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

May 29, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L022 - Thu 29 May 1986 / Jeu 29 mai 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SENIORS' INDEPENDENCE ACT

WETLANDS POLICY

SENIORS' INDEPENDENCE ACT

WETLANDS POLICY

AFTERNOON SITTING

VISITOR

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DISASTER RELIEF

INJURED WORKERS DAY

D-DAY REUNION

DISASTER RELIEF

FREE TRADE

FUTURES PROGRAM

DISASTER RELIEF

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COURT SYSTEM

FREE TRADE

ONTARIO STOCK YARDS

DISASTER RELIEF

SINGLE-INDUSTRY COMMUNITIES

BISHOP TUTU'S VISIT

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

COURTHOUSES

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

EXTRA BILLING

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

RACE RELATIONS

DAY CARE

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

COUNSELLING PROGRAM FOR WIFE ABUSERS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TOMATO PASTE IMPORTS

PETITIONS

EXTRA BILLING

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARBOUR DAY ACT

MYLAKE MINES LIMITED ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SENIORS' INDEPENDENCE ACT

Mr. Warner moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act for the Provision and Integration of Community Based Services for Seniors.

Mr. Warner: I hope to move third reading of Bill 3 later.

Mr. McClellan: Later today.

Mr. Warner: Perhaps later today.

I wish to thank quite a number of people for the hard work they have done. This bill is not solely the result of my work. It stems from the task force on care for seniors that my party conducted a while ago. The result of the task force was as excellent report called Ageing with Dignity, which was released in June 1984. The task force was headed by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke).

I would like to thank my researcher, Penny Gerriie, for the hard work she has done in helping to prepare this material; the legislative library and, in particular, Robert Gardner, the assistant chief; legislative counsel, who did an excellent job in drafting the legislation; and finally, our head of research, Grant Cassidy, who spent a great deal of time and effort in preparing this legislation.

The question is, why can seniors not live independently? We have done a very curious thing in our country. Over many decades we have found it expedient to institutionalize senior citizens. Canada has, as we all sadly know, one of the highest rates of institutionalization for seniors of any country in the world. The Canadian Medical Association reported that 9.5 per cent of people over 65 in Canada are put into institutions, compared with five per cent in the United Kingdom, 5.3 per cent in the United States and 5.9 per cent in Australia.

"The ageing of the population means that if current trends continue, the system will grind to a halt," warned Dr. Rory Fisher, co-ordinator of geriatrics at the University of Toronto faculty of medicine. "The emphasis has been on maintenance instead of rehabilitation. Too many people get written off too early," said Dr. James Kirkland, chief of geriatrics at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and director of geriatric services at Toronto General Hospital.

It is quite evident even to the former government that institutionalization is a problem and not an answer. "Many of Ontario's elderly are overdrugged and wrongly institutionalized," according to a study done by the Progressive Conservative Party, which urged extensive changes in the care of the aged. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) claimed there was a wastage of $855 million a year in the treatment of elderly patients who are placed in inappropriate facilities. The study does not mention that the Conservatives were largely to blame for that inappropriate institutionalization.

None the less, it is quite clear that institutionalization should be the last resort and not the first resort. "Swedish studies indicate that elderly people live longer and in better mental and physical health with so-called health promotion programs," Dr. Gray said. "The evidence from Sweden, where they have done most of the research, is that they are adding years to life and they are adding life to years."

In the research I conducted, I took a look at 26 jurisdictions, most of them in western Europe. The evidence was quite compelling and overwhelming. It is very clear that when senior citizens have the opportunity to remain in familiar surroundings, they live longer and they live better. They have a better quality of life, they enjoy life more, they participate more fully; they feel useful, they feel wanted, they feel loved. The moment we begin institutionalizing is the moment of decline, a decline in emotional health as well as in physical health.

I am not going to dwell today on the horrors of our nursing home system in Ontario. I will save that for another time. However, I think it is quite evident to most members of the assembly that nursing homes in Ontario are in pretty sad shape.

10:10 a.m.

The bill that is before the House today provides a framework for the provision of community-based support services for seniors and the integration of these services with established programs and facilities. It is important to note and for the other members to realize that in this province we do have a variety of good programs available now, but they are not organized very well. There are isolated, good programs, but there is no overall co-ordination.

Until the new government took over, there was no co-ordinated effort for seniors' services. Co-ordination is needed at the top, but it is needed in the community as well. My proposal is that we have a community-based program, that it be integrated and that it provide full services. I like to call it "everything from grass clipping to toe clipping." Whatever type of service is needed by the senior so that he or she can remain in familiar surroundings is what should be provided.

Members will ask how will we do this and how we will accomplish this. I suggest that we take the radical view of reversing the role of responsibility. Here is how it should work, in my view.

I would like to see one telephone number in this province; I suggest the government institute an 800 number, 1-800-SENIORS. The result of a call to that number would be that someone at the other end of the line would do the work. It would be that person's responsibility to find out what the senior needed and how to meet those needs. The senior would make one call.

The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) knows full well that today a lot of seniors, if they want services, end up making umpteen phone calls, perhaps six or 12 phone calls, phoning different departments, trying to find out where they get help to shovel the walk, for visitor services and for transportation.

Under my proposal, the senior would have to make only one phone call and then let the bureaucrats worry about how to deliver the services. What a dramatic change. We are flipping it around, putting the responsibility where it belongs: on the government to provide the services. The senior then has the opportunity to receive the services required so he or she can remain in his or her own home.

There is such a variety of services possible, both to the senior and, in some cases, to the family housing the senior. In some cases, we have elderly people who require some daily attention, some nursing care, who remain in their home with their families, with their sons or daughters. Part of my proposal allows for people to come in to relieve the younger folks once in a while so they can get out of the house.

One of the things that intrigued me in the research was a program I came across that operates in Norway. Let me say first that when one takes the approach that is outlined in the bill, not only is it better care but it is also less expensive. Institutionalizing is the most expensive form of care.

In Norway, there was a remote village with a very small population which was not about to provide a community centre because it was too expensive. They had half a dozen senior couples who required some help to stay in their own homes. The government hired a couple who lived in the village, a couple with whom all the others were familiar and knew and trusted. This couple's job was to visit the homes of those six elderly couples to provide the care needed -- a little help with the housework, with trimming the lawns, with home repairs and so on -- so those couples could stay in their homes.

It was simple and inexpensive and was welcomed by the elderly couples because it was someone they knew and trusted.

There are some excellent answers, and they are not expensive. We require some imagination and some political will. It is the last part that troubles me. If we want to provide these kinds of services, there is everything from friendly visiting to homemaking, Meals on Wheels, educational programs, dental care, nutritional counselling, financial counselling,

interpretation services, exercise programs, home help services, help with errands, psychological and dental services, preventive medical counselling and so on -- it is a very long list -- all of which are provided for in my bill. If we want to provide these, we have to have the political will to tackle them.

For me, that is not a problem, because first and foremost every person in our society deserves the opportunity to live a life of dignity, and for too many seniors, that has been denied.

There was a very disturbing

article in the Globe and Mail of June 18, 1985, which indicated that 42 per cent of seniors live below the poverty level: "Their diverse needs are not being met by federal and provincial governments, the five-year study said." This was a very exhaustive and complete study which indicated that in terms of income, the health care system, housing, transportation and a whole list of other things, senior citizens are not getting the type of care and service they deserve and need.

There is a quote from the article: "We have to call upon the provincial government and the rest of the provinces to do something about the urgent needs of seniors across the country." That is a quote from Reg Screen, past president of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario. "Every senior citizen should have an income that is above the poverty line to live decently." Who can argue with that?

I urge every member of this assembly to support my bill today and, further, to pledge that this bill will go through our committee system this fall and become law by Christmas.

In case members think this is just another private member's bill and will go the way of most private members' bills, I am serving notice today that I will not rest until my Seniors' Independence Act becomes law so that the senior citizens of this province will be able to live independent, dignified lives. That is the least we can do for the people who have built this country for us.

I will take my place and listen intently to the comments of my colleagues. I urge them to have the same resolve as I have so that we can do something better than we have done so far.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere reserving the three minutes and 41 seconds for windup?

Mr. Warner: Yes.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Morin: I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 3, the Seniors' Independence Act. I am sure all members of this legislature share a genuine concern for the elderly in this province. We all wish to help seniors to remain independent in their communities for as long as they can. I am proud to be a member of a government that has set a course to achieve just that: independent living for seniors. It is a government that is committed to providing a system of community-based care responsive to the needs of our ageing society.

Currently in this province approximately one million people are 65 years of age and older. This represents 10 per cent of our population. Within the next two decades our elderly population will increase by 55 per cent, or 500,000. This reality will place an unprecedented pressure on our present system of care.

Our government has responded in two ways to this pending situation. First, we have moved quickly to address a series of short-term concerns related to community support services. Second, to ensure that our system of care will meet the needs of our changing demographics, the government is developing a long-term strategy.

In this past year, the government has placed a high priority on the provision of services for seniors at the community level. To this end, the 1985 Ontario budget provided $13 million to strengthen seniors' support services at the local level. This allocation of funds represented a 200 per cent increase. The money was used to enrich such programs as home help, Meals on Wheels and elderly persons centres. Moreover, other initiatives have included funding for underserviced communities, seniors' talent banks and a day care program for victims of Alzheimer's disease.

Furthermore, our government has reaffirmed its commitment to seniors with the allocation in the recent Ontario budget of an additional $13.5 million; $8 million of that will be spent on enhancing support services, with the remainder on expansion of the regional geriatric assessment units and the creation of a department of geriatrics at an Ontario university.

In addition to strengthening the base of community support services, this government is responsible for implementing the integrated homemakers program. The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) announced the program would commence with six projects and would eventually be expanded province-wide.

Mr. Cousens: That announcement was made before this government. Do not think it instituted that.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Morin: Services offered through this program are based on need and not on a medical or financial test. The integrated homemakers program provides a full range of in-home services, including light housekeeping, cooking and shopping. These services assist seniors to maintain their independence and self-determination.

Let me remind my colleagues in the Legislature that the previous government promised this program to the seniors of this province for more than four years. Only now, under the Liberal government, has it become a reality.

To aid seniors remain in their communities, new nonprofits senior citizens' housing units will be built as part of a Ministry of Housing initiative, affordable housing for Ontario. In this year alone, 1, 675 units for seniors will be started.

These initiatives serve immediately to assist seniors to remain in their communities. However, this government is cognizant of the fact that in the near future there will be a greater demand on our system of care for the elderly.

