. Martel: Right, especially when you are in on it, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: There was nothing out of order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ.

Mr. Speaker: You may do --

Mr. Martel: When the Chairman in his place determines that he will not ask a member if he can find a convenient place to terminate his remarks -- Mr. Speaker does that all the time himself --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: It is the manner in which that man conducted himself when he was supposed to be organizing the business of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will resume his seat, please.

Mr. Martel: It will be a long time before there is a stacked vote as far as we are concerned --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of little or no interest to me. Quite obviously, there was unanimous consent and that will carry on.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FAMILY VIOLENCE INITIATIVES CO-ORDINATOR

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday I joined my colleagues, the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) and the Provincial Secretary for Social Development and acting Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. McCaffrey) in announcing a number of initiatives to help victims of family violence. At that time, I was pleased to inform the House that one of the key initiatives in the government's integrated approach to the problems of family violence would be the appointment of a provincial co-ordinator of family violence initiatives within the office of the Deputy Premier.

I believe the establishment of the provincial co-ordinator's position is of the utmost importance to the overall concerted approach announced by the government. The issue of family violence is enormously complex and requires an integrated and comprehensive effort by the various ministries of the government, community agencies and individual citizens. The new position of provincial co-ordinator of family violence initiatives, located in the Ontario women's directorate, office of the Deputy Premier, will ensure that Ontario's response to the needs of victims of family violence will be co-ordinated and strong.

Further, the immediate appointment of the provincial co-ordinator is essential so that discussions can begin at once with other levels of government, particularly the federal government, to launch a concentrated effort to resolve the issue of adequate, stable funding for shelters for battered women. That is why I informed the House on November 1 that further details on the appointment would be forthcoming in a week's time.

I am pleased to be able to announce to the House this afternoon that Jill Logan has agreed to become the provincial co-ordinator of family violence initiatives. Jill Logan has worked within the Ontario civil service for more than 10 years and has carried out a variety of responsibilities in intergovernmental finance policy within the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. Most recently, in addition to holding the position of senior policy adviser for federal-provincial programs, Jill acted as assistant deputy secretary to the cabinet committee on federal-provincial relations.

During the course of her work on federal-provincial financial arrangements, Jill participated in a number of committees reviewing such matters as residential services, services to Indians, services to young offenders and manpower training programs. She was also very much involved in developing the provincial response to federal funding proposals for health, post-secondary education and social services.

I am convinced that Jill's experience in federal-provincial financial and program negotiations, as well as her personal interest in the social issues surrounding this problem, make her a very good choice for this very important position.

In her new role, Jill Logan will co-ordinate the Ontario government's efforts to address the problem of family violence and will help us to assess and prioritize projects to respond to specific problems facing victims.

As a first step, she will move immediately to convene a steering committee of involved ministries within this government. Second, she will be liaising with community groups providing shelter and other services to victims of family violence, to obtain their views and co-operation in developing a comprehensive approach to funding and public education.

Third, the provincial co-ordinator will be participating along with other provincial ministry representatives in discussions with the federal government to provide appropriate and balanced funding over the long term.

Fourth, the provincial co-ordinator will launch a widespread public education and information program to illustrate the dimensions of family violence, assist victims in locating necessary information sources and enlist the understanding and co-operation of all our people.

With Jill Logan in the position of provincial co-ordinator of family violence initiatives, the issue of family violence will receive the leadership and focus that is required to address this very urgent public concern.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson).

2:10 p.m.

HYDRO REACTORS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in committee this morning, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) promised us a statement answering several questions I have asked in the House. I am wondering whether he wants to make that statement now.

Mr. Speaker: The time for statements by the ministry has gone, and we are into oral questions now.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, you can certainly understand the dilemma. I know he has a very long response. He said it was a detailed, complicated response to several questions we had asked. He said he would have it in the House this afternoon. To assist him, I thought we would give him an opportunity to make that statement now.

Mr. Speaker: If the minister wants to revert to statements, he may make a motion.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I have no statement. I propose to table the questions if that is agreeable.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed?

An hon. member: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I will have to locate the various copies of those questions from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: He said he was going to read them.

Mr. Speaker: No. He said he was going to table them.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: I have been advised by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) that he either has or will table the answers to three questions in great length and detail.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I undertook to provide information in response to questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and by the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) with respect to significant event reports, garter springs in Ontario Hydro reactors and radiation exposure to workers during reactor retubing. I would so table those answers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I would like to get a clarification from him with respect to his statement yesterday. Regarding transfer payments, he said:

"We will assure the continuation of restraint by placing clear limits on funding for all public sector wage increases during the coming year. Our grants and transfers to municipalities, school boards, universities and other publicly funded institutions, as well as allocations for our own civil servants, will provide for average compensation increases of up to five per cent for a group."

There is some confusion, or at least I do not understand it. Is the Treasurer now saying that his transfers to these various sectors, i.e. the municipalities, will be at five per cent? Or is he saying he will calculate his transfers assuming a five per cent increase in wages but making allowance for other increases and expenditures? Which is it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The latter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Treasurer now saying that municipal transfers- -- and I use that only as one example -- will go up by more than five per cent? Is he committing himself that he will not put the burden of higher arbitration awards, which are not going to be regulated, on the municipalities? Is he going to allow them extra if they get an arbitration award higher than five per cent?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. Let me clarify this, as I did late yesterday. It was among the last questions asked yesterday.

In the case of almost all municipalities, the ultimate transfers will be at a rate different from five per cent when all the other factors are taken into account. They will be predicated upon the total compensation package -- not just wages but all compensation costs -- increasing by five per cent.

In the case of school boards, municipalities, hospitals and others, each of them has different factors built into its increasing costs for all the other activities it undertakes. We will try to arrive at a fair figure for all those other activities. This will produce an ultimate, final, overall transfer for each one of them. We are attempting to have that for them within four weeks.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the Treasurer explain a little bit more clearly than he did yesterday his authority for the five per cent figure? Is it just the fact that he controls the purse-strings? I did not find it in the legislation. And can the Treasurer further explain why there is no termination date on the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member will see in the legislation, the ability to pay and other matters are to be determined in the light of existing provincial fiscal policy.

Mr. McClellan: So this could change on a whim?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it will not.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The criteria will be set out for the board by way of an indication from the Treasurer on behalf of the government to the Inflation Restraint Board. That will be published in the Ontario Gazette, and it will be very simple: it will be five per cent for the duration of this year.

Mr. Peterson: Now that I understand municipal transfers -- to use them as an example ---will go through on the basis that there will be an increase of five per cent in the compensation component of their transfers, which is fair enough, I have a question for the Treasurer.

The Treasurer is proposing amendments to the considerations that an arbitrator has to take into account. He will be aware that Harry Arthurs, an authority on these matters, said this morning that the new rules would require an arbitrator to consider only such factors as the employer's ability to pay. It is quite conceivable that certain of these agencies will have wage settlements higher than five per cent. How is the minister going to assist those municipalities that are in that situation, or is he going to transfer this burden on to the property taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Quite the reverse. The municipalities, schools boards, certain universities and other public sector employers were among those who suggested they would be greatly aided, at least in terms of understanding that the arbitration procedure was fair, if an ability-to-pay provision were put in the legislation. We have decided to follow that route. Quite frankly, we are not sure what impact that will have, because I presume many arbitrators are already taking ability to pay into account. If they have not been, they should have been.

With respect, I do not think the scenario the Leader of the Opposition is painting is one that is likely as a result of the amendments we have put into the section. They were put in there precisely to protect the property taxayers against an arbitration that does not take into account their ability to carry the costs.

HYDRO REACTORS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, following some discussions we had this morning in committee and anticipating perhaps a response he may have to my questions today.

One of the very serious questions involved in the retubing of Pickering, should that be necessary, is the exposure the workers will have to radiation. He will be aware, no doubt, of the various studies on that subject. Indeed, the latest one we have, in April 1982, the application of shuttle remote manipulator systems technology to the replacement of fuel channels in the Pickering Candu reactor -- that is, the Spar Aerospace study -- operates on the premise that it would take one year to retube one generator and would expose work crews to a minimum of 4,000 man-rems for tube disassembly and replacement.

Given the fact that the federal standards limit one's exposure to five rems per year and that there could be 1,000 workers per reactor, so that for four reactors it could be 4,000 workers or man-years of work over a long period of time, what is the safety factor the minister is calculating? How much radiation is he prepared to expose those workers to, and what are the standards at this time?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is correct. The standard is five rems.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister aware that Ontario Hydro's standard, in spite of the federal standard, has been about one rem per year? Indeed, at Pickering the average exposure has been 0.8 rems and across Hydro it has been 0.6 rems. Is he prepared to expose Hydro workers to five times more radiation on average than they have received up until this time if a retubing is necessary?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I am confident that Hydro will take every precaution to live within the limits. The safety precautions are in place at Pickering, as the Leader of the Opposition is well aware. On one occasion he managed to find himself caught in that difficulty and had to go through a process of decontamination. I am confident that Hydro will live within the guidelines of the Atomic Energy Control Board.

The whole question of retubing, as was suggested this morning, is still up in the air. The whole question of technology is being developed that will reduce the exposure of workers. The question of decontamination of reactors prior to any kind of work, such as retubing, is still being developed and new technology may be going to be available that will reduce that kind of exposure.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, did the minister not find it disturbing this morning that in the estimation of costs for retubing, Hydro admitted before the committee that the costs of the new tools in order to avoid the contamination of workers had not yet been developed, that they were at only a preliminary design stage?

Further, has the minister had an opportunity to talk with his House leader about the minister's commitment that there would be a meeting of a committee of this Legislature with Hydro officials before Pickering unit 2 is brought back on stream?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the latter question is no, I have not had an opportunity to discuss that with the House leader. I think the undertaking was that members would be allowed some forum in which they could come and pose questions to representatives of Hydro and, if they like, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. before the startup of the Pickering unit 2 reactor.

