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

June 20, 1983

32nd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

VISITORS

CLARIFICATION OF RECORD

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

YOUNG ONTARIO CAREER PROGRAM

CAPITAL ACCELERATION PROGRAM

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTRUCTION DELAYS

ASSISTANCE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

HOME INSURANCE

SECURICOR INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY LTD.

FOREST REGENERATION

DAY CARE CENTRES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

SCHEDULE

SCRUTINY OF SECURITIES INDUSTRY

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

REPORT ON WIFE BATTERING

TRANSPORTATION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

EXAMINERS IN PSYCHOLOGY APPOINTMENT

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

PETITIONS

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

RENT CONTROL

GREENSHIELDS NURSERY SCHOOL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

INSURED HEALTH SERVICES ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

VISITOR

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS ACT

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like at this time to draw all honourable members' attention to a distinguished group of parliamentarians from Saskatchewan in the Speaker's gallery who are here as guests of the Ontario branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to observe our procedures and to meet with Ontario members: the Honourable Herbert Swan, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan; Mr. Paul Meagher, member of the Legislative Assembly, and Mr. Dwain Lingenfelter, MLA, opposition House leader.

CLARIFICATION OF RECORD

Mr. Speaker: On Thursday last, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) asked for the authority for a ruling that a member may correct his own record but may not correct the record of another member. For the benefit of all honourable members I would like to cite the authority on which my ruling was based.

The 19th edition of May's Parliamentary Practice states: "It is not in order for a member to obtain or quote during a current sitting the record made for the official report of the remarks of any other member...A member has sometimes been allowed, as a matter of personal explanation, to point out at a subsequent sitting an error in the report of his speech."

This precedent has been followed many times in this House and also in the House of Commons of Canada. In this regard, on May 28, 1982, Speaker Sauvé ruled: " ... if (an) honourable member wants to correct a statement of his own, he is perfectly free to do so, but one honourable member cannot correct the statement of another."

It comes back to the question of privilege, which has been dealt with in this House many times. I again refer members to standing order 18 and May's Parliamentary Practice at page 67. There is no privilege by parliamentary rule or precedent that allows a member to interrupt the proceedings of the House to correct a statement of another member; there are other ways of doing this if a member disagrees.

Standing order 19(d)(1) provides that a member may make an "explanation of a material part of his speech in which he may have been misunderstood." The member can be said to be correcting the record. However, there is no provision for him to correct the record of another member.

In reply to the often-repeated question, "Where do we find that in the standing orders, Mr. Speaker?" I draw your attention to clause (

b) of standing order 1 which states, "In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, and in making his ruling the Speaker or Chairman shall base his decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition."

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

YOUNG ONTARIO CAREER PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today details of the new young Ontario career program.

Before I do, I would like to remind the members that this is the second youth employment program administered by my ministry, the first being the highly successful Ontario youth employment program. Now in its seventh year, this program has created jobs for thousands of young people across this province. This year, OYEP is funding in excess of 25,000 employers, creating summer jobs for more than 50,000 young people in Ontario.

To complement OYEP, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) announced in his May 10 budget that $25 million would go towards an accelerated youth employment program which would extend beyond the summer months. This program, known as the young Ontario career program, will create an additional 12,500 jobs during the next year for both post-secondary school graduates and nongraduates to help launch them into their chosen careers.

The young Ontario career program co-ordinated by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development is part of the government's $242-million, short-term job creation program announced by the Treasurer in his May 10 budget.

The purpose of the young Ontario career program is to help businesses, nonprofit organizations, and certain public employers such as hospitals, create additional jobs and career opportunities for our 20- to 29-year olds who are at present unemployed or underemployed.

The province will pay $2.50 per hour to eligible employers up to a maximum of $100 per week in respect to the wages paid to an eligible employee. Under this program, each job must be for at least 25 hours per week for at least 20 consecutive weeks. Funding will be for between 20 and 26 weeks. The job must be one which would not have existed without the program funding, and must provide substantial work experience and contribute to the employee's vocational development.

Through this program, Ontario's young people will gain valuable work experience. The skills and contacts they develop will increase the possibility of obtaining permanent employment in their chosen field. At the same time, businesses will benefit from the opportunity to assess possible long-term employees while receiving a subsidy to reduce their costs during this period of economic recovery.