This government is not content to react with patchwork programs to address the needs of seniors. Rather, the government has moved boldly to develop a long-term strategy. As a first step, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) appointed a Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne), whose mandate is to conduct a review of services for seniors.

In the near future, the minister will table a white paper on this subject. The paper will provide the framework for the future care of the elderly in the province. The system will encompass a comprehensive approach to health and social services, with an emphasis on reforming institutional and community programs. It is our intent to create a continuum of care.

Additionally, it is the aim of the minister to ensure that services are acceptable and meaningful to individual seniors in their home and community. We must ensure that the system is responsive and more attuned to their needs.

As I have stated, the objectives of this bill are ones I am sure we all agree with: to promote independence, to provide a continuum of support services, to ensure that these services allow seniors to participate in the community and to assist those who have assumed the responsibility of care giver.

These are goals to which this government and, I am confident, all members aspire. However, our government has already aggressively pursued these goals during the past year within the context of the various initiatives I have outlined. Bill 3 would only serve to duplicate this government's actions.

More specifically, Bill 3 calls for the establishment of community health and social services centres at the local level to co-ordinate and arrange services geared to promoting independence. However, this function is already performed by our elderly persons centres as well as by the community health centres. EPCs provide a full range of educational, social and recreational programs, while CHCs provide such services as homemaking, counselling, outreach support and specific disease prevention.

Moreover, programs such as chronic home care, public health nursing, homemaking services and home support services provide a solid base to assist seniors with independent living.

Public health nursing provides assessment, counselling and nursing supervision. Homemaker services provide visiting homemaking and nursing services to the elderly in their homes. Outreach programs attached to the homes for the aged provide meal services and day care. Home support services include housekeeping, transportation and home maintenance services for the elderly.

Clearly, the services this bill attempts to establish have been initiated or strengthened by this government during the past year.

Let me reiterate that it is not the principle of the bill I take exception to. I know how committed and dedicated my good friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) is to this issue. But I find it difficult to support this bill on the ground that it duplicates many services that already exist.

Moreover, this bill tackles only a very small portion of the system of care for the elderly. If our intention is to encourage the independence of our senior citizens, then we must reform the entire system. Our government is doing just that. The focus of our comprehensive plan is to address not only the many principles contained in this bill but also the many other issues that affect the daily living of our seniors.

Our program will be multifaceted, dealing with such issues as housing, transportation and income security, all of which affect the independence of our seniors. It is our pledge to provide a comprehensive plan that will maximize the independence of the elderly in our community.

In the near future we can look forward to the release of the white paper, which will outline our long-term strategy. I am confident my friends on the other side of the floor will be pleased with its results. Working together, we shall build a first-class system of care for our elderly, a system that is responsive to the demographic changes in this province and attuned to the needs of our senior citizens.

Mr. Cousens: First, I wish to thank the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), one of our fellow members, who is the dean of the House and who has asked me to speak this morning in his place. We certainly wanted him to speak to this important bill. I know the member for Grey-Bruce is also a senior. Both of these gentlemen, who continue to serve the people of Ontario, have the spirit of youth and the spirit of rightness for the people of our society. I am honoured to be sharing in this important debate, and I thank --

Mr. Laughren: How about the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane)?

Mr. Cousens: Is he getting on? I do not believe it. I did not mean to miss him. The way he plays hockey --

Mr. Laughren: Do not forget yourself.

Mr. Cousens: I am not at that point yet.

I thank the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. Although we might disagree on some of the details, the intent and spirit of Bill 3, which he has presented, manifest the direction in which we as a society should be going at this time, and I thank him for his initiative and leadership.

10:30 a.m.

I am surprised the speech by the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) has broken the spirit that this bill could bring to this House. I have never heard such a bunch of gobbledegook and political mishmash as that which the member for Carleton East has just presented. I am ashamed he would bring this down to that low level. His claiming responsibility for programs he probably does not even understand and his feeling about a report that is to come out in the near future are not what the seniors in the balcony and seniors who are aware of what is going on in this province want to see.

They want to see action, and they want to see us as legislators build on the system we already have in this province.

We begin with a sense of pride that we live in the wealthiest province in Canada. Our wealth is in our people and our resources. It is in our seniors who have helped give us this society and this foundation that make this the land it is today. We must always be grateful for the leadership our parents and seniors have given and will continue to give. They are not on a shelf. They are not being put away. The idea behind Bill 3 is to let us keep seniors involved in society as part of it, let us keep listening to them and let us continue to have them near us.

Our society evolves. We do not have revolutions in this democratic state of Ontario. We have built a foundation with the Ontario drug benefit plan, the Ontario health insurance plan and the institutions that serve seniors. Our home care program already is serving in excess of 100,000 seniors and costs more than $73 million. These programs have been instituted over time and can and will continue to evolve to serve our seniors in the future.

I would never for a moment accept that we have reached perfection, but I think the direction in which we are moving through Bill 3 and through the expansion of these services drives home the desires of all of us who, as legislators, should break party boundaries and say we are all 100 per cent committed to the needs and the wellbeing of our seniors. In that sense, we would work together to expand the community-based services.

We all know there are problems. We know the major problem is the lack of funding to do these things. The government sets priorities and says, "We are going to do this or this or this." We have to begin now to plan for the future and, in planning for the future, to provide a context for our seniors to stay at home. We cannot afford the institutionalization of seniors. There is not enough money in any government's budget to keep moving people into institutions. We should recognize there are needs even now. The waiting lists for chronic care spaces are not being addressed.

People with legitimate, real needs are lined up for nursing home spaces and they cannot get in. We must begin to invest in serving those needs. In the meantime, the point of this bill is to expand community-based services.

This bill is presented is the same spirit in which our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), presented a special task force report, Care for the Elderly: Developing a More Co-ordinated and Community-Based Approach. I am honoured to be chairman of this task force, and I am pleased there are two other members working with me on this important task force, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), who is the critic for seniors, and the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), who is our critic for Health.

Along with all other members of our caucus, we are working together to see what we can do to develop a policy statement to serve the needs of seniors in the future. We are going to be travelling through the province and meeting with seniors' groups, doctors and different professional agencies to see that we understand and can interpret the needs of our seniors in a responsible and realistic way. We will then be able to enunciate a platform and a policy statement that truly go to the core of the need.

We have a whole

section that relates to the terms of reference that are being tied into Bill 3, presented by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. It almost appears he has taken some of his points from our paper, and I am honoured and pleased he is doing that. To me, that is the spirit of our democratic system, where we do work together.

One of the points that is implicit in this program is the home care program. This is the only province-wide home care program in this country, and it is available to our seniors in Ontario. It is a program that needs to be expanded. It is working now, but is going to take a greater investment to expand it to meet the demands of the people who need it.

There are other programs as well, such as the homemakers and nurses' services program. There is inadequate financing around this existing program; more money must be pumped into it to help people who have health problems stay in their homes longer. The Meals on Wheels program can and should become an important part of our efforts to accommodate senior citizens who wish to remain in their own homes. Another program is the handyman program.

Has anyone heard of the SAINTS? That is the Student Assistance In North Toronto for Seniors group; some 200 students are helping to care for more than 825 senior citizens. Another organization, called Care-Ring, has 11 offices situated in and around Metro Toronto. There is Respite Care, which provides a much-needed service for people who are caring for seniors in a family situation. When the family wants to get out of the home, some outside source can come in for a limited period, such as an evening, a weekend or a family vacation, to help the family continue to look after their senior.

We need more elderly persons centres. The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) has been making the point for years that there is a need for centres for seniors to get together. A number of these centres are developing across the province, but we need more of them. We need more home nursing programs offered by groups such as the Victorian Order of Nurses and public health nurses. They play an important role in assisting families to maintain their elderly in family settings.

The need is today as we build for tomorrow. The need is legitimate as we look at the increasing number of seniors who need to have that support from a government that is able to give it. It is able to give it when it has a sense of priority to say seniors are important. That is the foundation we are working from. We have services now; let us not take them for granted, but let us build upon them and take them further.

I do not think we will be able to afford to go as far as the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has suggested in his bill, but at least we can move in that direction. One has to be responsible, but let us work towards it. It is a lot better than the political garbage we heard from the Liberal Party this morning. I was shocked and ashamed that its members would start to claim credit for certain things that they did not even understand one year ago. We are at a very important point in our society. I am pleased we are now talking about this in such a serious way, and I thank the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I want to join with other members of the Legislature in congratulating my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere for bringing forward this important piece of legislation.

Before I get into the comments I want to make on the legislation, I would like to make reference to the previous speaker, who is from the Conservative Party. I have to say that anyone who begins a discussion on this important bill by saying we have a system of care for the elderly in Ontario that we should be proud of right now demonstrates very clearly why his party was turfed out of office. The fact is that we have a system of care for the elderly in Ontario that we should be ashamed of. Not enough progress has been made in community-based services. There has not been any progress.

A former Minister of Health, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), promised for something like six years that legislation was going to be brought in to implement an integrated home support service system. That legislation still has not been introduced. It was never introduced by the Conservative Party.

The member who just spoke on a bill that emphasizes independence for senior citizens tells us we need more chronic care beds, more institutions in Ontario. The lack of understanding of the types of services we need in the health care system for senior citizens demonstrated by the party to my right is so clear. That is why we are in the kind of shape we are in now, and that is why it is so important that we deal with this piece of legislation today.

Ontario's health care system has developed over the years to the point where we in western civilization depend on institutions more than in any other industrialized country. We spend $250 million a year on the private nursing home sector in this province, and there is no system of financial accountability. We have no idea whatsoever how that money is spent.

A few months ago I introduced and had debated here a private member's bill that simply called for financial accountability. Nursing homes were going to have to tell the members of the Legislature and the public where they were spending their money: how much was being spent on staff and how much was being spent on food and on recreation programs.

The only party that went on record as opposing something that I consider to be fiscally responsible was the party to my right, because it wants to protect the private-profit nursing homes in this province. That has been its position for many years. It might have something to do with the fact that in the last financial returns I saw for donations to political parties, the Ontario nursing homes in this province donated nearly $100,000 to the Conservative Party of Ontario. We can see why they defend the institutional system: It is one of their major sources of financial assistance.

Ontario's current health care system is inhumane to senior citizens. It forces the frail and the sick, who happen to be older, to lose their independence and their dignity. Further, the system is very costly and very inefficient. When families are confronted with a mother or father needing care, they often have only one alternative. The alternative they are presented with is nursing homes or chronic care beds. This forced loss of independence is inhumane and unacceptable to the New Democratic Party.