The question of the preliminary design on the Spar Aerospace technology is at the present time being addressed quite seriously in terms of capital investment by the Hydro board. It is being advanced as quickly as possible. It was not advanced as it was proposed earlier because of the thought that those tubes would outlive their anticipated lifespan and that retubing would not have to be undertaken in those reactors before the latter part of the 1980s.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, again, how many workers will it take to retube those reactors? How many will it take for one reactor? How many for all four reactors? Is the minister now prepared to expose those workers to five times the radiation on average that they have received working for Hydro up until this time?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has posed the question of how long it would take. It would take 15 months. What rate of radiation dose is anticipated? The radiation dose is somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 rems to the worker population, and I am confident that Ontario Hydro will live within the five-rem guideline. Provided that the technology and the techniques of decontamination develop, as it appears they might, that five-rem guideline could be reduced further.

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer said in response to a question from the leader of the New Democratic Party:

"As I indicated in the statement, there are anomalies and problems that crop up in these things, and one of the reasons we have opted for this very, very flexible program is that all of those, I believe, can be accommodated in this current year."

Can the minister tell me what specific measures he plans to take so that the injustices and the inequalities that he admits occur in the rollback and the payback cases, such as the Sensenbrenner, Van Daele Manor and Pinewood Court nursing home cases, can be remedied this year under this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the legislation, of course, is to allow the flexibility out there for the parties to sort these things out themselves. That flexibility is clearly out there, and that would make it inappropriate for us to determine or lay out a plan that must be followed in order to deal with those problems.

I should also specify that all I have indicated is that in the Sensenbrenner situation it seemed to us to be fairly clear that the result of the enforcement of the legislation, which the Inflation Restraint Board seemed to have no discretion in enforcing and could not enforce under the legislation, was not the intended impact of the legislation. Therefore, without passing judgement on the decision of the Inflation Restraint Board, all I can say is that it was a necessary consequence of that piece of legislation.

The proper word for all of these things is "anomalies." Everyone wants to place a value judgement on these things as to whether an injustice has been done in one case as against another. All we can say is that with any firm restraint program, such as the one that was required last year, there are going to be unanticipated pressures and inequities that crop up the longer they go on, and now I think they have the option to redress some of those things.

Mr. Foulds: I have difficulty in following the Treasurer's logic. Under Bill 179, the old legislation, there was this specific clause, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations ... terminating in whole or in part the application of this

part in respect of a compensation plan or compensation plans to which this part applies." In other words, there were regulations or powers to the cabinet to exempt agreements, compensation plans and rollbacks. Why that was not used?

Can he tell me why the Premier (Mr. Davis), in a letter to the nurses at the Thunder Bay Home for the Aged -- not the Pinewood Court home but the Thunder Bay Home for the Aged -- said: "Under the provisions of the act the board's decisions are final and binding and cannot be appealed to cabinet"?

Who is right? Is it the Premier in his letter, the legislation as I understand it, or the Treasurer, who has said to us when we raised these questions, "Bring them to me on a one-to-one basis and I will find some flexibility for you"?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me be clear, as always. The Premier is right among those three choices. He is right because he has interpreted the legislation properly, not surprisingly.

Might I also say what I indicated was that in those circumstances, without passing judgement as to whether there was an inequity or an injustice done, there is now flexibility for certain of the parties to redress some of them. If the parties cannot figure out how they might accomplish that, then obviously the Inflation Restraint Board would be happy to discuss the operation of the new legislation with them and assist them in finding mechanisms within the scope of the five per cent transfers for them to adjust those perceived inequities.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is correct in his

interpretation of Bill 179 then there is nothing the Treasurer can do. He does not have the flexibility under that legislation to change his mind, except to bring new legislation into this House to exempt the Sensenbrenner Hospital workers in that situation.

Is it the Treasurer's intention to bring legislation into this House to exempt that situation, or is he going to support the private member's bill that we have presented in this House to rectify that injustice immediately?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The point I was making was that under the new legislation --

Mr. Peterson: I am talking about new legislation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- let me finish -- there are certain steps we believe can be taken within the flexibility of the new legislation that will address and remedy some of the injustices that occurred last year, so that an amendment to Bill 179 is no longer necessary.

Mr. Foulds: If this act, if I recall correctly, comes into effect as of the first of the month and therefore it has no retroactivity with regard to Bill 179, which lapses, can the Treasurer tell me why he is taking no steps so that the injustices that we have enumerated, and that the government has agreed to, have no remedy except to war among themselves?

He has allowed no ability for catch-up, he has allowed no ability for arbitrators to make their usual judgements in their usual framework, which is comparability in other sectors.

Can he tell me how he expects arbitrators to take into account government fiscal policy when he has failed to enumerate that government fiscal policy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me be clear. There is nothing in what has been done, nothing in the two terms we have added to arbitration, that would stop the arbitrator from addressing those kinds of questions. How that arbitrator might choose to deal with them, of course, remains in the hands of the arbitrator. If we had chosen to stop that we would have gone to another piece of legislation more akin to Bill 179.

The whole point I am making is that all of these matters can be addressed by the arbitrator or by the parties in their normal collective negotiations. Let me also make clear that there is nothing in here whereby we have agreed that those are injustices. In fact, what we are saying is something else. We are saying that for those parties --

Mr. Foulds: You sure are. You are saying one thing in here and one thing in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not so. Those parties who feel aggrieved, those parties who feel that anomalies have cropped up that they wish to address, now have the freedom and flexibility, both between employees and between employee and employer, to remedy those injustices.

Mr. Foulds: You are going to do nothing for them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It would become an exercise that would only duplicate what can be sorted out by the parties if we were to come back in here with a piece of legislation amending a bill that is about to expire in terms of its effectiveness on the coming year.

We have provided this fairness and flexibility in the new legislation so it can be sorted out by the parties. What more could they ask?

SINGLE PERSONS HOUSING

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing based on the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto Task Force on Housing for Low-Income Single People, which I have.

The report states there is "no clear mandate for ensuring the affordability of housing for low-income single people" and goes on to point out that there is a range of programs for people like low-income families, senior citizens and disabled individuals. They point out that low-income single people have been excluded from assisted housing to date and consequently must rely on the private sector rental market. This has been government policy for a number of years.

Given that the report states in its conclusions that the new construction of affordable units suitable for single people is not going to happen in existing market conditions and that the only solution to providing affordable housing for low-income single people will be government assistance, specifically provincial government assistance, may I ask the minister when he intends to change the current provincial policy, which excludes low-income single people from access to assisted housing programs?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we have rather clearly indicated that it is not a mandate of the ministry. The report is exactly right.

I want to advise this House that I have not suggested to cabinet, to the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. Grossman) or to the Premier (Mr. Davis) that we should expand the mandate of this ministry. Indeed, in our discussions just a week or so ago with the federal minister and my colleagues from across Canada, this very point came into the discussion and I did not see any desire to move in that direction.

We believe that through some of the programs we have established under the rent supplement program, through the convert-to-rent program, they very well could find there are people in the private sector who are prepared to try to develop units for low-income single people.

Indeed, I look back on some of the things that have happened in this very community. Some corrections in zoning could have been made to allow a certain number of units to stay in existence, but they were put out of use and, frankly, it was in an area where they were desperately needed. That was a municipal responsibility.

Mr. McClellan: I think the minister is attempting to create some confusion. The report deals specifically with the new convert-to-rent programs and the add-a-unit program that was announced last August, I believe, and it points out: "The units created will not be regulated by rent control legislation. Rents will only be scrutinized by the province in the first year." The existing policy of excluding low-income single people from these programs continues to apply.

Does the minister not understand the extent of the housing crisis in this province, which not only affects family units but is absolutely critical for the many thousands of low-income single people who have been hardest hit by the current depression? Surely it makes sense for the government, in the light of the extent of the crisis, to accept the recommendations of this report and specifically, for example, adapt the convert-to-rent program and the add-a-unit program, change the policy so that these programs are available for low-income single people on an affordable housing basis.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I want to emphasize again that it is not my intention to recommend to the government that the policy be changed in this area. I put it in a very clear form to the members of this Legislature and to the public of this province. We have taken unto the government a requirement of providing social housing, some 115,000 units at a cost to the taxpayers of this province of $350 million in the current year, and we continue --

Mr. McClellan: Federal money.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is not the federal budget. I hope the member might want to spend some time in the estimates that are coming up for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He will see clearly there is a substantial amount of money paid by the people of this province in maintaining the public housing portfolio of Ontario. It is not my intention to recommend a change in policy to the government.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the minister's statement in Ottawa yesterday when he said, "Emergency shelter is not an issue with my ministry." My question to the minister, the member for Ottawa South, is, are the people who need emergency shelter because the vacancy rates in Ottawa are two tenths of one per cent not an issue with him as a member or with his ministry?

There are people who need emergency shelter because they cannot pay more than $400 a month, which is the cost of a one-bedroom apartment in Ottawa now. Is that not an issue with him as the member for Ottawa South or with his ministry? Are 500 homeless people in Ottawa not an issue with him as the member for Ottawa South or as the minister of housing? Is that not an issue?

There is a newspaper

article on Joe Vice, a disabled paraplegic who was at the top of the Ottawa housing list but has had to be in emergency shelter for eight months in the Ottawa Young Men's Christian Association. Is that not an issue with the minister, the member for Ottawa South? If it is not, why does he not move over and let a minister of housing come in who has compassion for people in need in Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must advise all honourable members that when they are placing questions to the ministries they must refer to matters pertaining to the ministry and not to the constituency or the riding of the member involved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Ottawa Centre should say he is quoting. He is looking at a story in the Ottawa Citizen of today. If he reads the article, and I doubt he has read the whole thing -- indeed, he was not present when I made the remarks --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the seals over there would stop for a moment and listen, I said clearly at the time when asked about the emergency shelter that the member for Ottawa Centre has been yelling about that, as he should know, emergency shelter is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I made it clear that the municipality has the right to request of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) the appropriation of funding for emergency shelters.