This program is being introduced at a time when there is a pressing need to provide relevant work experience for our young people, especially our recent graduates of colleges and universities. Young people are one of Ontario's greatest assets, and the young Ontario career program addresses the needs of creating employment and helping the development of Ontario's businesses.

I would like to point out the Ontario government is spending $121 million on youth employment programs that will create an estimated 100,000 jobs in the current year.

Employers who wish to obtain application forms or information should write or telephone the young Ontario career program in the subsidies branch of my ministry. I believe all members will find full details of the program in their mailboxes today.

CAPITAL ACCELERATION PROGRAM

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. F. S. Miller) announced in his budget economic stimulation and job creation measures which included a capital acceleration program co-ordinated by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.

On May 27, I announced to this assembly the government's support for the establishment of the Natural Resources Centre at the University of Toronto. Grants to the university for this year and next towards this project amount to $9.5 million and will be made available through this capital acceleration program.

I am pleased to announce today that in addition to the support given to the Natural Resources Centre, which is in effect a co-ordination of a number of programs at the University of Toronto, a number of projects in other Ontario universities will receive $7.65 million under this program, bringing the ministry's participation to an overall level of $17.15 million.

2:10 p.m.

Included among these projects are a number of major renovations, as well as projects that enhance specific specialties within our universities.

McMaster University in Hamilton has one of the finest engineering faculties in Canada. It has provided a strong research base for the Canadian communications industry through the excellent research carried out at the McMaster communications research laboratory. The research is of high technological content, concerned with the design of specific communication systems, such as microwave and satellite communications.

Existing facilities in the John Hodgins Engineering Building are now inadequate for the faculty to maintain and continue the high level of research and graduate education. Therefore, $500,000 will be provided through the capital acceleration program for the expansion and alteration of these facilities.

In 1972, the joint federal-provincial agreement provided for increased enrolment at the Ontario Veterinary College in Guelph. At that time, a plan was developed to upgrade the buildings, expand the facilities and consolidate related activities of the four departments of the college: biomedical sciences, clinical studies, pathology and veterinary microbiology and immunology.

Since that time, various projects have been completed in line with this plan. The need to continue with renovations and expansion of facilities at OVC is recognized by both the provincial and federal governments. In this connection, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) has approached the federal government to obtain its commitment to share equally the costs of renovations and expansion.

The ministry, however, will be allocating $250,000 towards the costs of a detailed planning and design study. It is hoped the federal government will provide an equal amount of funding for this important purpose. This study is expected to address issues regarding physical resources raised by the American Veterinary Medical Association, as well as the ongoing capital requirements of the college.

Other projects which will be receiving funding under the capital acceleration program will be the completion of the DeCew science wing at Brock University; the replacement of the MacOdrum Library exterior wall at Carleton University: alterations to the Centennial Building at Lakehead University; the replacement of the animal research facility at Laurentian University; and renovations and alterations to the former medicine building at the University of Ottawa, including those necessitated by the decision of the Ottawa-Carleton regional government to make Nicholas Street a major traffic artery.

They include, as well, renovations to the Crain Building at Queen's University; podium reconstruction at Trent University: renovations to the Old St. Denis Hall at the University of Windsor; and fire protection improvements to the Steacie Science Library at York University.

All projects funded under the capital acceleration program have been selected with due regard to the priorities of the institutions, the feasibility of early implementation and, in particular, the local burden of unemployment or welfare. Over the next two years these projects will create approximately 1,300 jobs.

In addition to the capital acceleration program, $13.5 million in regular capital funds will be provided this year to the provincially assisted universities, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute and the Ontario College of Art, for roof replacements and a number of renovation projects which are required to meet fire, occupational health and safety code requirements.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I think it is something you and the other members of the Legislature should be aware of because it affects quite a few of them also.

On the weekend I returned to my riding to find headlines in one of the local papers mentioning myself, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) and the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) as having outspent the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the leaders of the opposition parties.

I wonder if you would take it under advisement to re-examine the format that is put out which lists the individual members' expenditures. It is very misleading to the public back in our ridings. We all work very hard. When they compare each individual member as having spent the same as the Premier or the opposition leaders it detracts from us. In no way do I spend $2,233,500 to run my office, as the Premier must because of all of the work he has.