I had great-grandparents who lived in the town of Stratford. They were married for 75 years. When they were in their 90s, my great-grandmother had to go into a nursing home. Because of the condition of my great-grandfather, for the last four years that he lived he was unable even to see his wife, after having been married to her for 75 years.

Because there was no transportation and because of the lack of community-based services, they were separated and, after having lived together for 75 years, they were not even able to see one another for the last four years of their lives. That this could happen in Ontario in the 1980s is something this province should be absolutely ashamed of.

The attitude towards aged people in this province is that with age comes loss of independence and that is just something we have to accept. We in this party say it is something we do not have to accept and it is something we are not going to tolerate any longer. The bill presented by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere sets out a framework of principles that, if implemented, would be very efficient, cost-effective and very humane.

I point to

section 4 of the bill, which says what the functions of these community health and social service centres would be:

"(

a) to provide support services;

"(

b) to co-ordinate the community programs available in the municipality in order to eliminate gaps and duplication in the provision of community programs and support services;

"(

c) to assist seniors in gaining access to community programs and support services."

That is an absolutely essential aspect that is missing in the system right now. In the system right now, if one is younger and disabled, there is the adult protective service worker program. The job of these workers is to plug in every possible community support service to avoid institutionalization. We have no such program in Ontario for seniors.

One of the real difficulties is that the few programs that do exist are not well publicized and are not available or accessible to seniors in this province. If people do not know about them or if people are not there to advocate on their behalf to get them plugged into these services, then those programs might as well not be there. This is a key provision of this legislation:

"(

d) to serve as a base from which home help programs are carried out;

"(

e) to provide office space and administrative support to non-profit organizations that provide community programs;

"(

f) to advocate the interests of seniors as a group within the community;

"(

g) to develop programs to facilitate the deinstitutionalization of seniors; and

"(

h) to carry out such programs as may be prescribed by or under this or any other act."

One can see from this legislation that community-based social and health centres will be the focal point of services for senior citizens for co-ordination, planning and implementation. The one area of the province where they have already tried a bit of this is the region of Niagara. The regional municipality has a department of senior citizens under the leadership of Mr. Applegee. In that community there is coordination. They have even gone to the extent, because they have put community-based services in place, of having been able to close one of their homes for the aged.

They got to the point where they actually were able to close a home for the aged because of the de-emphasis of institutionalized services.

In some communities, or in some people's minds, the closing of a home for the aged would be seen as a major step backward. Obviously, those of us who are supporting this legislation and those of us who believe in community-based services would see the closing of an institution or its conversion to a community-based facility for community services as a major step forward.

When I met with Mr. Applegee, I found it remarkable that they actually have a program such that if you go into a home for the aged and if your condition improves, they will guarantee you your bed at that home for the aged but they will help you try the community again. If it does not work in the community, you are guaranteed a bed back in the home for the aged; so there is none of that insecurity. They actually discharge people from homes for the aged in the Niagara region, which is something that does not happen on a wide basis across this province.

The regional municipality's department of senior citizens has day care programs; it also has a day hospital program, senior citizens' drop-in centres, social programs and group homes. They were looking at a night care program specifically aimed at Alzheimer's victims because, as anyone who knows about that disease understands, the difficulty is at night. During the day, the individual goes home and spends time with his family; at night he comes into the residence to receive the ample care. There is a mix in that circumstance, but the community is still used to its ultimate in providing the kind of humane services that are necessary.

Ten minutes goes by very quickly, but I want to say that the suggestions my colleague makes in this piece of legislation are not particularly revolutionary; in most other civilized countries in the world they have been implemented for many years. Community-based services are what is emphasized. We know from our experience in dealing with the nursing homes of this province that to try to regulate patient care and to try to regulate dignity into the system is impossible as long as we continue to rely on private-profit institutions.

The economic, efficient and humane way to go has to be community-based services. I hope we as members of the Legislature will make a clear statement of endorsement for this principle today and pass this legislation, and I hope the government will seize this opportunity and implement these kinds of principles.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Henderson: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to comment on Bill 3, introduced by my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, entitled

An Act for the Provision and Integration of Community Based Services for Seniors.

I have long believed that services for seniors must be as community-based as is feasible, given the requirements we have for technical and specialized competence. I believe that services for seniors especially need to be in the home and the neighbourhood of the senior. That is where friends and family are most likely to be familiar, and familiarity is very important for seniors. Also important are familiar neighbourhoods, shops and recreational facilities, churches, physicians and, perhaps of at least a little importance, political representatives. I shall therefore be speaking generally in support of this bill.

I want to say that there is no truth at all to the rumour that I am supporting this bill put forward by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere in return for his agreement to support my amendments to Bill 94. I seem to recall having put such a proposal to him only a few weeks ago, and I would be hard pressed to cite his reply in language that would be considered parliamentary.

Of course, as a member of another party, I must find some aspects of this bill to be a little critical about. To that end, I am happy the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere was kind enough to send me a copy of his news release on Bill 3, proudly proclaiming its identification with the New Democrats on its letterhead.

In perusing the news release, I noticed the member made the statement, "We want to bring community services under a single roof so that seniors can have a complete range of services in one place and with one phone call -- perhaps 1-800-SENIORS." I must say to my friend that phone number does not sound very imaginative to me.

To give credit where it is due, I commend the member for a flash of modesty not often encountered among those of his party in restraining himself from proposing that the phone number be 1-800-WARNER. On reflection, however, the reason for that apparent modesty becomes quickly obvious, because the name "Warner" contains but six letters and a phone number requires seven.

My imagination took me to an alternative possibility, that the phone number could be 1-800-SWEENEY, noting the outstanding contributions of the minister with whom I work in this whole area of health for seniors. However, I suspect the minister might feel that to be a little self-aggrandizing, and I shall restrain the impulse to introduce such an amendment. It would be foreign to our naturally modest nature as Liberals to elevate ourselves in that fashion.

In a similar vein, I considered 1-800-VANHORNE, a proposal that suffers from the same defects as the previous one and carries the additional difficulty that there are too many letters in the name. I confess it crossed by mind to suggest 1-800-HUMBER, but there are too few letters in that.

After casting my mind about in this fashion for several minutes, I hit upon an obvious solution. Seniors who are seeking to locate the very fine array of community services that is under a single roof and with one phone call, seniors who are looking for openness and responsiveness in their care providers, should call 1-800-LIBERAL. The right ambience and the right number of letters are there in the same word.

I know the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere put this bill forward because it dovetails so nicely with the nature and spirit of the activities of the present government in the provision of services to seniors. Several months ago -- is my time up, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): No.

Mr. Henderson: Several months ago, my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne) announced on behalf of our government an $11-million allocation of new funds for community support services to expand such services as Meals on Wheels, home help, elderly persons centres, assisted transportation and services in northern Ontario.

Planned for later this year are further services targeted for francophone seniors, native seniors and underserviced communities; day care for Alzheimer's victims; relief and support services to families caring for frail, elderly persons; and counselling, training and education services for family care givers.

Concurrently, the Minister of Community and Social Services announced the beginning of a new integrated homemakers program. Six pilot projects will be operational by the end of June at a total cost of $8 million. This program provides community support for frail seniors and physically handicapped adults to assist them to remain in their own homes. These services will be provided on the basis of need, with no medical or financial test involved.

An especially important development to help seniors remain in the community has been the creation of the Ministry of Housing's nonprofit housing program under the supervision of my colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling). Under this program, nonprofit subsidized seniors' housing units will be built. Nearly 1,700 units are to be started this year alone, almost 600 of them in Metropolitan Toronto.

My colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced in his budget a further $13.5 million for the enrichment of services for senior citizens.

I am happy to support this bill, because it carries on so much in the direction we have taken as a government. I am pleased to see that the bill hopes to encourage the independence of seniors, because society benefits as well as the seniors when we maximize the contributions they can bring to the quality of life in our communities.

Some of the most momentous contributions of human civilization have been made by senior citizens. I am thinking of the contributions of such people as Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, A. Y. Jackson and, in my own field, Wilder Penfield, Sigmund Freud and, more recently, Erich Fromm, whom I heard speak a few years ago. In entertainment, do not forget Jimmy Durante, Maurice Chevalier, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, Milton Berle, Bob Hope and a host of others.

Mr. Haggerty: George Burns.

Mr. Henderson: George Burns indeed. In the realm of politics are Konrad Adenauer and, dare I say, Ronald Reagan, of whom the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is doubtless a great admirer.

It is not only

an act of altruism when we care about services for seniors, because seniors have made and continue to make some of society's most outstanding contributions.

I am pleased to see the detailing of support services for seniors in this bill. Counselling programs, social, recreational and exercise programs, medical programs, educational programs, home help services, transportation services and programs of social and rehabilitative care are all mentioned and are all relevant.

There are costs to be considered, and this kind of program would be phased in with due attention to considerations of cost and with every regard to what has been popularized over the past year or so as the framework of fiscal responsibility.

I am therefore happy to speak in support of this bill and to indicate that I am very much in favour of doing more to help senior citizens, for their sake and so that we in society can continue to receive the great benefits they provide to us.

Mr. Dean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understood we were to have an opportunity for a second speaker. What is the problem?

The Acting Speaker: Time is running out.

Mr. Dean: How can that be?

The Acting Speaker: We have until 11:02 a.m. for the debate. The last one to speak will be the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

11 a.m.

Mr. Warner: In the past couple of weeks I have received the support of a variety of municipalities, including the townships of Alberton, Bessborough, Brooke, Carnavon, Emily, Front of Escott, Front of Yonge, Georgina, Hilton, Manvers, Nairn and New Liskeard, the villages of Neustadt and Bobcaygeon and the towns of Hanover, Richmond Hill and Walkerton. I have received their support within the past couple of weeks, and many more probably will be coming from the more than 800 municipalities.

I have also received several hundred letters of support. I would like to read a couple of excerpts.

One person writes: "Like many others, I have tried to find community support services to help my grandmother and my aunt remain in their homes as long as they wanted. It is difficult, frustrating and time-consuming, and anything you achieve by way of this legislative pressure will be much appreciated by all ages."

Here is another quote: "The Victorian Order of Nurses have been trying to get a day care centre for seniors in the area but are very frustrated by the city council, who are more interested in supplying a second ice hockey arena for the youth of the city.

This is another quote: "This is a concern that has faced us for many years and does not seem to be diminishing. Our best wishes for your work in this area."