That is exactly what I said. At no time did I use the expression, "I am not concerned" or "not interested." I was trying to define the fact that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is not the one that will be supplying that type of accommodation. I am concerned; I am concerned for what we are doing in the field of housing for those less fortunate in this province.

Back on August 26, I clearly enunciated to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario the fact that this government with its policy was going to expand the potential of the number of rent-support units in Ontario. I said that clearly and distinctly to the city of Ottawa, to the city of Toronto, to Metropolitan Toronto and to the other jurisdictions in this province.

I said what we were looking forward to was to increase the number of rent units on a supplement basis, from 25 per cent of the ratio to 35 per cent with an additional five per cent -- and I trust the member did read the newspaper -- for those who are mentally or physically handicapped. That was a bonus position. We were going to provide that and we made only one request of the municipalities, the housing authorities and the nonprofits. That was clearly to get to one common waiting list in this province for each jurisdiction, based on need rather than a first come, first served basis.

That offer is out to the various housing authorities and municipalities across this province. I have no doubt they are going to accept it. I want to say once again that while we have been able to do that in the provision of additional housing, at the same time we have gone through the Ontario rental construction loan program, the renter-buy program, which freed more and more rental units and, indeed, through the provision of the agreement with the government and the lending program, a percentage of the available units will have come to the housing authority.

We also offered the same opportunity to the private nonprofits and the co-ops under the Ontario community housing assistance program. I might say they have been much appreciated.

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in his capacity of being in charge of the Malvern soil removal situation. I acknowledge the withdrawal of Bill 174 yesterday and the initiatives announced at the meeting on November 7 by the minister and others.

2:40 p.m.

There are, however, a number of questions that remain unanswered about the Malvern soil matter. Among those are whether the minister is going to have the soil removed from under the basements of those houses, whether he is going to monitor the health effects on the residents of the area, whether independent tests will be taken of the radioactive levels there and whether there will be a firm date fixed for the removal of that soil. My question to the minister is, when does he intend to provide us with answers to those questions?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think those questions my friend is reading are from a document that was handed to us at the meeting indicating a number of questions the residents wanted answers to. Those answers are all being prepared by the technical staff of the office of low-level radiation management and are going to be delivered to each of the homes in the Malvern area.

In addition to that, the information officer for the office of low-level radiation management has been visiting each home, yesterday and today, talking with the residents, explaining to them what is going to happen and telling them exactly how the whole move is going to occur. Every possible assurance is being given to them that it will be done properly, all health standards will be maintained, proper monitoring will be carried out and so forth.

I have full confidence in Dr. Cameron and the federal agency that is going to carry out this project that they can do it in a very exemplary manner.

Mr. Elston: I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on the question of those people who have developed a fear of living in the Malvern area as a result of their contact with the low-level radiation and a concern about their loss of investment in the houses in which they live now. Will the minister indicate to us whether he is considering a compensation package for those people who wish to move from the area?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is my understanding that is the subject of a court action. Some of those people are suing the provincial government and others at present, so it would be inappropriate to comment in any way on that.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware of a letter his deputy minister has written this week to the Toronto Star threatening legal action because of an

article that was printed in the weekend Star called "The Rape of Our Forests"?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any letter signed and sent by the deputy minister to the Toronto Star.

Mr. Laughren: Can the minister tell us if he would in principle approve of his deputy threatening to take legal action against the Star for printing information about, among other things, the lack of successful regeneration of our forests in Ontario?

How does he fit that with his refusal and his deputy's -- primarily his deputy's, I suspect -- to provide the New Democratic Party task force with information on regeneration of our forests, despite the fact that it was promised, despite the fact that information on the regeneration of public forests on public land was what we were seeking and the minister and his deputy have refused to give it to us?

How does the minister expect to have an informed debate on forestry in Ontario when, first, he refuses to give information that should be public and, second, when the deputy wrote back to us, he told us the information they have been using was "misleading to say the least"?

What kind of news management is the minister engaging in when he first refuses to give information to the task force and then allows his deputy to accuse the media of misrepresenting the facts on forestry in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Over the past number of years we have provided much information to that particular caucus with respect to forestry matters, both on reforestation efforts and some of the tables we have produced on an annual basis. We have provided, as we are obliged to, a detail of regeneration activities under forest management agreements.

With all of those facts, it has not stopped that particular party from making the kind of factually incorrect statements it makes throughout northern Ontario. It would not matter if they had the facts or not, they would not use them, and that is the reality of it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if the minister and or the deputy find the

article in the Star misleading, would the minister be prepared to make a statement in the House putting his side of the story and setting out for the members exactly where he disagrees with the facts and figures that were contained in that article? Everybody in northern Ontario hates the clear- cuts.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows, and so does the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), about the background of some of the information from the Star article. He knows, for instance, the area that was flown over by the particular reporter is on a regeneration program right now, that it had been scarified and prepared for regeneration, that seedlings were actually growing in the area flown over. It was an area of normal rotational harvest and regeneration activity that was going on in northwestern Ontario and has been for some time. The honourable members know that, and I suspect that is why they did not raise it in the House.

Sure, the

article presented one point of view, and it is up to the writer to determine what point of view the writer wants to present. We happen to believe that some of the information contained is some of the same statements that have been made before. Some tourist operators feel we do not take enough account of their businesses and their needs in terms of access road routes. We had this discussion over many access road routes that were specifically decided upon by this government over the past years.

We have had many meetings with tourist operators and outfitters in different parts of northern Ontario to try to accommodate their needs. In most cases we have been successful. Unfortunately, the successful cases are not necessarily always reported, but I cannot help that.

All I can tell members is that the information that has been requested by the New Democratic Party with respect to survival rates has been provided. That did not stop the member from claiming we were talking about a 25 to 30 per cent survival rate, when information we provided to him shows an 85 to 90 per cent survival rate. That does not prevent him from making those kinds of statements out there.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Minister of Natural Resources is factually incorrect. He refused to provide us with the information we last asked for.

MATERNITY LEAVE

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding another failure of the Employment Standards Act to protect workers in this province.

The issue concerns a worker at a certain southern Ontario hospital who became pregnant and learned she was expecting twins. I think the minister is aware of this situation. She planned to work up until two months before her due date but was unable to because of complications which threatened the lives of her unborn children. She had expected to receive sick benefits because her company sick benefit plan states that all employees are entitled to at least 75 days of sick coverage when legitimately off work. The company's policy manual stated that this plan was specifically designed to prevent loss of income at a time of unexpected illness.

Unfortunately for her, her employer cited

section 35 of the Employment Standards Act as a legitimate reason for putting her on unpaid maternity leave and not paying her sick benefits. The woman was told by ministry staff that there was nothing they could do about the situation because of the wording of

section 35.

Does the minister plan to introduce changes to the Employment Standards Act to ensure this kind of discrimination against women is not allowed to happen again?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular circumstance the honourable member has described, but if he will be good enough to consult with me after question period, I will get all the details from him and be happy to follow up on it.

If the

section requires clarification or requires a study for a possible change, by all means we will be pleased to look at it.

Mr. Wrye: I hope the minister will look into this because there is really a problem within his ministry. I want to read to him a

section from the women's bureau pamphlet of May of this year entitled Ontario Labour Legislation of Interest to Working Women. I want to quote from it briefly. It says:

"Pregnant women are entitled to all benefits covering sickness and disability that occur outside their pregnancy leave of absence. No distinction may be made between complications resulting from pregnancy and other illness for the purpose of sick leave coverage outside the period of pregnancy leave."

2:50 p.m.

The woman involved in this case was told the same thing by her local employment standards branch. Then when the branch checked with legal counsel in the branch in Toronto, it had to rescind that statement. How can the minister let two branches of his ministry be saying different things? Will he promise to act to end this kind of discrimination?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will repeat what I said earlier. I certainly will give a commitment to look into the matter and discuss it with my colleague across the way to see what the circumstances may be.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, at the same time would the minister consider reviewing the maternity sections in the Employment Standards Act? I think he should look at them with a view to bringing them into line with more advanced legislation in other jurisdictions and in some collective bargaining agreements that have been worked out in this area. I do not think our maternity standards have been changed for a number of years. Would he consider reviewing those and possibly improving them?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that those are being reviewed at this very time.

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting Minister of Health. He will be aware that the nursing home services branch appointed two special inspectors with regard to Ark Eden. One of those special inspectors was Debbie Morrow, the director of nursing at Coleman Health Care Centre in Barrie. I wonder if he also is aware that when the yearly inspection by the ministry's nursing home services branch came about it found 11 violations at the nursing home in which she was supposed to be in charge of nursing.

The violations included inappropriate feeding practices -- the food was being given too quickly to the residents. Narcotic drugs were not being stored in narcotic cabinets and therapeutic diets were not being provided as ordered by the physician. There also was very limited evidence of a restorative care program there.

Is the minister aware of that? Why did the ministry appoint someone who apparently was not even following the Nursing Homes Act in the home where she was supposed to be the director of nursing?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I was concerned when I read these reports. I am doing a little checking into this. As far as I can ascertain, this person was competent to do the inspections at Ark Eden. The violations at the Coleman nursing home occurred after Ark Eden. I believe the person involved was away on holidays at the time these violations were supposed to have occurred. I cannot tell the member anything more beyond that. I am looking into it in a little more detail to find out. But I do not believe the credibility of the person doing the inspection and nursing evaluation job at Ark Eden needs to be questioned.