Here is another quote from a senior: "A copy of this correspondence will be forwarded to our MPP, Mr. Bob McKessock, seeking his support also. A program such as this is long overdue. Good luck."

There are many more comments, and the hundreds I have received so far have all been extremely supportive.

I want to close with a quote from the task force report, entitled Ageing with Dignity, which was published by my party:

"Thousands of Ontario seniors who are in institutions want to and could live independently. Loneliness, despair and related health problems are needlessly widespread. Families who want to help preserve their parents' independence often give up because they cannot find their way through the Ontario government's bureaucratic maze to find the aid they need."

Finally, I appreciate the attendance this morning of so many seniors and health care workers. I am sure that at 12 noon they will take careful note of those members who are so mean as not to support my bill.

WETLANDS POLICY

Mr. Knight moved resolution 35: That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that Ontario's wetlands are necessary to protect our vital and delicate ecosystem, are important for flood control programs and are a potentially important component of waste treatment systems, the government of Ontario should introduce a comprehensive wetlands strategy that will protect existing wetlands and promote the creation of new wetlands where environmentally advisable, recognizing that incentives for the agricultural community are necessary.

Mr. Knight: I am pleased to have this opportunity to present my resolution to the House. I probably will not use all of my allotted time in presenting the resolution, and I would like to reserve the unused time for my cleanup remarks.

The subject of my resolution and speech today is Ontario wetlands. For those members who are not familiar with this term, wetlands are lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case, the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic or water-tolerant plants.

Wetlands take many forms and have a variety of names. In Alberta, for instance, they have the unlikely name of pothole complexes. In Ontario, however, we group our wetlands into four categories: swamps, marshes, bogs and fens. I am sure all members have seen many wetlands in their time. They may have seen swamps in the middle of a forest, marshes alongside Highway 401 or even what looked like giant puddles in farmers' fields. However, the members may not be aware of how extremely important each and every wetland is to Ontario and North America.

There are four main ways by which wetlands directly benefit this province. The first is economic. Fish, wood and wild rice are some of the resource products of wetlands, which add more than $300 million to our economy each year. More significant still is the $800 million put into our economy through the tourism and recreation opportunities wetlands provide. Even if members are not active in fishing, hunting or birdwatching, no doubt they will be aware of Ontario's fine reputation in these areas. As well, wetlands increase the opportunities for camping, cottaging and tourism. All in all, wetlands create more than 53 million user-days a year in Ontario.

The second way in which Ontario benefits from wetlands is ecological. They play an essential role in maintaining wildlife populations, often offering the only environment for certain unique or endangered plants, animals and internationally important migratory birds. To give members an idea of their significance in this regard, wetlands provide 70 per cent of the nesting habitat for all Canadian waterfowl and are the main spawning grounds for many varieties of fish and fish food.

The third benefit is hydrological. By taking up pollutants from runoff before they enter other water systems, wetlands perform an important pollution abatement function. They also store excess runoff; this moderates the impacts of drought and flooding while regularly replenishing aquifers and the ground-water supplies needed to sustain natural vegetation, crops and wildlife.

The final benefit we in Ontario derive from wetlands is aesthetic, since they make the landscapes so much more interesting and pleasant to look at. They provide a variety of recreational opportunities and make ideal outdoor laboratories for educational and scientific research.

As I mentioned previously, some people are not aware of the important economic, ecological and aesthetic advantages of wetlands. Our ancestors certainly were not. To them, wetlands were mosquito-infested, impenetrable wastelands that posed formidable barriers to settlement. This view resulted in the huge quantities of valuable wetlands disappearing through shoreline disturbance, drainage, filling and improvement, and land clearing, all primarily for agricultural use.

On the eastern shores of Lake St. Clair, for example, where many of Ontario's best wetlands are located, there has been a 30 per cent decrease in wetlands since 1965. Of that land, 90 per cent went to agriculture and the other 10 per cent went to marine and cottage uses. Across southern Ontario, only 20 per cent of the original two million hectares of wetlands remain, and even these continue to diminish at a rate of one to two per cent annually.

One of the most frustrating things about this conversion is that wetlands which are changed to agricultural land are especially vulnerable to both wind erosion and oxidization or burning. The land oxidizes at a rate of one inch a year, which means a four-foot depth of organic soil will disappear in 50 years. On the other hand, if properly managed, wetlands can continue indefinitely to provide the benefits I have listed.

I have now outlined the considerable advantages of wetlands as well as what historically caused them to disappear so dramatically. I would now like to set out the reasons they continue to diminish despite their obviously considerable value and what we can do to reverse this trend.

In my view, the major reason we continue to lose our wetlands is that we lack a comprehensive wetlands strategy. There has never been, nor is there now, a concerted and co-ordinated approach for protecting all Ontario wetlands, backed by a strong guiding policy and the necessary financial resources. I should like to state, however, that Ontario governments have demonstrated a commitment to identify and protect our remaining natural features, including wetlands.

I would like to relate some of the government initiatives in the past few years. In 1981, an interministerial committee of resource ministries presented a discussion paper called Towards a Wetlands Policy for Ontario. More than 520 letters and briefs were received in response to the discussion paper, but not until April 1984, three years after the discussion paper, was Guidelines for Wetlands Management in Ontario released.

These guidelines were designed to be incorporated by municipalities into the municipal planning process. The municipalities were asked to comment on the guidelines, and the responses showed a clear awareness of the value of wetlands as well as some of their concerns about the guidelines.

Some of the concerns expressed were: the guidelines lacked a clear indication of the respective roles of government; municipalities had no legislative base with which to restrict the land owner from draining or filling a wetland; there needed to be a clarification regarding the application of the guidelines in northern Ontario. Most important, however, the municipalities said the guidelines were flawed in not developing a land owner compensation program.

Unfortunately, rather than providing the strong provincially co-ordinated approach that was needed, the guidelines placed the onus for implementing management practices for wetlands, other than provincially significant ones, on local municipalities, many of which are limited both financially and legislatively. The guidelines were only that: guidelines. What was and still is needed is a clear statement of government policy.

11:10 a.m.

As a result of the municipalities' input, the Ministry of Natural Resources started a comprehensive wetlands evaluation, using the procedures and classifications set forth in a document entitled An Evaluation System For Wetlands of Ontario, South of the Precambrian Shield. This system divided wetlands into seven different classifications. Classes 1 and 2, generally the larger ones, will be provincially significant, and the balance will be regionally or locally significant.

Most recently, in 1985 an interministerial committee was set up to identify and develop corporate wetland strategies. It included representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of the Environment were to be consulted as required. The time frame for this mandate was expected to be another one to one and a half years. A policy statement suitable for public review was expected at that time.

It is at this strategic time of the reshaping of wetlands policy that I feel we, the legislators of this province, can voice our concern about the lack of a strategy to adequately protect and develop our vital wetlands. The provincial government must take responsibility for all wetlands in Ontario, since every one, and not just those in classes 1 and 2, is provincially significant. We are being naïve and are shirking our responsibilities if we continue to ask the municipalities to do tasks for which they are not equipped financially or legislatively. I also feel the time frame for the policy statements is too generous, and I would much prefer to see such a statement by fall 1986.

Some things are being done to preserve wetlands, of course. The evaluation process currently being undertaken is important. We have evaluated 1,100 wetlands for a total of 225,000 hectares. In 1983, the Ontario government signed a general five-year agreement with Ducks Unlimited Canada, a private organization that has been doing remarkable conservation work in Ontario since 1974.

By 1987, mostly on crown land, Ducks Unlimited will have spent $15 million and the Ontario government $1 million to maintain, restore and create waterfowl habitat in 16,000 hectares of land, divided equally between northern and southern Ontario. Progress is reported each year and is reported to be satisfactory. Their work may be one of the main reasons Ontario did not lower its bag limit this year while the prairie provinces and the United States did.

I recognize there are conflicts between conservationists and the agricultural community with respect to wetlands. However, I do not feel these conflicts are as wide as they might seem to be on the surface, nor do I see them as insurmountable. I believe a comprehensive wetlands strategy enshrined in the Planning Act, one that addresses the concerns of the agricultural community while protecting our wetlands, is achievable.

If we can somehow assure the farm community it will not be unreasonably prevented from draining adjacent lands into wetlands and find some way to compensate adjacent land owners for wildlife damage and introduce a distinction between productive farm land and wetlands in the property tax system, we will have gone a long way to creating a co-operative climate for wetlands conservation between farmers, conservationists and the government.

However, I believe such a climate will require an overhaul of the Drainage Act. The Drainage Act is inherently indifferent to ecological considerations. Because proper drainage is essential to agriculture, no one should be opposed to drainage. The present drainage programs lack sufficient safeguards against long-term ecological damage that may outweigh hoped-for benefits.

It is my suggestion that a class environmental assessment be developed; this definitely should be done for drainage projects that impact on provincial or regional significant wetlands, and consideration should be given to other wetlands. The costs of these assessments, however, should be funded.

Bluntly speaking, a land owner can receive an incentive to drain a wetland for agricultural use and a further 60 per cent property tax rebate once it is farmed. However, there are no corresponding incentives to maintain a significant natural wetland in the public interest.

It has been said that if wetlands are worth saving, they are worth paying for. I believe they are worth saving, and I suggest we should seriously consider (1) a tax rebate program to encourage private stewardship of wetlands by those who will maintain and preserve them, (2) funding joint agreements with groups such as Ducks Unlimited to acquire and maintain wetlands, (3) creating a conservation class for certain lands, including wetlands, within the property tax structure to avoid the present highest-potential-use classification system and (4) investigating a method of recognizing voluntary easements under the Income Tax Act.

These suggestions are clearly of importance not only to the preservation of Ontario's wetlands but also for environmentally significant areas and natural heritage sites such as river valleys, lakes and significant land forms such as the Niagara Escarpment. I suggest also that the Ministry of Natural Resources should take a lead role in co-ordinating wetland conservation, establish a formal consultation process with all interested parties and assign specific staff the responsibility of policy development and implementation.

The government should finalize revised guidelines by fall 1986 and issue a wetlands policy statement with the eventual intent that it be incorporated into the Planning Act as a matter of provincial interest.

As well, it is important that we increase public awareness of wetlands preservation. The Ministry of Education could play a significant role in this respect, and the Ministry of Natural Resources could target educational programs for local municipalities, planning committees, land owners and developers.

At this time, I would like to give my thanks to the Federation of Ontario Naturalists for the long and meritorious work it has been performing over the years to try to ensure that there is a stronger government interest in wetlands preservation.

I hope members will join me in supporting this resolution, which will urge the government to introduce a much-needed, comprehensive wetlands strategy and thus stop the senseless and steady disappearance of Ontario wetlands, but in a meaningful way. I am looking forward to hearing comments on their proposals, and I thank all members for their consideration of this resolution.

I want to reserve the time I have left for my closing remarks.

Mr. Stevenson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on wetlands policy and on the motion put forward by the member for Halton-Burlington.

I would like to comment on some of the last words he said, "the senseless disappearance of wetlands." I am not at all sure those are the proper words to use. I suppose as individuals who are not closely involved in this issue, we can use the word "senseless," but I am sure the people who actually own the property or are very closely involved in each individual piece of land as it has been used in the past do not view it as senseless at all.

However, I do not want to minimize the concern. It is a major concern. It is a concern of provincial interest. The actions of past governments and of this one and the actions of various conservationist groups, naturalist groups and so on clearly indicate the broad-scale nature of this issue.

I will not go on at great length, because the member for Halton-Burlington has already talked about the importance of the wildlife habitat, the plant habitat and the very important water storage aspect of wetlands, which act as a sort of sponge in our environment. They are being used and will be used more in the future, I suspect, as environmental filters. We see that going on in some municipal waste disposal systems, or at least on trial in that area. Generally, indications are that they are working very well.

11:20 a.m.

While nobody doubts the importance of wetlands, the issue very often is pictured as owners versus environmental needs or sometimes as owners versus environmentalists. More often, one sees it written in the media as farmers versus environmentalists. I suppose, to a degree, that sort of focuses the issue, but it is a much broader issue than that.

In defence of the farm community, it is very strongly my opinion that the farmers were the original environmentalists. They own property. They have a piece property, and they want to maintain its value for their families for generations. They want to do nothing to that property that will affect their ability to feed and clothe their families on those farms. They will go to any extent to preserve that property, and they will not knowingly damage it to any significant degree. It must be a renewable resource, and farmers will do anything to keep it that way.

Let us talk about farmers in particular but land owners in general. They own the land, and when we restrict it to farmers, many times it is cheaper to drain a piece of property than it is to buy the same amount of land somewhere else. It is usually cheaper to drain some of their own property than to sell that farm and move to another farm that has somewhat better drainage or a bigger acreage of workable land.

Economically, in almost every case, it is cheaper for the individual farmer to look at drainage as the first choice. When we look at how property owners, and farmers in particular, look at their land, we always have to keep that in mind.

On the environmental side, we look at it as a much broader issue than just the environmentalists and the conservationists. The farming community is very much aware of the importance of wetlands to the Ontario economy. The government is aware of it, much of the population in general is aware of it, and the tourism industry and all sorts of aspects of our natural resource industries are very much aware of its significance in our economy.

Many times the property owners do not benefit directly from that impact. Quite often, wetland property is almost a liability for a property owner; he is paying taxes on it and quite often gets little or no return for owning that property.

We see the same sort of thing when we are talking about flood plains. Many times a person buys a piece of property, thinking he is going to build a home on it. It is put into flood plain land and, all of a sudden, he cannot do anything with it. He is left holding a piece of property that he cannot use for his original intention.

That property may still be very valuable to the province, and if we are going to deem these properties in flood plains or in wetlands, then somehow or other, if it is important to the province, there must be some compensation arrangement for designating these properties of significant environmental worth. If it is worth while to do so for the society of this province, then it is worth while to have society pay something to the property owners, some of whom may be significantly affected by such decisions.

How do we go about it? First, it is absolutely vital that the decisions be made on solid, scientific evidence of the classification. I strongly support, as does the farming community and almost everybody else, I believe, the sort of effort that is going into trying to classify and catalogue our wetlands. I trust they will go ahead with policy formulation. I hope it is done in a very sincere way.

What we do not need is the situation we have seen recently involving Highway 89. I see the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) sitting in the Legislature now. I will share with him that the local councils met with the minister and none of them, not even the Liberals on the council, came away from that meeting very impressed with the minister responsible for highways of Ontario.

Studies have been going on since 1980 relating to the Keswick Marsh; they are costing the province hundreds of thousands of dollars. The highway construction was cancelled. Was that cancellation as a result of solid environmental evidence, or was it done for political opportunism? That is very much open to question. Everybody in that area knows very well that the health of Lake Simcoe is absolutely paramount in making that decision. Lake Simcoe is the single most important economic factor in that area. The lake must survive, and everybody knows it. The highway must come a very significant second.

In the environmental review of that highway, I think I have my numbers right in saying that 13 of 14 agencies approved the building of that road. They said there would be environmental damage, but they felt it would not be of major significance. However, we have seen the road cancelled very quickly. Let us say the local people are not impressed with the way it was handled.

First, let us have the decisions made on good, scientific information and not political expediency. Second, regarding compensation, I believe the people in this area should have tax-free land. Wetlands should be tax-free. If society or the province needs this land -- and in many cases, it obviously does because of its absolutely vital environmental and economic importance to us -- then the province must pay; not the property owner, not the local municipality, but the area that is going to benefit the most, which is the province. It is a provincial interest, and therefore the province should make the major contribution.

Mr. Laughren: I shall restrain myself in my response to the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson). The Minister of Transportation and Communications does not want me to restrain myself. I would like to commend the minister for his decision on the Keswick Marsh. That we do not have an appropriate wetlands policy now is because of the foot-dragging of the Conservative government that was turfed out about a year ago. There is no excuse for that decision to have been left for the present government to make.

The former Minister of Agriculture and Food knows full well that the alternative routes, which did not go through that marsh, were never explored appropriately. It was most appropriate that highway was cancelled.

The member for Durham-York wants to talk out of both sides of his mouth and wants to have it both ways on an issue like wetlands. He cannot have it both ways when he is talking about wetlands. One cannot build roads through them, one cannot have development over them and they cannot be drained for agricultural purposes while at the same time preserving them as legitimate wetlands. The member knows that.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Stevenson: You should ask John Rogers what he thinks. He is a good member of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Laughren: I am telling the member the position of our party.

I commend the member for Halton-Burlington on bringing in this resolution. I think it is an appropriate one. I hope he will keep up the pressure on the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), because the minister is not yet known as a crusading conservationist. The member for Halton-Burlington will need to keep the heat on him. Any man who would turn a wilderness park into a beehive of commercial activity has a long way to go before he can be known as a genuine environmentalist. I encourage the member for Halton-Burlington to keep up the good work on the wetlands issue.

It is now 1986. It has been about seven years since the process started with the Ministry of Natural Resources. We still do not have a wetlands policy incorporated into the province's Planning Act. As far as I know, we are still losing one per cent to two per cent of our wetlands every year and time is of the essence. I gather the present interministerial committee is still ruminating on the matter and will circulate its position when it is completed. I urge the government to move with dispatch in getting that study by the interministerial committee completed and circulated among interested groups.

Most of us have learned about wetlands, not from the Ministry of Natural Resources but from people with groups such as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Ducks Unlimited. I still keep the 1979 edition of the Ontario naturalists' Why Wetlands? on my desk as a constant reminder. It is the best

summary I have seen as a wetlands primer. In fact, there is a

section in it called "The Wetlands Primer." It is too bad it was not the Ministry of Natural Resources that put together that presentation; it was the interest groups that were required to do it.

A couple of years ago, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters put together a brief but no-nonsense letter to all members dealing with the wetlands issue. By doing it that way, it laid to rest some of the attitudes a lot of people have towards anglers and hunters. It said the following about wetlands:

"I am sure we do not need to remind you that wetlands: (1) offer water control by absorbing huge amounts of water like a giant sponge and slowly releasing it over a period of time; (2) slow down and moderate flood waters; (3) augment low summer flows and replenish ground waters; (4) act as an effective pollution fighter by filtering and cleansing the water at no extra charge; (5) are an essential part of our natural heritage by allowing hunters, anglers and naturalists to catch a glimpse of nature at its best; (6) are nature's nurseries for most fish and wildlife species at some point in their lives; and (7) are not wastelands."

I feel very good about the role the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has played in supporting the whole concept of protecting our wetlands.

If wetlands are such a great thing, what is the problem? It can be summarized in a few ways. First, wetlands can be drained and used for agricultural purposes. Second, there is the question of the Keswick Marsh that is being used for road building. Third, of course, is residential and commercial development. What are needed, and all the speakers have touched on it, are tax incentives. If there is an incentive to drain, why is there no incentive to retain? There could be a rallying cry for people across the province, "Don't drain them, retain them," so that we could preserve these valuable wetlands.

Government has a role to play. It will not happen without government leadership. In a weird kind of way, to have no policy is to have a policy; namely, to allow wetlands to be drained.

I would like to see a number of things. The first is incentives to retain wetlands. The second is to have environmental assessment on the drainage of wetlands. I would break it in two. For class 1 and 2 wetlands, the most significant wetlands, there should be individual environmental assessments. For classes 3 to 7, there should be a class environmental assessment. Third, I believe there should be a major educational program by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of the Environment and possibly even the Ministry of Municipal Affairs because of the municipal role. That is something this government should be working on.

Fourth, we need to address the problem of wetlands in northern Ontario, because the model used to evaluate wetlands was a southern Ontario model. The whole question of the development of the peat lands in northern Ontario will not be addressed under the present evaluative model. There needs to be a separate look at the wetlands in northern Ontario. Currently, there are no guidelines at all.

I do not believe the problem is insurmountable. As the member for Durham-York said, farmers are not really the villains. During the last couple of months, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists sat down to try to work out a common policy. Perhaps they have already done it. Farmers should not be painted as the villains of the piece.

One farmer said, "People construed us as being anti-wetlands, but all we were anti was a policy that would save wetlands for the public good and make us bear the cost." I agree with the farmers who say that if wetlands are so valuable for the public at large, then the public at large should help to pay the cost of preserving them.

Everyone seems to be on side in protecting wetlands, but at this point, wetlands do not enjoy the status of, for example, our parks. They are still second-class citizens in conservation in the minds of most people when they think about conservation. I believe the Minister of Natural Resources could win a certain level or status of legitimacy that currently he does not enjoy among conservationists if we had that interministerial committee move more quickly to distribute that report for discussion, to bring in a policy and incorporate it into the Planning Act and to do so without delay.

Finally, I remind members that in 1987 there is going to be an international conference on wetlands in Canada. I believe it will be in Saskatchewan, although I am not sure of that. I could not help but think what a delight it would be for us in Ontario to attend that international wetlands conference in Saskatchewan with a policy in our pockets that we could show to the other people there, indicating that Ontario does have a good and appropriate wetlands policy.