Mr. Cooke: I hope the minister will give a more thorough report when he gets the answers. I would ask the minister if he agrees it is not just the credibility of this appointment that is at stake, it is the credibility of the nursing home services branch. In this case, the nursing home knew its annual inspection was coming up, yet there were at least 11 serious nursing violations of the Nursing Homes Act. What does it say about the nursing home services process in this province when nursing homes deliberately flout the law and still have their licences renewed?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not believe there was an deliberate flouting of the law. The whole process of nursing home inspection is to identify violations of the accepted practices that should be followed and then seek compliance from the nursing home. If they comply at the nursing home, their licence will be continued. That process is continuing today.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the acting minister will remember that on October 11 he promised this House he would look at the coroner's inquest report dealing with the death of Mrs. Catherine Jackson. He said, "If it highlights deficiencies in the inspection service ... we will welcome those because we can then take action to remedy those complaints and deficiencies."

If the minister has had a chance to carry out this review in the last month, I wonder if he could explain to this House why the Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities group has reported that it has received complaints from 26 of Toronto's 37 nursing homes between August 1 and October 31 of this year, and homes such as Barton Place and Lincoln Place have been the subject of more than 10 complaints each?

If there have been that many complaints rampant in Toronto since the minister allegedly beefed up the inspection service, I wonder if he could answer to this House why there still appears to be such a great preponderance of complaints, particularly in the areas I have mentioned?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the report on the particular case I promised the honourable member I would get. I do not have it in front of me here today. I will bring it in and give her the answer in a day or two.

In so far as ongoing matters are concerned, we have always said there is room for improvement in nursing home standards and nursing home care. The aim of this ministry is to try to improve the level of care and the quality of service provided by nursing homes. We are working towards that. It will not be accomplished overnight. I am sure my friend would agree with this. All of us who have constituency offices know that as long as there is a group out there looking for complaints in nursing homes, we will be hearing about complaints in nursing homes.

Mr. Wildman: Why is the ministry not looking for them?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We are looking for them too. We identify those problems every time the inspection is done. If the member wants the inspection report on a nursing home, it will be made public. He can have it after the inspection is done.

Mr. Cooke: That is only the annual report.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The annual inspection report is important. We can see what the deficiencies are and if they have been corrected. That is the aim of the service in this ministry connected with nursing homes.

I would point out that it does not matter how many people we have or how long we do that; I suggest we will still have complaints from nursing homes. There will always be some kind of complaint because it is that kind of service. We will never be able to please everybody.

MOOSE HARVEST

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. I am sure he is aware of the great concern that exists in northern Ontario with respect to the provincial government's handling of the moose hunting system in this province. After the disastrous moose lottery that occurred this year, we are now told by the minister's staff that Ontario has no way of assessing the impact of its new moose harvest system, which is aimed at reducing the moose kill and increasing the size of the herds.

According to a biologist within his ministry: "The truth is, we do not know what is happening to our moose. Our funds have dried up. We do not have a single genuine check station in our region. We do not even have mail surveys this year. Also, we do not have the results from last year's mail surveys. Yet head office has already asked us to submit a moose quota for next year."

Would the minister tell us when this situation regarding moose hunting might be resolved? When will he bring it under better control? Can he give us some assurance that proper funds will be made available so the proper number of check stations and the necessity for aerial surveys can be met? Can he tell us what is happening to our moose herds, which I am sure he would agree are a valuable wildlife resource in this province?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the new selective harvest system is a system that both tourist organizations and sportsmen's organizations in Ontario have been asking this government to implement for five years. We acceded to their requests, as well as to the request of the moose committee of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and implemented a selective harvest system.

From his reading on the issue, the honourable member will know we believe this offers a true control mechanism on the total harvest of our moose population in Ontario. We are aware of a decline in the moose herd, which was projected on the basis of information that was gathered by the field, by individuals such as that one over the period of time, and indicated that in a five-year period there was a decline from 120,000 moose to approximately 80,000, based on the aerial surveys, which have continued and always will continue in Ontario.

3 p.m.

Faced with an 80,000 predicted moose population in the province, and on the basis of the fact that 89,000 residents of Ontario alone were applying for the right to hunt moose, along with approximately 30,000 nonresidents, we knew we had to take measures to put into place a selective harvest system.

Members are aware of the reaction of hunters to any system run by the Ministry of Natural Resources. We therefore contracted out to a private company the devising of a formula for the computer random draw and the actual operation of that draw. Like me, members are aware of the problems with the inversion of the fraction that took place, which led to the date of birth being part of the formula that was used by that company to draw names on a random draw basis. The error of that company in making the draw meant we had to have a second draw.

Members are aware that we increased the number of our tags from 38,000 by an additional 12,000, bringing it up to 50,000. They are also aware that the tourist industry wanted a self- allocation system.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a very complete answer. Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, the minister's response was so complete that I am not sure I understood what he said. Let me pursue the topic with the observation that it would appear the hunt is declining, but apparently it is not known whether it is declining because of the voluntary system of reporting, whether there are fewer hunters reporting kills or just what the situation is. My colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) has made observations on this on more than one occasion.

I do, however, want to pursue the theme of the way the situation exists now, and I am going to ask the minister what he has to observe on the necessity for shooting proficiency tests, which are required in some provinces and which are not required in ours. Is he considering bringing in any kind of requirement for shooting proficiency?

We are also concerned about the amount of illegal moose hunting in this province of ours, again made quite easy, apparently, for such reasons as the lack of a mandatory system for the reporting of kills. Is he considering doing either of these two things -- that is, bringing in some shooting proficiency system or mandatory reporting -- so that we will have a better handle on this problem of kill?

Hon. Mr. Pope: If that is the Liberal Party position on how hunters will have to deal with their government, then I know the hunters will continue to support our government in the future.

Mr. Bradley: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I am getting there. I have six minutes.

The honourable member already knows we have compulsory reporting by the tourist industry for the first time this year through the self-allocation process. He knows we have a compulsory reporting system. He knows we are continuing the voluntary reporting system and going into the compulsory reporting system next year. He knows we are continuing with the aerial surveying. He knows we are continuing with the road checks. In short, he knows the moose hunts in this province are being properly administered.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour related to the October 25 death of an 18-year-old Kingsville man, Carmen Carl Smith, who was crushed to death by a 1,400-pound bail of compressed paper at Essex County Recycling on Walker Road in Windsor.

Can the minister confirm that this plant was never inspected by his ministry although it has been in operation for more than a year and that the ministry did not even know of its existence? If that is incorrect, will the minister inform the House of the dates of the inspections and table the inspection reports'? Can he explain why his inspectors allowed bales of paper to be piled five high at this plant, thus endangering the safety of the workers there?

Further, will the minister table the ministry's investigation report of the fatal accident?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is similar to that just related by the honourable member; that is, the ministry staff was not aware of the existence of this company. Regrettably, that is correct. As far as tabling the inspection report is concerned, we will be pleased to do so.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely incredible that the Ministry of Labour would not have known about this plant.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Martel: If you were following the act, you would have to know.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Will the minister now consider one of the proposals that came out of the New Democratic Party task force, that there should always be a mandatory coroner's inquest in an industrial death? Will he ask the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) to try to change the mind of the coroner in Essex county and see that an inquest into this death is held?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do that. I will speak to the Solicitor General in that respect.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the minister is prepared to call a coroner's inquest in the case of every industrial accident? Will the minister commit this House to that, and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that question should be more properly directed to the Solicitor General. It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. He will be aware that an organization called the Central Ontario Coalition, which operates with the blessing of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague), has applied to the Divisional Court for a hearing. It is hoped that hearing will result in the quashing of the ruling of the consolidated hearings board on the electrical transmission lines in southwestern Ontario.

It is hoped the arguments will prevail that inadequate notice and certain other shortcomings have denied natural justice to the many citizens of the area who feel the decision of the joint board is an incorrect one.

Has the minister decided what stance he and his colleagues in the ministry, in particular the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), may make before the Divisional Court? Is he considering supporting the application by the Central Ontario Coalition?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, it would not be appropriate for me to comment if the matter is before the courts at this time.

Mr. Nixon: The minister will be aware that a matter before the courts which involves the government usually stimulates the appropriate ministry to appear before the judges to offer the government's argument in this connection.

I would hope the minister might get additional advice from the Attorney General or from someone in his own ministry, or perhaps even from Ontario Hydro, particularly in view of the fact that Ontario Hydro itself did not consider them to be well served by the judgement.

Members of cabinet, if they have their wits about them, will respond to a letter written to Hydro and signed by the Chairman of Management Board, copies of which are public and which he has provided, which states briefly as follows:

"I am convinced that local residents should be given a full opportunity to persuade the joint board that plan M3 has significant disadvantages in comparison to the other plans previously rejected by the board.

"Based on these concerns, and in order to ensure the integrity of the planning and approval process,s I suggest that it would be in Ontario Hydro's best interests to initiate a rehearing on the choice of plan."

I personally support the minister wholeheartedly in his view.

Since the Chairman of Management Board has conveyed this view to Ontario Hydro, will the Minister of Energy consider advising his colleagues in the cabinet that the government of Ontario should appear before the court and support a move for a new hearing?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I am prepared to seek the advice of the Attorney General on that matter, but I think it is important to clarify that Hydro has been very forthright in trying to seek that clarification from the consolidated hearings board and has made that direct attempt on one or two occasions.

The board, in arriving at its decision and in writing its decision, has said those matters can be addressed at the route stage hearings. It has advised the complainant groups accordingly.

PETITIONS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions. I might add that I am glad to see most of the concerns contained in them have been addressed by the Treasurer Mr. Grossman).

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

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

The petitions are signed by eight teachers from Brier Park school in Brantford and seven teachers from Grand Woodlands school in Brantford.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have one similar petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition.

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

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act, because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

This petition is signed by 11 teachers at Hornepayne Public School.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that in a major way collective bargaining rights have been restored in the Treasurer's statement, I would like to read the following petition:

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

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the hundreds of signatures which I tabled earlier in a similar petition, I now table with the House another 16 signatures from Wedgewood Jr. school in Etobicoke and from Pauline Avenue Junior Public School.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX SALES REPRESENTATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 113,

An Act to regulate Conveyances of Dwelling Units in Residential Complexes.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in recent years some rental apartment building owners have introduced complicated conveyancing schemes that were apparently intended to skirt condominium conversion controls. The Residential Complex Sales Representation Act I am introducing today should protect people from misrepresentation relating to these apartment ownership schemes. This legislation should help people to realize they are investing in a residential building and not necessarily buying a future home to which they will have immediate and well-defined rights with respect to personal occupancy.

These new conveyancing schemes fall into two general categories. In the first, building ownership is transferred to a corporation. Shares in the corporation are sold to individuals who, by shareholders' agreement, grant each other the right to occupy specific units in the building. In the second, the building is sold to a group of individuals who acquire ownership as tenants-in-common. These co-owners then enter into an agreement granting each other the right to occupy specific units in the building.

The end result is basically the same. People buy an interest in a residential complex, thinking they can automatically occupy a specific unit. This is where the problems begin. First, existing tenants are threatened with eviction by the new building owners who want to exercise what they believe to be their right to occupancy.

Up until last March, the Landlord and Tenant Act, which is administered by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), had been widely interpreted as prohibiting a purchaser in this type of arrangement from taking possession of the unit by evicting the existing tenant. However, a ruling by the Divisional Court reversed that

interpretation. To remedy the problem, Bill 32 was introduced by the Attorney General and became law last May. It amended the Landlord and Tenant Act to restore the tenants' right to retain possession in such circumstances.

The Residential Complex Sales Representation Act deals with problems encountered by such purchasers. The legislation will prohibit the sale or advertising for sale of an interest in a residential complex to a purchaser who is led to believe the interest carries with it a right to occupy a dwelling unit. The bill applies, as did the Landlord and Tenanct Act revision, to all residential buildings with more than six units.

I want to make it absolutely clear that we are not attempting to restrict in any way the common law right to convey property by means of tenancy-in-common, nor are we attempting to restrict the right to corporate ownership of apartments. This bill simply stops representations now being made by some vendors, representations that could grossly mislead potential investors.

Many people who buy interests in these new ownership schemes do not understand the difference between their purchase and the purchase of a condominium unit. This act will help to remove the confusion by forcing vendors to tell potential buyers they are not buying an apartment but only an interest in a building.

Mr. Cassidy: You are legitimizing a loophole; that is all.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Can the member ever be quiet, or must he always yap? Goodness gracious, he is incredible. I am getting like the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). I am just going to over-react to things like that.

Mr. Speaker: Now on with your statement, please.

Mr. Martel: When the Speaker justifies what your chairman did last night --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know. You were justified last night; I am not justified today.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, when the Speaker legitimizes --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not legitimize what anybody did. In fact, if you were to take the time to read Hansard, you would know you had been warned previously.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In doing so, however, the act will permit the vendor to provide the purchaser with a clear and accurate written statement of law on the right to occupancy. To the extent that a legal statement to that effect does not misrepresent the facts, it is not prohibited by this bill.

It is important to note that exemptions are written into this act, including the sale of units covered by the Condominium Act and securities issued by corporations under the Co-operative Corporations Act. Also exempted are sales of interests by vendors who now occupy units.

Under this bill, buyers who are led to believe they can occupy specific units can cancel an agreement or offer to purchase up until the closing of the deal. Even after closing, they can claim damages through the courts for expenses arising from the misrepresentation, such as living expenses.

3:20 p.m.

In closing, I would emphasize again that this is protective and not restrictive legislation. It will make apartment vendors very careful of what they say to potential buyers. I hope members ensure speedy passage of this bill to prevent people from investing in proposals they may not fully understand.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wrye moved, seconded by Mr. Ruston, first reading of Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to prevent employers from requiring employees who suffer from complications of pregnancy to take early maternity leave rather than sick leave. Clause 8(

c) of regulation 282 of the revised regulations of Ontario 1980 provides that disability benefit plans may exclude employees who are on maternity leave from benefits.

NONUNIONIZED WORKERS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill 115,

An Act respecting the Rights of Nonunionized Workers.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a low-cost mechanism whereby a nonunionized worker may obtain a review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board where the worker is discharged or otherwise disciplined for cause and the contract of employment is silent on matters of discipline. At present, a nonunionized worker who is dismissed or otherwise disciplined for cause may have no right of action against his employer notwithstanding the fact that the discipline is unduly harsh, having regard to all of the circumstances.

The bill provides a two-stage process for reviewing complaints involving harsh discipline. Initially a labour relations officer would be appointed to effect a settlement which would be reduced to writing and which would have to be complied with according to its terms. Then if no settlement is reached or where settlement is not likely the Ontario Labour Relations Board would inquire into the matter. The board, if satisfied that the complaint is justified, will have the power to make an order substituting such penalty as is just and reasonable in the circumstances.

The timely introduction of this bill, which presupposes amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, is to provide compatibility to the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cunningham moved, seconded by Ms. Copps, first reading of Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that the regional council in Hamilton-Wentworth voted unanimously that qualified electors in the region be entitled to vote at large for the election of a regional chairman, and indeed there are a number of petitions that would support this as well. The purpose of this bill is to permit qualified electors in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth to elect at large their own chairman of the region.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 51,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act;

Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Gordon moved, seconded by Mr. Shymko, resolution 26:

That, the demographic trend being towards an ageing society, and the future economic and social wellbeing of our province depending on a vigorous, productive and healthy elderly population, this House supports an all-party committee to seek ways of developing, in co-operation with the seniors secretariat and other agencies, a long-term strategy aimed at minimizing the dependency and maximizing the productivity of our future senior citizens.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind the member that he has up to 20 minutes and may reserve any portion of that time for a windup.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve about two minutes at the end of the speech.

As most members are aware, our society is undergoing a demographic shift towards an ageing population. The changes accompanying this shift will be felt into the middle of the next century, disrupting, reshaping and rebuilding our social and economic institutions in the process.

Unfortunately, we have not yet comprehended the full implications of these transformations. In the words of the leading management expert, Peter Drucker:

"None of the headline makers with which we are so constantly bombarded, neither OPEC nor all the promised shortages of food, metal or minerals that are now so widely predicted, nor any other crisis at the moment, are nearly as important, let alone as real, as the changes taking place in population structure and population dynamics. Yet few businesses and fewer governments have even perceived them."

More than 50 per cent of our present population was born between 1946 and 1966. This "big generation" has already brought great changes to our society. Think of the effect the baby boom has already had on our society. In the 20 years following the Second World War, the school system was turned upside down as the number of children enrolling in public schools rose rapidly. Our schools have just begun to recover from this onslaught.

Then, from 1960 to 1980, the baby-boomers converged on the job market. The result has been too many people looking for too few jobs. This "big generation" will continue to have a significant social impact in the decades ahead. Twenty years hence there will be a great many elderly persons with fewer young people following behind.

By the first quarter of the 21st century the growth in the number of the elderly worldwide is expected to be so great that there may be twice as many grandparents as babies. Let me put it this way, in 2025 it is likely that one billion persons will be over 60 years of age; one in three voters in the industrialized countries will be senior citizens.

Such predictions raise the practical question of whether our society will be able to bear the economic and social consequences of an increasingly large and socially dependent segment of the population. They also raise the philosophical question concerning the values assigned to work and productivity and how these values will affect and be affected by large numbers of elderly in our future society.

Generally we take as given our current patterns of living and thinking. We accept, for example, the concept of productivity as one important measure of an individual's worth in the community. Those who are not productive we view with a diminished status. We accept the notion that the young are productive and the elderly have exhausted their productive capacities.

3:30 p.m.

In other epochs, attitudes were the reverse from those of today. The elderly were venerated and held in high social esteem. For example, Aristotle, the most careful observer of the classical world, preferred age and wisdom to youth and physical stamina. He wrote that the body reaches its prime at 35 years of age but the soul reaches its perfection only at the age of 50. I am sure there are many in this House who have reached that state of perfection.

Nevertheless, at present we tend to take for granted the social dependence of the elderly and we should ask ourselves just how this situation, this perception, came about; this change in perception from the time of Aristotle.

All we have to do is read Eric Fromm, who said that old age is a problem created by modern, industrial society. In his view the aged are a problem because they are seen as idle consumers of resources in a society that values productive work. In this sort of system, those who are nonproductive are perceived as social liabilities.

Unfortunately, these attitudes still persist to some extent. Many of our current practices are based on out-of-date policies and anachronistic social attitudes. Nevertheless, I am optimistic enough to believe that attitudes are changing. I believe the message of demographics in the 1980s is that the infatuation with youth is over.

As we approach the 21st century, it is becoming clear that we are entering into a new era of age relations, an era in which the elderly will once again become an important and productive social force in our society.

We stand at one of the great divides of our history. However, I must stress that the shape of the upcoming decade depends on how well the members of the "big generation" understand what we are approaching and what is going to happen to us. Studies investigating the economic and social importance of population ageing have been undertaken only relatively recently.

As late as 1934, the first edition of the Encylopaedia of the Social Sciences included no articles on ageing. Since then, there has been a growing awareness of the need for research and for policies relating to ageing and the elderly. Past decades have witnessed the implementation of a diversity of government programs focusing on issues of concern to the elderly. There have also been many research studies and service organization reports undertaken which have recommended the establishment of needed programs and pointed out new directions for action.