I urge members to support the resolution of the member for Halton-Burlington.

Mr. McGuigan: I apologize for not being here to listen to all the speakers, but I was at a very important meeting.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Kent-Elgin was not out draining the wetlands, was he?

Mr. McGuigan: No, we were talking about free trade. I know the member for Nickel Belt is very interested in that and I am sure he will forgive me.

Mr. Laughren: That is a swamp.

Mr. McGuigan: If it is a swamp; it is a swamp of despair.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this resolution. Preservation of this province's wetlands has been a topic of interest to me for many years. I and my family and my family before me grew up next to Rondeau Bay and the wetlands that surround Rondeau Bay and Rondeau Park. It has been very much a part of our recreational life and also part of our appreciation of the nature of this wonderful province in which we live. I recognize its value to wildlife, to water quality, to tourism and to soil conservation.

I have been critical of the lack of concern for the preservation of Ontario wetlands and I join the member for Halton-Burlington in calling for an expedited process for action by the legislators of Ontario and for a more clear and comprehensive wetlands strategy.

11:40 a.m.

In April 1984, I released a statement congratulating the then Minister of Natural Resources for a long-overdue statement outlining the seven classifications of wetlands referred to by the member for Halton-Burlington and other members. My statement at that time, however, criticized the then minister for not addressing the issue of incentives to individual land owners for the preservation of wetlands. As members have illustrated, there are many ways this could be encouraged by the ministries of the Ontario government.

For the purpose of illustrating to this House the type of disincentive there is at present, for the purpose of the preservation of wetlands, I have prepared an example that compares the assessment and the net tax payable on various classifications of land in one township in southwestern Ontario.

Dover township, which borders Lake St. Clair, is in the riding of the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy). It is an area that has been drained for many years, at least 80 per cent of it. Using the present market value figure for class 1 and class 2 farm land in Dover township -- and even today, at reduced farm land values, it is still valid for that area -- $4,000 for farm land and $3,535 per acre for class 2 land, and using the percentage factor of 2.1 per cent applied to agricultural land under the Assessment Act, it equals an assessed value of $84 per acre for class 1 and $74.24 for class 2 farm land.

Wetlands are assessed as recreational and residential property and they are valued at $1, 300. I want to point out that the value is much less. However, multiplied by a percentage factor of 4.5, it equals $58.50 an acre for the assessed value. Applying the present mill rate in Dover of 2.89 to all three classes of land results in a tax of $25 per acre for class 1, $22.12 an acre for class 2 and $17.43 per acre for wetlands. It might strike members that all of these taxes are very high. However, this is very valuable land, and it does have very high costs of drainage. In most cases, the water is pumped off the land.

The wetlands, however, are not eligible for the farm tax reduction program, which allows for 60 per cent of the property taxes to be rebated the following year by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Calculating in the rebate, the real tax payable on farm land is $10 for class 1 and $8.85 for class 2 farm land. This, of course, has to be compared to the real tax payable on wetlands, which remains at $17.43 per acre. We have the anomaly of the owner of the wetlands actually paying about 70 per cent more out of his own pocket than the farmer pays on class 1 agricultural land.

I realize that $7 is perhaps not a huge amount of money. Nevertheless, it does send the wrong message that we are discriminating in our tax policies against wetlands. It certainly gives an individual pause to consider whether he or she wishes to retain the wetlands or wishes to consider draining the wetlands for some other purpose.

Many of us think councils of rural municipalities may all be in favour of development because they want more tax base and so on. As well, in an agricultural township one might expect that the council would be in favour of developing, just as a matter of principle.

On March 29, 1984, the Dover township council passed the following resolution:

"That a letter be sent to Jim McGuigan, MPP, and Mr. R. S. Riddell, regional assessment commissioner" -- I assume he is no relation to our Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), but he has the same name -- "requesting that the province of Ontario change its policy on marshland assessment so that marshland is not taxed at a rate similar to farm land."

Here we have a municipal council in an agricultural area recognizing it wants to save that marshland. I know many people feel wetlands should be added to our agricultural base. The tragedy of this is that drained wetland soils oxidize or burn up at the rate of one inch of soil a year.

I will just take a minute to point out how wetlands are formed in the first place. Sages, bulrushes, trees and all sorts of vegetation grow up in that wetland environment. When the vegetation dies and sinks below the water, oxygen is held away from it. Rather than rotting, as it does on upland soil, and becoming part of the mineral soil -- adding organic matter to the mineral soil -- the vegetation that goes under water turns into organic soils itself, because it does not have the oxidizing effect or burning effect of oxygen.

When we remove that water and add oxygen to the chemical equation, oxidation takes place. The soil literally burns up at the rate of an inch a year. When we drain wetlands and use them as agricultural soil, we are headed to the ultimate destruction at the rate of an inch a year. A four-foot depth can disappear in a matter of 50 years.

They have done that around Lake Okeechobee in Florida, where I was visiting a number of years ago. Most of our winter vegetables come from that area of the state, Dade county. Right on the front lawn of one of the experimental farms, a concrete post was sticking about four feet out of the ground. This was about 30 years ago.

As I saw it, I remarked, "What is that concrete post?" They said, "When this experimentation was established, we dug a post hole down into the ground and filled it full of cement levelled to the top of the ground." In the years that had elapsed, and I have forgotten what the date was, the soil had subsided so that the post hole was a vertical post sticking about four feet out of the ground. I am sure it is sticking out a great deal more because of the 30 years that have gone by.

As soon as we drain the soil, we are destroying it. One of the ironic things to think about relates to the levels of the waters in the lake. I see you have not got time for this, Mr. Speaker. When we drain the wetlands and send the water down, as some people propose, to the American Southwest to irrigate dry soils -- I have not time to explain it -- when we irrigate dry soils, we also destroy them. This has been illustrated all over the world. Wherever we go into a dry climate and irrigate the soil, we destroy the soil.

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

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to speak on this bill this morning. I support private member's notice of motion 35, which concerns existing wetlands and promoting the creation of new wetlands where environmentally advisable.

I have spent 16 years involved in conservation in Ontario and have been on the executive committee of conservation authorities in Ontario for some years. I realize the value of the wetlands and of their preservation. Of the more than 47,000 acres that we have in the Minesing Swamp, the province now owns approximately 10,000 acres in co-operation with the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

When we look at the price paid for that land -- $54 an acre was what the first 2,000 acres was bought for -- and see the price that land is selling for today, it has increased rapidly; but we also have to take into consideration the taxes those people are paying on that land, and it is in a wetlands environment. I think it is great because of the attractions there for people who want to canoe through the Minesing Swamp and see the wildlife. Some of the species there can be found nowhere else in Ontario.

11:50 a.m.

I also had occasion to be at Luther Marsh, in the riding of my great friend the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson). I observed the number of geese, the wildlife that was there and that was doing harm in the cornfields of the farms in the immediate area.

When we are creating wetland, we have to realize what happens within the area around the wetland. I know that government guidelines with regard to the wetlands were released back in 1984. At that time, the government wanted to meet its commitment and be responsible to help create and maintain wetlands where feasible.

There were a lot of concerns from the farmers in my area with regard to the study that was being done and the people who were travelling over their properties without any approval. There were some 2,000 acres that were supposed to have been classified as wetlands, and when the ministry completed its report, it identified more than 4,000 acres. So when we talk about wetlands, we also have to take into consideration flood-line mapping, how we reduce the flooding, hold it up in the spring and let it go as the season progresses.

When we look at the millions of dollars taken in on our hunting and fishing licences and the value of the fur and the wild rice industries, they exceed $300 million on an annual basis. Approximately 80 per cent of the original wetlands in southern Ontario have been drained for a variety of reasons. The wetland area is currently being reduced at a rate of one to two per cent annually.

I can endorse a resolution such as this, but my endorsation comes with a reservation as to what happens within the farming community that surrounds the wetlands. With the wildlife that is attracted, the geese that get in the farmers' corn, the grain and alfalfa fields, there has to be consideration so that the farmers are protected. I am not interested in compensating people; I am interested in protecting people from what we as a government may create.

Flood plain mapping has been under way with the federal government in co-operation with the Ministry of Natural Resources to have a proposal for the township of Rama that would reduce the area that is being flooded at present so that those farmers can use their lands earlier in the spring and thereby not create the flooding that is taking place now. The townships have a great concern in that.

I say to the member who brought this resolution in that the municipal people, municipal councils and the leaders in the community should be made well aware of what has taken place. The elected municipal people should have some input, because they know their municipalities better than anyone else. They are the ones who should be told: "Yes, we are doing a study. How can we help you?"

Mr. Knight: In the time remaining, I would like to comment on the contributions of the speakers this morning, and I thank them for those.

The member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) mentioned that farmers were the original environmentalists, and I have no quarrel with that statement. I would also not quarrel with him when he indicates that farmers would not knowingly damage the land.

I am aware that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been very heavily involved in discussions with conservationists and environmentalist groups with respect to the methods we could undertake to preserve wetlands. Having spoken to them and others participating in that process, I know their contributions have been very even-minded, in some instances going the extra mile to assist the efforts brought by the farming community to preserve the wetlands and in making suggestions about the compensation programs the government should introduce.

I thank the member for Durham-York for agreeing with my general resolution that wetlands should be preserved. I hope he is also supportive of the recommendations I have mentioned this morning.

I am aware of the long-standing interest of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) in that matter. He indicated it has been seven years since he first took an interest and he mentioned the brochure the Federation of Ontario Naturalists published in 1979. I hope that in 1986 we are now at the point where the government of Ontario will be bringing forth a comprehensive strategy to be enshrined in the Planning Act. He mentioned I should speak to the Minister of Natural Resources, with whom I am pleased to speak and chat from time to time, and I shall do that.

I was interested in his comments on assessments. He suggested more specific assessments, such as single assessments on classes 1 and 2 and class assessments on 3 to 7. Suffice to say that I agree there should be some sort of assessment, which should be funded. It would be nice if we were able to go to the 1987 conference in Saskatchewan with a policy in our pocket. I look forward to that myself.

I thank the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan). I have to mention to the member for Nickel Belt that if I am not able to chat with the Minister of Natural Resources, I am sure the member for Kent-Elgin has a closer relationship and probably would be able to talk with him in my stead.