In Ontario, one recent study was a project initiated by the committee on ageing of the Ontario Social Development Council. The project was primarily carried out by senior citizens themselves and consisted of six day-long workshops held across the province. The project involved almost 600 seniors. What is really interesting is that the aim of the project was to provide the elderly with the chance to identify issues of concern and to explore ways of providing possible solutions.

The most significant theme emerging from this project was that elderly persons are anxious to be seen as more than a target group for government services and programs. Nor are they willing to accept the implication that their usefulness and ability to contribute to society are reduced by the fact of their increasing years. To my mind, the above statements encapsulate perfectly the problems of our present-day attitude and treatment of the elderly.

Modern life has improved the older person's living standards and health and increased his lifespan; simultaneously, however, it has taken away from the elderly their productive roles and functions. Programs and policies for our elderly population have been undertaken only in a narrow context in response to specific social or institutional concerns.

Consider, for example, the ongoing federal deliberations on pension reform in Canada. The purpose of this investigation is to find new and better ways to support the elderly. Such an undertaking should surely invoke the areas of health, housing, communications, technology and transportation, to name the most obvious. Should not such an examination also include an analysis of the potentially productive role the elderly could play in our society?

I believe that what has eluded us, as policy makers, is, first, an overall perspective of the place for the aged in our society and, second, a clear understanding of what that place will be in the future.

It is essential for the wellbeing of our province and our country that future policies concerning the aged be multidimensional and, as much as possible, intergenerational. It is only through a co-ordinated and all-inclusive approach that future social and economic plans can be developed in which the elderly can play a

part in contributing to our society's social and economic resources. As policy makers, all of us must join together in examining these issues and planning for the future.

It is for this reason I have introduced my resolution in the House today. I believe all of us in this Legislature must work together in considering the broad implications of the demographic changes occurring in our society. We must sit down together and with the help of seniors, experts and existing bodies such as the seniors secretariat discuss the means through which the elderly can play the most productive and most meaningful role in our future society. We must reassess our present perceptions of ageing and lay the groundwork for new directions in the future. It is in the hope of generating a frank, constructive and noncombative discussion that I introduce my resolution this afternoon.

The one thing I would like to stress to my colleagues is that we must begin planning today for a fast approaching tomorrow. Look at it this way: all the pensioners, senior business leaders or mature workers Canada will have at the turn of the century are already born. Couple this with the fact that our population will age as much over the next 20 years as it did in the past 50 years and the urgency of addressing the issue becomes clear. As the expression goes, "The future is now."

When we are planning ahead we are actually dealing with the present because we are looking at changes in an already existing population. Changes in policy and program planning take time. Examining the programs and the lead times today will allow us to set priorities which give us planning direction and implementation time in the future. Planning must commence for the ageing explosion of the 1990s and the next century.

I want to emphasize that I hope with this resolution we will help to create bridges, that it will assist to make connections which will work towards strengthening the common concerns of all members of this Legislature and those organizations and individuals involved with the present and future concerns of the elderly.

I recall quite well that at the fall policy conference in the social policy session I listened to a very dynamic lady who was most outspoken in her concern for the elderly. The participant in question was Pearl Langer. She spoke eloquently about seniors' concerns emcompassing the area of pensions, housing, women's issues, health care, recreational activities, the needs of friendship and self-respect; in short, the quality of life.

I think anybody who listened to her recognized that the next 20 or 25 years are crucial when we talk of this group. We must remember that our senior citizens are increasingly more educated, more affluent, healthier and more politically powerful than in the past. Simultaneously, better medical care and higher living standards have led to a new group of very old persons with their own special needs.

Susan Sontag has written that getting older is a crisis that never exhausts itself because the anxiety is never used up. Ageing, being a crisis of the imagination, has a habit of repeating itself again and again. It is true that most of us do not look forward to ageing, but we must address this issue. It is sad our modern lifestyles and perceptions have not eased our anxiety about ageing. Modern youth-oriented views have probably increased our anxieties. Old age is a crisis of the imagination, as Ms. Sontag says, but it is also a crisis of public attitudes, a crisis of social policy and social organization. It is a crisis we must address together as fellow citizens.

In concluding, I recall that famous scene in Alice in Wonderful when Alice comes to that junction in the road that leads in different directions. A Cheshire cat is sitting there and Alice asks him where she ought to go. The cat says. "That depends a good deal on where you want to get to." "I don't care much where," says Alice. The cat replies, "Then it doesn't matter which way you go."

We have this advantage over Alice. We do care and we do know where we want to get to. Therefore, it does matter which way we go. This resolution is a call for all of us in this House to take another step in the right direction.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my two colleagues here for their enthusiastic applause.

I want to speak to this resolution. Ballot items introduced by members of the govsernment are generally motherhood resolutions that everyone votes for. They are not usually very specific, and certainly this one is no more specific than the rest. I hoped the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) would introduce a very positive private member's bill in this House; for instance, a bill abolishing the mandatory retirement age, or bills to increase the services offered to our aged population; very positive and progressive legislation of that kind.

I see we have with us this afternoon the former Provincial Secretary for Social Development, the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch), who is listening attentively to the debate. She and I have participated in the estimate process of her former ministry on many occasions and discussed many of the items referred to in the resolution of the member for Sudbury.

It is interesting to note that the government of this province, the party of the honourable member proposing this resolution, has a very poor track record, in my view, of providing services for our elderly and providing constructive opportunities for them to have more fulfilling lifestyles. Our country probably has one of the highest number of institutionalized people as a percentage of our population. Some may say this is because we are providing a lot for our people. Others may argue, and certainly I would, that it merely means when people reach a certain age we put them away somewhere.

That is the view I have of many of our institutions, especially the nursing homes in this province. Granted we need nursing homes and that, by and large, the people who run them do a relatively good job, I do not think as a society we should have a policy that the proper thing to do with older people is to park them away somewhere. Many times I feel this is the policy of the government of this province.

If we were to think of positive initiatives that would be necessary to fulfil some of the things this resolution suggests, first of all, in my own view, we should abolish the mandatory retirement age of 65. If we are going to make people feel useful in our society, we should remove whatever legislation we have that makes them feel useless. That would be an absolute first step to indicate to our elderly citizens that they have just as important a part to play in our society as others.

I fail to see why, after somebody has been living for a certain number of years, 65 in this province, we identify that person as having become useless and no longer able to hold proper and productive employment. At the same time as we have our retirement laws in this province, we find ourselves in the situation where many of our skilled trades people in Ontario are rapidly approaching that age and we have nobody to replace them. That brings up another topic, namely, why we have not properly trained our young people in many areas of productive employment and skilled trades. We could spend a lot of time on that, but that is not what we are discussing here this afternoon.

We are discussing the very productive people who will be forced over the next few years to cease employment when they could be providing very useful service to the people of this province. As I said previously, I think mandatory retirement should be abolished.

My colleague the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) has introduced a very good piece of legislation in this House on a number of occasions in regard to providing a very useful service to the people who are financially disadvantaged in this province, and most of the time those are senior citizens. I am referring to the member's legislation on the lifeline rate structure of Ontario Hydro to assist the people who are at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale by providing them with a basic Hydro rate structure where the first kilowatt hours would be provided at a lesser rate in order to assist the people who need it most.

That is an example of a very positive piece of legislation which could be useful for our senior citizens. While there is nothing wrong with the resolution we see today, it is not very meaningful, in the sense that everybody just votes for it and it dies there because there is no concrete action in this kind of resolution.

We must also find new opportunities to employ our senior citizens. One only has to go and spend a few hours in some of our senior citizens' homes to find out just how bored the residents of those homes are with very little to do. Certainly we must find new opportunities for them.

I am thinking of having some kind of structure where our senior citizens could, if they wished, be gainfully employed in day care, for instance, for our younger and future citizens. A day care crisis looms in this province and we have difficulty finding proper day care for our children. On the other hand, we have a whole segment of our society that is not doing anything, which probably would be very interested in assisting the younger generation and, at the same time, would find something very useful and productive to do.

I see very little effort being demonstrated in that particular area. I know that not all senior citizens want to be baby-sitters and I am not pretending they do, but there are a number of them who would find very interesting and productive hours of work in assisting in the day care process.

Another issue we should be addressing specifically to assist our senior citizens is housing for senior citizens and for the other group that is right near them, whom I will refer to as the near-old for the purpose of this discussion. The group between 50 and 65 are in a terrible housing crisis in this province, especially those who are single.

I have discussed this with the member for Scarborough East on occasion. I have a very difficult situation in my own constitutency when a woman, say, 57 or 58 years old comes to my constituency office and says: "What can I do? I am trying to make ends meet on welfare and it is an absolutely impossible situation." What do you do with a 57- or 58-year-old person who has not worked outside of her home for the last 30 or 40 years, if ever, who has lost her husband last year and who is a unilingual francophone in a community that has 25 per cent unemployment? What am I supposed to tell that constituent?

The difficulty with people of that particular age is that even if economic conditions are good, their opportunities are severely restrained because of the conditions I described earlier. When there is a situation such as we have in Prescott-Russell and in many other parts of this province, though in Prescott-Russell it is particularly severe, where unemployment is that high, such as in the town of Hawkesbury or in communities around that area, what does a person on welfare do to get out of the social assistance treadmill?

In many cases they are not well enough to be working. If they are not well enough to be working, they should be on family benefits allowance. If they cannot get on FBA, it is an absolutely impossible situation of appeal after appeal in front of the Social Assistance Review Board trying to get them on something they should be on. Even in cases where they do manage to get on such programs, we know that they are so severely deficient it is impossible for a person on his or her own to make ends meet even if one is a recipient of family benefits allowance.