I thank the other members who spoke to the resolution. This is a matter of importance to me. I hope it is important to the rest of the members of the Legislature. The process has been ongoing for some time. I am confident that with the support of all members of the House for my resolution we will be able to encourage the government to complete the process and bring forth a comprehensive wetlands strategy that can ultimately be enshrined in the Planning Act.

I hope my comments today will ensure that strategy will provide for compensation for agriculturalists and other land owners in preserving wetlands. Also, I hope we can put out the message that education is important to ensure that the preservation continues, with or without -- let us hope it is with -- a comprehensive strategy.

Mr. Warner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wish to draw to your attention that I am very upset with the treatment which was provided to a group of senior citizens who this morning attempted to sit in the gallery and listen to the debate. Part-way through the debate they were asked by the officials here to leave the gallery; yet they had done nothing to warrant being removed from the gallery. I would appreciate it if you would look into the matter so that this type of thing does not happen again.

Mr. Speaker: The member has drawn a point of information to my attention. Because of his request, I will certainly try to find out the reason. It is quite possible these people were here on tour as a group, as many are, and were in the House for a certain length of time.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share in the concern. This is a very legitimate point of order and is worthy of --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, if this is not a point of order, I do not know what is in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing out of order. However, I said I will look at it. I do not think anything further can be done.

SENIORS' INDEPENDENCE ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Warner has moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act for the Provision and Integration of Community Based Services for Seniors.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The bill, according to the standing orders, will be sent to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Warner: I wish to have the bill sent to the standing committee on social development.

Mr. Speaker: The standing orders say a private members' bill will be sent to committee of the whole House unless the majority of the House wishes it to go to a standing committee. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has made such a request. I would like some indication from the majority of the members of the House whether it should go to that standing committee.

Ordered for standing committee on social development.

WETLANDS POLICY

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Knight has moved resolution 35.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the business of

the House this morning.

The House recessed at 12:02 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members to join me in welcoming and recognizing in the Speaker's gallery today Senator William A. Sederburg from the 24th district, Lansing, Michigan.

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before members' statements, I want to raise a subject that has been raised many times in the past in this assembly. I thought you might have made a statement with respect to the change in policy that has obviously been made with respect to demonstrations within the assembly. I want to say right off the bat that I welcome that change.

I recall two incidents from the past which illustrated the previous policy. During the debate on Bill 179, the wage control bill, delegates from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union were ordered out of the building because they were wearing OPSEU T-shirts and buttons and were thus technically demonstrating inside the assembly. Earlier, in 1979, a delegation of injured workers who were demonstrating outside the assembly in the hot sun were prohibited from entering the building to get a drink of water.

I am pleased to note that under this new policy, the demonstrators from the Ontario Medical Association were permitted to enter the building wearing their OMA uniforms and buttons and accompanied by their own photographer. They were given four reserved tables in the dining room downstairs, where they were able to make short speeches, toast and applaud their guests and quench their thirst with glasses of Henkell Trocken sparkling wine.

My point is that I trust all these amenities will be available to the injured workers the next time they come to Queen's Park.

Mr. Gillies: On the same point, Mr. Speaker: I am sure I speak for my colleagues when I say I always considered it a bit of an anomaly that someone coming into the galleries of this place wearing a T-shirt or a button would be considered in any way part of a demonstration. If the leniency you are showing today is a change of policy, we welcome it. We also particularly welcome the members of the medical profession who are here today to demonstrate their concern for their rights.

Mr. Speaker: I will respond to the two members who have spoken, even though it is not a point of order. I believe the only thing that comes under a point of order would be in regard to demonstrations in the gallery. Guidelines have been set out by previous Speakers. I looked very carefully at those, and it is stated that participants in any demonstrations held outside are not allowed into the hallways or galleries with their paraphernalia or equipment.

As far as the so-called demonstration in the dining room is concerned, I have no authority over that. I believe it is the members' dining room, and I am sure a member of the Legislature is responsible for those guests.

Mr. McClellan: Either there is one rule for everybody or something else. Which is it?

Mr. Speaker: I agree. In our discussions earlier this morning, it was agreed that on a previous occasion there was a demonstration with white coats etc. It was asked that those white coats should be removed before they could enter. There is no demonstration today. I will be glad to look at it more closely.

2:05 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I take this opportunity to remind the members of this Legislature that one year ago this Saturday on May 31, 1985, tornadoes struck several parts of southern Ontario.

In my riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, tornadoes carved a devastating path of destruction through the area of Arthur, Belwood, Grand Valley and Orangeville, moving into Simcoe county and Barrie. These killer tornadoes left 12 people dead, hundreds injured and thousands homeless. The costs of nature going wild for a few minutes wiped out generations of toil, effort and savings.

That evening, after inspecting this terrible devastation, I requested the assistance of the then Solicitor General, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory). The next morning the then Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Solicitor General and the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), arrived in Grand Valley after visiting Barrie and area. The Premier assured me that he shared my view that it was a disaster area and that the province was prepared to assist in restoring the devastated communities on the base of three-to-one funding.

In conclusion, may I express my condolences to the families who lost loved ones, my hope that all the injured are fully recovered, my best wishes to the many who lost their homes and businesses and were forced to rebuild and my thanks to the many thousands of good people who provided help to the victims of this disaster.

INJURED WORKERS DAY

Mr. McClellan: I am sure all members will want to join with me in recognizing that this Sunday, June 1, will be Injured Workers Day in Ontario. The day will be marked by a gathering of injured workers and their supporters at the steps of the Legislature starting at 10 a.m. At 11 o'clock, there will be a moment's silence for injured workers who have died as a result of industrial accidents or disease.

I want to take the occasion of Injured Workers Day in 1986 to remind the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), the new government and all the members of the assembly that the legitimate and just demands of working people in this province for safety on the job and for a reform of the Workers' Compensation Board is still unfulfilled.

Injured workers are still not properly compensated for industrial accidents. The Workers' Compensation Board has not even begun to address adequately the issue of compensation for the victims of industrial disease. Injured workers do not have a legal entitlement to job retraining and job placement after being disabled.

Until these things are done, injured workers in Ontario will continue to feel a deep sense of grievance that they have been cast off and forgotten by their community, and for the rest of us this should be a source of deep shame.

D-DAY REUNION

Mr. Morin: I wish to bring to the assembly's attention an important event taking place in the city of Toronto on the coming weekend. In recognition of the 42nd anniversary of the Normandy invasion, the Toronto and area branch of the Canadian Airborne Forces Association has organized its first Allied airborne D-Day reunion and memorial ceremony.

At that French beachhead all those years ago, airborne forces guaranteed their place in history by taking the crucial first step in the liberation of an enchained Europe. We owe a deep and lasting debt of gratitude to the members of the Allied forces who answered their country's call to fight for our democratic ideals and who, when necessary, sacrificed their very lives to ensure our freedom today.

As a result of the tireless efforts of the branch president, John McGillis, who is in the gallery this afternoon accompanied by a master warrant officer of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, members of airborne units of Canada, the United States, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Britain and Israel are gathering in our provincial capital to commemorate this historic occasion. I am sure all members of the assembly join with me in wishing them an enjoyable and successful reunion and ceremony.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. McCague: As my colleague has mentioned, this Saturday marks the first anniversary of the devastating tornadoes that struck parts of southern Ontario. I think it appropriate at this time for all members of this House to reflect for a moment on some of the positive efforts that came in response to that disaster.

The public was saddened by the deaths and property destruction that occurred at that time. Out of the disaster, however, emerged the public's generosity: as simple as offering a meal or a few nights' shelter to a neighbour, volunteering in one of the many emergency centres that had been established, sending in clothing or contributing to the nearly $10 million raised for the Central Ontario Disaster Relief Committee.

In all this, the people of our province demonstrated the true spirit of co-operation and a high regard for one another. I am sure all members of this House share with me in thanking the members of the Central Ontario Disaster Relief Committee, especially its chairman, John Morrison; the chairman of fund-raising, Geoffrey Lind; the chairman of the claims committee, Ed Thompson; and those hundreds of people who responded in so many ways to the needs and concerns of others.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Foulds: The free trade studies released by the federal and provincial governments confirm what the New Democrats have been saying for 18 months or more. The so-called benefits of free trade will be paid for with the jobs of workers. That is why the 800,000-member Ontario Federation of Labour, the United Steelworkers of America, the United Auto Workers Union of Canada, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the association of retirees, the United Church and many other Ontarians oppose free trade.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said last Tuesday there is "a great deal to be lost if any government in this country fails to represent the interests and views of its people...forcefully." The majority of Ontarians expressed their interests and their views. The Premier must not fail to represent them. On Monday in Ottawa, the Premier must insist that softwood, lumber, potatoes, hogs, cattle and the auto pact are, in his words, "kept off the bargaining block."

Surely it is now clear that the cost to Ontario of a free trade deal with the United States will be jobs and communities. He should remember Kipling, who said, "It is her own soul that Canada risks today." Ontario's economy and her soul are at risk. The Premier must report to Brian Mulroney what he suggested to the grocers on Tuesday: Include us out of your impossible dream.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Cordiano: Members of the Legislature will recall that the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) announced a new initiative six months ago to provide training, educational upgrading and work experience for hard-to-employ youth. The program, called Futures, grew from a commitment made more than two years ago by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) when he was in opposition and reaffirmed by him as he took office last summer as Ontario's 20th premier.

The development of the Futures program and its operation were placed in the Ministry of Skills Development. It is extremely satisfying to announce today that we set out to help 56,000 young people in the past fiscal year and that our goal was met.

Our pleasure is not derived from a numbers game but in the knowledge that 56,000 hard-to-employ Ontarians between 16 and 24 years of age received counselling, on-the-job training and work experience and in some cases very basic pre-employment training. More important, for most of these young people, participation in this program led to permanent jobs and a decision to return to school.

In my riding of Downsview, Seneca College is one of the delivery organizations for Futures. A letter from one of Seneca's Futures graduates sums it up pretty well. She wrote to say thank you, because through the program she obtained a responsible position as an administrative assistant.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Rowe: Saturday marks the first anniversary of the tornado that struck central Ontario. We in this House should take a moment and reflect on that most bleak and tragic day.

At approximately 5:15 p.m., the devastating tornado touched down just west of Highway 400 in Barrie. By the time it left a few minutes later, a path of death and destruction lay behind. We have all learned something from this tragic phenomenon -- some bad things; some good things. One such lesson is the need for restructuring of the tornado assistance guidelines, which are antiquated and must be overhauled.

Let me take a minute to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) for his assistance with many tragic personal cases I have sent him. However, I also want to remind the minister there are still personal cases outstanding, and I urge him to act expediently to help solve these cases.