3:50 p.m.

In most cases in my constituency it is women who are in that predicament. There are various reasons for that. We men do not like to hear this, but the life expectancy of men is somewhat shorter than that of women. It is not that we want the women to live a shorter life, but we would like to live a little bit longer. The situation in our province is that many of our senior citizens are women living alone who are in a great deal of difficulty.

I notice my time has expired, so I will end my remarks here, although I would have liked to say quite a bit more.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of this resolution. It is very difficult to speak in 10 minutes on a topic I have spent hours writing about in various newspapers and journals and on which I have taught courses.

At the risk of oversimplifying the issue, I would say we are dealing with two types of needs: physical and psychological needs or anthropological and social needs. However, we already know there are many services needed at this time and we do not need any committee set up to deal with them. While the idea of a committee would be useful, not only to educate the public but also to educate members of this House, unfortunately, the government has failed abysmally in dealing with the very issues it already knows the solutions to.

My colleague the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) introduced resolution 17, which members will want to look at. It deals specifically with things that can be done here and now to make the life of seniors more creative and more self-actualized. It would remove many of the frustrations, both physical and psychological, that now exist in their lives. I would refer members to resolution 17 as one area where the government could get off its butt and move immediately without any committee sitting and dealing extensively with the problem.

The Ministry of Health study on evaluation of chronic care in 1977, which was based on the pilot home care programs in Hamilton, Kingston and Thunder Bay, stated clearly that chronic home care is a cheaper service than any type of hospitalization. While it found no conclusive measure, it had a hunch the program is preventing further deteroriation and thus diminishing the need for transfer to higher level care institutions. It pointed out there was a need for comprehensive assessment in identifying the types of patients who benefit most from chronic home care.

In Etobicoke we have had the Rexdale Home Support Services for a couple of years now. It is interesting that the federal government and the municipal governments found funds for it. It is only more recently the provincial government came screaming and biting when they realized that federal funds were closing up. It was only when they realized a whole bunch of people would end up in nursing homes unless they moved that they finally came up with some money to support this very worthwhile service.

The Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens in its 1982-83 report made a number of recommendations to an all-party committee, which this motion calls for. Such a committee might use that as a basis for looking at the challenge. I would like to comment on only a couple of these in the short time I have.

One of the matters it deals with in recommendation 3 is that the province should promote the benefits of and improve the access to pre-retirement education in Ontario. When Greg Merrill, the executive director of the American Association for Retired Persons, and myself, in the early 1970s, started to look at this problem, we were astonished at the poor quality of pre-retirement education in this province, across this country and across the United States as well.

We found there were, by and large, lecture courses at which people who were one month or two months from retirement were talked at, in which they were not told how to cope with living together as husband and wife when they suddenly find themselves together 24 hours a day, but such things as how to find a cheap trip to the Middle East.

Anybody can live with someone on a trip to the Middle East. There is exciting stimulation and so forth. The problem we found was living with one's spouse when that spouse was going to the fridge 10 times a day and was under one's feet, and one had never had to come to grips with that person in a real 24-hour-a-day situation.

We found the real problem that seniors wanted to talk about was the attitudes about themselves, the attitudes of society towards seniors. We developed the first process-centred pre-retirement program in co-operation with the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association in Metro Toronto. From that came a model that has been repeated over and over again in the United States and has been improved on. Groups such as the Ontario Association for Continuing Education, the American Association of Retired Persons, the National Retired Teachers Association and so forth have furthered that and done experimental work with it.

Many of the problems faced by the elderly are not just economic. Equally important is the attitudinal challenge. In recent years work done in the fields of androgyny, gerontology, psychology and social anthropology have shown us that there are models and techniques available not only to help people come to grips with their attitudes about themselves and the fact that as seniors they can be creative, dynamic and a part of society, but also to help society come to grips with the prejudices and stereotypes they have about the elderly.

So little has been done in this province. We spend $40 million on advertising "Preserve it, conserve it," yet we have not once dealt with the problem of the attitudes, the discrimination against the elderly, in any of that advertising.

Work done by Osborne in 1955 showed that seniors were not inflexible, but that through proper training techniques that have been developed they could be as flexible and as creative as younger people. My colleagues and good friends, Syd Parnes, Ange Bionde and others like them in the US, with whom I have had the pleasure, honour and experience of working over the years, have shown that these models and techniques are available if we would only put the bucks behind them and start using them.

An interesting

article by Duncan Robertson and his colleagues in the Canadian Medical Association Journal points out the following in the issue of May 1, 1982, volume 126: "A thorough assessment at, or preferably before, the point at which their health breaks down enables older people to return to and remain in the comrnunity and helps to prevent them from being admitted to an institution while they are still available to function at reasonable independence."

It also goes on to point out: "As the number of old, and in particular very old, people increases in Canada, both in total and as a proportion of the entire population, their impact on the health care system is becoming apparent ... It has been estimated that if the elderly continue to require hospital services to the same degree that they did in 1975, in the second decade of the 21st century all of our present hospital resources will be required just to care for older people."

What I am saying is that we have developed, or are in the process of developing, the technology by which we can prevent that from happening. Interestingly enough, and I see that my time is running out, I would say that one of the things that must be done that is not contained in this resolution, but must be looked at in committee, is the whole need for the development of more culture-free assessment tools of the elderly. I refer members to a recent book by Rosalie A. Kane and Robert L. Kane called Assessing the Elderly: A Practical Guide to Measurement. In the final thoughts in the book they say this:

"We have come full circle now, back to our beginning. Geriatrics and gerontology are evolving as applied disciplines. Their development as branches of clinical care will depend in substantial part on an ability to demonstrate an effective grasp of the problems of the elderly and their solutions.

4 p.m.

"It has been said that the cornerstone of a new specialty is the availability of a technology. Measurement may serve that purpose for geriatrics. Even a casual glance at the demographic forecasts suggests that any effort to improve the science of geriatrics will benefit both students and practitioners."

Therefore, there is the whole field of measurement as well which must be looked at by that committee. I would welcome an opportunity to serve on that committee. I think some of the interesting work I have done over the years in this field might be of help to that committee. I would certainly vote in favour of such a committee being set up as soon as possible.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, do I have the benefit of 10 minutes?

The Deputy Speaker: Roughly 10 minutes.

Mr. Robinson: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in the House today to engage in this important and informative discussion on the trends towards our ageing society.

Let me begin by offering my congratulations to my colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) for bringing this resolution before us today so that we have an opportunity to look at it in a frank and open way.

I was interested in the comments from my friends the members for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), who stressed that the whole issue of ageing is one this government continues to address, as do governments all over the democratic world as we know it. I am certain all members of this House join in sharing the opinion that the senior citizens of this province deserve the very best services we can offer and provide for them.

My colleague the member for Sudbury stressed in his remarks that the time for action is now. Let me say that I believe the honourable member is absolutely correct in that assessment, an assessment that is echoed on both sides of the House.

I am sorry my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) is not here this afternoon, because he is the master of the agricultural homily. However, I offer one I am sure I have heard him say before in pointing out that it is easier to stop a horse that is trotting across a field than it is to stop a horse that is galloping at full tilt. Similarly, in terms of the problems of the aged --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Which end of the horse is speaking now?

Mr. Robinson: If my friend the member for Rainy River is going to be provocative, I am going to ignore it and carry on none the less.

The point I was going to make was that, as we recognize the difficulties and problems of our ageing population, it is much easier, like the galloping horse, to stop it now than when the system and the situation are of crisis proportions.

Perhaps I should more clearly illustrate with some statistics the gravity of the problem that surrounds us. In 1976, well over one third of all Canadians over 65 years of age lived in Ontario. The total of hospital patient-days for those 65 and over was 23.2 million. This figure will nearly double to 45.9 million by the turn of the century and will hit a staggering 70 million by the year 2026, according to a recent study by the Ontario Economic Council.

In terms of percentages, the problem becomes even more evident. A recent Statistics Canada report forecasts that if current hospital capacity and utilization rates remain unchanged, Canadians over 65 will require 71 per cent of all hospital beds by the turn of the century and every hospital bed in the country by the year 2021. This says, in effect, that there will simply be no other hospital bed space available for anyone under 65 years of age if we remain at the current level of development.

Clearly, alternatives to hospitalization must be developed to prevent the inappropriate hospitalization of the elderly. My friend the member for Prescott-Russell said that, in his opinion, when people reach 65 the trend seems to be to institutionalize them and forget them. We say that is equally inappropriate.

I am certain there are individuals who would remedy the situation simply by building more institutions. We do not agree with this and neither, it seems, does the rest of the House. For example, according to the figures currently available to us, if there were to be a demand for twice the number of beds by the end of the century as opposed to those available at present, then perhaps one should simply double the number of facilities to handle the increased load.

There can be no question that, before the need becomes greater, services must be expanded to meet demand. With this in mind, I am happy to note the increased number of nursing home beds and chronic care beds as well as the addition of 13 home care programs implemented by the Ministry of Health in its 1982-83 program.

However, those who look upon that aspect of the health program as a solution will find that they are badly mistaken. While expanding facilities might be a simple and straightforward method of addressing the problem, I contend that it is woefully impractical in view of the overall situation. It is impractical because it fails to address three major obstacles, all of which have a profound effect on decisions to be made in this area.

This scenario fails first because it fails to take into account possible technological innovations in the medical profession. With all the advances in technology, can we really predict today what diseases, illnesses and infirmities are going to affect people in the 21st century?

I might remind all honourable members that years ago certain statisticians felt that unless we tripled the number of hospital beds by the year 2000, we would not be able to care for and accommodate all the patients we have today, in 1983. However, they had not taken into account the fact that those thousands of institutional beds would have stood empty after drugs were discovered that can cure and control tuberculosis and, more particularly, vaccines that were available for polio. By providing a therapeutic solution, there simply was no longer the ongoing and constant demand for hospital beds for those two particularly debilitating diseases.

Injuries such as a fractured hip, an injury particularly prevalent among our senior citizens. would often require two to three weeks of active hospital bed treatment. Now they are dispatched through that type of active treatment in a matter of a few days. We must never underestimate man's innovative ability. We must endeavour to make certain that buildings for our senior citizens of the future are easily adaptable to their changing needs.

The second failure is the basic one of cost. The Ontario government allocated some $2.7 billion in 1982-83 to provide medical care, community care, subsidized accommodation and care in the home. These costs are rising -- as we all know, and we debate it in here with great regularity -- at steadily increasing rates. A professor from the University of Toronto, on the other hand, would have us believe that we would need 72 more 300-bed hospitals by the year 2026. In all programs there is a breaking point. To follow that type of logic, the breaking point for our ability to provide health care would be upon us very quickly.

Third, we have to bear in mind again something that was prevalent in the comments of both the member for Sudbury and my colleagues opposite; that is, we have to take into account not only the physical wellbeing but also the happiness of our senior citizens. We simply cannot institutionalize them, put them away and let it be left at that. We have procedures and regulations that infringe upon the quality of those lives, and we must not allow that to happen either.

We need to offer people options, a continuum of care that allows a range of services that meet the different needs of the individual. I believe we should be giving more encouragement and financial support to those who are trying to stay in their own community. This is a project that was advanced by the then Minister of Health, now the Minister of Treasury and Economics (Mr. Grossman). The stopgap measure might be to build more nursing homes, more institutions of that type. But there has to be a better solution, a more human solution, a human approach to solving the very real problem that is ahead of us.

I am sure I am joined by members on all sides when I say that I oppose any attempt to segregate our senior citizens from the normal life of the community. In fact, it was suggested at that time that perhaps we should engage with great vigour and enthusiasm in a program that would give tax grants back to people who altered or renovated their homes to take in senior citizens who, as my friend the member for Prescott-Russell indicated in his example, might well find themselves on their own without the benefit of experience in the work place at a time in their lives when it would be most difficult for them to take on something new.

I feel that as representatives of the people of Ontario we have a duty to ensure that this province's senior citizens are able to enjoy what are referred to rather casually sometimes as their golden years. With this in mind, we must work towards a system that grants them the opportunity to live in dignity and happiness. This will not result if we follow a course that would bankrupt the system. Rather, I believe it is essential to strive for more community involvement while at the same time ensuring that those who need the facilities have easy access to them.

I feel that sheer numbers will insist that society cannot write off one person in every five as simply useless because he or she has passed the age of 65 years. The sheer economics will dictate that individuals must prepare more extensively for old age. I believe sheer common sense argues that care for the elderly is a matter of concern to all ages.

A British medical biologist said recently that Canada is a model to the world in its treatment of the elderly. That is a statement we can be proud of, no doubt, but it also sets a high level of excellence that we should strive to maintain. That is why we must begin today to set a course that will enable us to continue being the envy of the world.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, that speech might have been the envy of the world, but this resolution certainly is not. Of course, I would have to join with all members of the House in saying that we agree with the nature of the motion. We agree that committees of this Legislature should be looking at these crucial issues on an ongoing basis. We agree. and certainly the member who just spoke, as chairman of that committee, should know, that the standing committee on social development is very well equipped to deal with the kinds of issues that have been raised in private member's resolution 26.

Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to bring the debate down to the level of reality, the reality that exists for people across Ontario because of the absolute bankruptcy of innovative and original ideas by this government. I would like to take a moment to read into the record a headline from the paper in Niagara Falls. It reads, "While She Still Has Breath to Do It, Mother, 87, Appeals to Council for Help in Finding Home for Handicapped Son." The accompanying story starts out in this way: "An 87-year-old mother with a severely handicapped son has asked city council for help in finding a place for him."

It seems to me that when this individual is forced to solicit help from Niagara city council and when the senior citizens department of that municipality is forced to write a letter to the Deputy Minister of Health because it cannot get a proper and appropriate placement for a 67-year-old adult who has been looked after by his mother all his life, then we do have a problem.

That problem goes far beyond striking an all-party committee to find innovative solutions. That problem means providing support for the Thelma Hurds of this world. Heaven only knows, if Thelma Hurd had institutionalized her son those many years ago, she would not have been placed in the predicament she is in today.

The reason this province is among the most institutionalized in the world is that it has not had innovative or creative solutions to keeping relatives and friends at home. In fact, we have had a propensity to institutionalize. When we see a situation where an 87-year-old mother cannot get support for her 67-year-old disabled son, then we recognize we have a problem.

Our party will support this resolution, but I would have been far happier to rise and speak in support of it had the member for Sudbury suggested that there be a stipend, a per diem or a tax credit to help those citizens who are struggling to keep their relatives and loved ones at home.

It is fair to say that every Ontarian, if possible, would rather have the support system. But when we have a promise such as the chronic home care promise that was made by this government many years ago and was not kept -- we were supposed to have chronic care across this province by last year; we may have it by the end of this year, but even that is debatable -- it is obvious that while this government espouses platitudes and discusses a private member's resolution about what it is going to do about support services for seniors, its record belies a commitment that is totally different.

M. le Président, j'aimerais faire un petit commentaire parce que c'est evident que notre Parti va supporter la résolution telle que présentée par le député de Sudbury. Mais je serais beaucoup plus contente si sa résoution parlait des vrais problèmes des individus, aussi bien dans le nord de l'Ontario que dans le sud. Et par exemple, je peux parler du comité du rapport des services francophones en Ontario, les services qui traitaient aussi des vieillards, qui a siégé sur le docteur Jacques Dubois.

Cela fait déjà depuis 1975 que l'on a présenté un rapport qui délinéait la situation abominable pour la livraison des services pour les vieillards, les services de la santé au nord de l'Ontario. Et jusqu'à date, on a même été obligé d'aller à genoux pour plaidoyer la situation de l'accueil médical francophone en Ontario. Je trouve qu'il est inacceptable que l'on continue à faire des resolutions, à demander d'avoir un regard unanime ou un comité tripartite pour discuter des problèmes déjà très connus.

In respect of the resolution, I believe the key issue to be addressed is, what has this government being doing in those areas over the past number of years? The issue of housing has already been addressed.

In the area of psychogeriatric services, I need only point out the abominable situation in northern Ontario vis-à-vis the availability of psychiatrists. When we have an individual physician like Dr. Duckworth in the community of Timmins, who was literally forced to work to rule before he could attract psychiatrists, allegedly with promises that were made by the Ministry of Health, we realize that those people are facing a lot more than a mere resolution. They are facing a reality of underservicing on a daily and a weekly basis.

The policy of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in this province has reached the point where it is not only asking senior citizens who have applied and are lucky enough to be eligible for senior citizens housing to provide a list of their bank accounts, jewels, contents of their safety deposit box and any other personal item they might have within their disposal, but this year it is also asking them to sign over their right of privilege so that the local bank manager can write a letter ascertaining their level of income.

This government does not believe the word of a senior citizen or the signature on an Ontario Housing Corp. form. In fact, they have to get verification from the bank manager. This seems to me to say that while on the one hand this government is calling for greater services and more accountability and more integration of the senior citizens of this province, it is not even prepared to take them at their word when it comes to a declaration of income.

Would it not be far better if they at least asked the senior citizens for access to their T4 slips, which has been done in other cases and which appears to be the practice in other ministries? No, they ask the senior citizens not only to photograph their guaranteed income supplement and old age cheques but also to provide a letter allowing a bank manager to account for every penny they have in their bank accounts.

It seems to me that on the one hand we are saying that our seniors are equal, fair and contributing members of society, yet on the other hand we will not take them at their word and at their signature, even though in many areas, including the collection of income tax and in the establishment of eligibility for guaranteed income supplement and guaranteed annual income system payments, we are prepared to do so.

A double standard seems to be applied. In terms of the work that could be done by a committee, which I would suggest should be the social development committee, and when the good offices of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. McCaffrey) are combined with the work of such a committee, if one is forthcoming as a result of this private member's resolution, I would suggest that the government would give greater credence to a report than it has given to the unanimous committee report on the issue of wife assault.

As a member of that committee, having seen all three parties work unanimously to try to find a solution to a very real problem, it is extremely frustrating to me to see that solution thrown aside. After 11 months of discussion, dallying, and delay, that main criterion of the social development committee on wife battering was merely thrown aside.

If members are to take

part in this committee as suggested by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), we should have some guarantee in advance that the committee will have power not only to report but that there be power of implementation.

4:20 p.m.

There are many serious problems to be faced across this province, not the least of which is the changing demographics of Ontario. But if this government is to be counted on its record, I am not terribly optimistic about the results of the committee as suggested by the member of Sudbury. Nevertheless, I certainly join my colleagues in supporting the resolution. I would have wished it had been more substantive in the short and the long term, but I see it addresses one of the single most important problems we will face over the next decade in Ontario.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join with members of the Legislature on this resolution.

[Applause]

Mr. Cooke: I might not have 10 minutes, so keep banging. I will certainly be supporting the resolution.

My only disappointment is that there is nothing specific in it. We all recognize the problem. We all recognize the potential. Usually where there is a problem there is also a potential to capitalize on that problem. But the resolution simply says, "Let us set up a committee and study the problem." It points out the reality that the government has not done much planning over the last number of years.

My involvement with seniors in my home city of Windsor started more than 10 years ago when I was a staff person with United Way, staffed the planning committee for Senior Citizens' Week and worked at one of the homes for the aged as well. My biggest concern has not been hard services as much as the attitudes people have about the elderly in our community. Much of the lack of services and many of the services themselves indicate t