2:15 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I wish to preface my remarks by saying that the statement I am about to make gives me perhaps more satisfaction and pleasure than any I have made thus far in the House, dealing, as it does, with community colleges and the resolution of an issue with which I was confronted when I first came to my position as Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Today I have the pleasure of making a statement to this House of major importance to the future health and vitality of Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology. The 1986-87 operating grant to the colleges is being increased by a further $60 million. This will bring the total operating support being provided to the colleges this year to $588.1 million. This is in direct response to the needs of the community college system for increased financial resources to improve the quality of education.

Upon becoming Minister of Colleges and Universities, one of the first items to appear on my desk was the Instructional Assignment Review Committee report, known in government as the Skolnik report. As members will recall, college academic staff were on strike in the fall of 1984; there was disarray in the college system, and faculty work load was the critical issue. The work load issue was not resolved in the strike, and a committee chaired by Professor Michael Skolnik was appointed in November 1984. Its job was to conduct a comprehensive review of all aspects of instructional assignments in the colleges.

The Skolnik report concluded that faculty did have a serious work load problem and that the quality of education was being adversely affected as a result. After I reviewed the report, I indicated that the work load issue must be addressed at the bargaining table and strongly urged both sides to arrive at a negotiated settlement. I am pleased to report today that a negotiated settlement has been achieved and that an agreement was signed on May 22. It is a two-year contract, by the way.

New work load provisions in the contract permit more contact between teachers and students and provide greater opportunities for faculty to keep abreast of developments in their particular fields. With today's commitment of additional funding, colleges will be in a position to hire substantial numbers of new faculty members. I am particularly pleased that these hirings will provide new teaching opportunities for women and accelerate the hiring of women faculty in the colleges.

As well, with the new work load provisions in the contract, nursing faculty will now be treated exactly the same as teachers in other post-secondary programs. Historically, nursing faculty, 96 per cent of whom are women, had been required to teach more hours than any post-secondary faculty. I am pleased to report that the new work load provisions remove this discrimination.

This government has on many occasions stated its commitment to excellence in education. Colleges are a most important component of the province's educational system. Colleges play a large role in ensuring that our labour force has the skills to enable Ontario industries to remain competitive in world markets, and they enable adult learners to adapt to changing technologies.

This government recognizes that additional funding alone is not sufficient to revitalize the province's colleges of applied arts and technology. I have initiated various studies to develop more effective governance and operational structures for the college system. I will be reporting on these studies in the coming months.

With the establishment of the college excellence fund and the $60 million in new funds I am announcing today, I am confident we are making strides to build a stronger and more vital college system.

Mr. McFadden: I welcome the announcement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities in relation to the extension of further operating grants to the college system. In Ontario we have the finest system of colleges in Canada. We can be proud of it, and I very much welcome what the government has done today.

Mr. Allen: I compliment the Minister of Colleges and Universities for recognizing the eminent merits of the Skolnik report in its judgement that the work load situation in the colleges, over which a strike was held and on which we stood alone in the debate in this House, really merits full response.

I hope the minister continues in this tradition of responding and of overturning some of the predelictions and attitudes of his colleagues in a past forum in this Legislature.

COURT SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce the appointment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas Zuber of the Ontario Court of Appeal to conduct an inquiry into the organization, jurisdiction and structure of the courts of Ontario.

The most recent systematic investigation of the operation of our courts and their structure was conducted more than 15 years ago by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which prepared a three-volume report entitled Report on the Administration of Ontario Courts. Since that time there have been fundamental changes in our society and its laws but none whatever in the courts. The time has now come for a thorough examination of the problems inherent in our court system so we can better cope with the constantly increasing demands placed upon us.

We have given Mr. Justice Zuber the widest possible scope in his terms of reference to deal with any question that arises in the area of organization, structure, jurisdiction or the work load of any court of Ontario, from a justice of the peace to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and any matter dealing with access to the courts by the public and the provision of service by the courts to the public.

I want to make it clear to my colleagues that this inquiry is not intended to be a mere tinkering with the existing system but rather a fundamental rethinking of all the assumptions on which our courts have operated since 1792, when they were first established upon the creation of the province of Upper Canada. I have personally asked Mr. Justice Zuber to consider redesigning the entire system from the ground up to provide us with an organization that responds to our needs today and will be adaptable to our needs 15 years from now in the year 2000.

Mr. Justice Zuber will provide me with his report by April 1, 1987. I undertake to consider his recommendations immediately and to act as swiftly as possible on them.

Mr. O'Connor: On behalf of our party, I welcome the inquiry announced by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) into the court system in Ontario and particularly, as the statement indicates, into the organization, jurisdiction and structure of the courts of our province.

Given the events of the past few days, how could the minister omit perhaps the most important, pressing and urgent problem in the legal delivery system today, namely, that of facilities and, in particular, courthouses?

We have heard horror stories through the news media and in this House of condemned, leaking, falling-down court buildings. There is nothing in the statement about an inquiry into this very serious problem. We will hear more about the situation today. The minister continues to ignore it.

What good is a better flow of people and paper if there is no adequate place in which to hold trials? The minister should consider expanding the inquiry, to include reference to the physical facilities of this province, and making the inquiry public so that the people of this province can observe its deliberations and have input into the final outcome of this inquiry.

We welcome the inquiry as it stands, but it must be expanded.

Mr. Rae: With respect to the courts, I say to the Attorney General that I can only hope Mr. Justice Zuber will be suggesting reforms that will be far-reaching and will deal with the need, in our view, to combine our senior courts into one unified system, which would make the most sense.

FREE TRADE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am tabling a study entitled Canada-US Free Trade: The Exchange Rate and Employment Policy. The study is part of our ongoing analysis of the issues surrounding Canada-US bilateral trade negotiations. It reflects recent developments and may aid members in understanding the background to press stories linking the trade talks to Canada's exchange rate policy.

The study outlines the link between US trade policy and initiatives by the US administration related to exchange rates. It notes that pressure may be brought to bear on Canada's exchange rate policy through the new Group of Seven. The study outlines some estimates of the negative effects on the Canadian economy of a deliberate attempt to raise the exchange value of the Canadian dollar.

Mr. Brandt: I want to respond briefly to the comments of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) with respect to the background document he has released today.

First, I want to compliment the Treasurer on sharing this information with us.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I am not finished yet. I believe it is important in the discussion of free trade policy that we get this type of background information. In this paper, it indicates that for every five per cent of the dollar that is reduced, we lose some 56,000 jobs. In an earlier statement made by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology about the study it undertook, there was a background document indicating some 280,000 jobs would be lost through free trade.

As I have requested of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and of this House, I suggest we get all the background material and that we be provided with some information from time to time on what some of those gains might be so we can get a balanced picture from that side of the House, something that has been lacking so far.

Mr. Harris: On behalf of our party, I want to join with the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) in welcoming John McGillis and Master Warrant Officer Clarence Jardine, who are here --

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not in members' statements. That was a member's statement.

Mr. Foulds: This week the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said with regard to free trade negotiations that all the facts must be on the table. The facts are clear. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology reported 280,000 jobs at risk in the free trade negotiations. The report of the Treasurer indicates 56,000 additional jobs at risk because of these negotiations.

The Premier admitted his government began to study the effects of free trade on agriculture and food in this province just this week, and the study will not be completed for several months. I say to the Premier and to the Treasurer, do not go quietly into that dark night, because they are going into shark-infested waters in Ottawa. They cannot preside over the dismantlement and the dismembering of Ontario's jobs and Ontario's economy.

ONTARIO STOCK YARDS

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am sure my statement will touch the senses of each and every member of this Legislature. I am pleased to report that the review of the Ontario Stock Yards conducted by John Kruger, special adviser to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), and Don Dunn of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, is complete.

The purpose of the review was to determine options and recommendations on the role of the Ontario Stock Yards facilities in meeting future needs for livestock marketing. The review explored various options, such as privatization, relocation or closing of the stockyards. All businesses, organizations and individuals with an interest in the stockyards were encouraged to voice their opinions.

On the basis of this extensive consultation, the government has decided to maintain the 37 acres of livestock marketing facilities and services at the 590 Keele Street location. The stockyards will continue to operate as a government agency, but a number of operational changes are planned.

For example, we will be amending the Ontario Stock Yards Act to clarify the Ontario Stock Yards board's responsibilities and provincial ownership of the stockyards' property. We will also amend the Ontario Live Stock Community Sales Act to license and regulate commission firms operating from the Ontario stock yards on a similar basis as all other livestock community sale operators in Ontario.

The Ontario Stock Yards board will be asked to develop a five-year financial business plan and to submit annual budget forecasts to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. These will include plans for necessary capital improvements and a property management plan to address property requirements and sale or lease of surplus land. A revenue recovery system, based on a combination of fixed overhead charges to each commission agent and a per head charge for livestock sold, will be developed in consultation with the commission firms.

As recommended, the Ontario government will discuss with the city of Toronto payment of property taxes in the future.

The 590 Keele Street office building will be maintained because of its importance to the tenants operating from the stockyards and the livestock industry organizations.

The status and role of the stock yards will be reviewed again in 1991.

I am very pleased with the findings and recommendations, which reflect the views of many livestock industry businesses and organizations that were consulted during the review. I would add that the city of Toronto has recommended maintaining the stockyards in its present location.

Although the percentage of the Ontario livestock sales through the stockyards has declined in recent years, the facility continues to provide an important marketing service for livestock producers and buyers. In 1984, the four commission firms at the stockyards sold more than 500,000 head of cattle, calves, sheep and lambs. This represented some 31 per cent of Ontario's calf and cattle sales and 50 per cent of the sheep and lambs. In addition, the yards handled 81,000 feeder cattle transported by rail, and 180,000 hogs were shipped through the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board's assembly facilities at the stockyards.

Ontario Stock Yards Board chairman Ross Beattie, other board members and general manager Doug McDonnell provided valuable input to this review. I look forward to working with them on the future management and operation of the Ontario Stock Yards.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I think it is an affront to all members of this Legislature that this information was leaked to a weekly tabloid in Toronto's west end, which published a front-page

article outlining all the details of this report before the elected members of this Legislature received any information.

The action of the minister in providing that information as a priority to the editor of a tabloid as being more important than the elected members of this province is a subversion, usurpation and abuse of the privileges of the members of this House.

Mr. Rae: Not only does the member for High Park-Swansea have a point with respect to the leak, but I think the Toronto Star does as well, because it has leaked everything