As I say, I wonder if you would take this under advisement, also taking into consideration that it is not only the Premier but the members who are cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants, who have use of government cars, government planes, government staff, accommodation expenses, supplies and things like that which do not show in there.

Mr. Speaker, they also do not take into consideration whether we, as members, have one, two or three offices and the number of staff we must have in those riding offices and at Queen's Park because of the volume of work we have and the amount of mail. They also do not take into account the size of our ridings and the people living in them. I would appreciate your comments and report on this subject.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTRUCTION DELAYS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I know he is aware of the ongoing tension at a number of construction sites in the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto at present. He will be aware that, given the dispute between the two conflicting unions, there is very little construction activity going on.

Given the fact that in the last three months there were roughly 5,300 new housing start -- I think my figures are reasonably accurate -- and at present some 250 construction sites in areas tend to be tied up, it appears that a number of people who have purchased homes and were planning on closing prior to the August 31 cutoff date for the renter-buy program will not be able to close by that time.

Would the minister consider having his ministry extend the program for those unfortunate people who are caught in this labour dispute, to make sure the people who were counting on participating in that program will not be denied eligibility?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this government has always shown concern and compassion for people who are caught in a situation that is not of their own making, and this is no less true in this particular case. We have had people on this program who, the member will recall, were to have applications in by January 17. Because of circumstances beyond their control, some of which the member knows about, they did not, but we were able to extend the program to make it available to them.

In this case, I will await advice from the individual builders, contractors and sellers, and indeed from individuals. If they are experiencing difficulty as a bona fide result of this labour dispute, we will certainly be compassionate and understanding.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister have any idea at this point in his communications with the home builders how many people run the potential risk of losing their participation in the program? Would the minister be prepared to make a clear statement that he is prepared to work with these people?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will have the opportunity later this week when I meet with the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, the Urban Development Institute and the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies. They are the principal organizations in relationship to the development of housing and structures in this province. We will be seeking advice from them on this specific area as well as others relating to the housing field.

I repeat, we will show concern and compassion and be realistic in the judgement of those applications if the builders fall short of the mark as far as a delivery date is concerned as a result of the labour dispute that is at present confronting them.

ASSISTANCE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. I am surprised there was no statement in the House today with respect to Senior Citizens' Week. Given the fact that both the minister and the Premier (Mr. Davis) made very elegant and thoughtful speeches at noon today to celebrate the opening of seniors' week, I wonder if the provincial secretary would consider, in addition to the marvellous public relations programs in which she is participating, doing something of substance for seniors?

I think particularly of the area where most people feel we have the most serious problem in regard to seniors, that is, single pensioners over the age of 65, essentially women. Is the minister now prepared to use her good offices to recommend to her government that it subscribe to the various suggestions of the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada and a variety of others, so that Ontario would move immediately to increase guaranteed annual income system payments for singles to 60 per cent of the married rate? That would at least go some way to solving the very serious problem everyone recognizes.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I did not really find it necessary to make a statement on Senior Citizens' Week in the House today because all members of the Legislature were invited to participate in the festivities officially opening Senior Citizens' Week in the Legislature at noon. I am sorry for those who could not attend. I think they would have been reassured, as we were, that the senior citizens in Ontario are a very grateful, a very happy and a very busy group of people. It was delightful to have an opportunity to meet with them.

2:20 p.m.

With regard to the other question the member has put forward, I do not think it is a secret we have made those recommendations. We do feel there is great justification for increasing the rate of the single elderly and to those ends we hope that action will be taken as quickly as possible. The Treasurer (Mr. F.S. Miller) is aware of our recommendations and is, I hope, going to act on those in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Peterson: I have no idea whom the minister is talking about when she says "we made those recommendations." I do not know whether "we" is the minister, some advisory group or whatever. The minister, as part of the cabinet, part of the decision-making group, clearly has a responsibility in that regard.

I am asking what the government's position is in that regard. The Premier spoke eloquently on the subject this morning in a speech to the Toronto Society of Financial Analysts. He said: "First, we should ensure the problems of the existing elderly, particularly single people, can be taken care of by adjusting income guarantees from the guaranteed income supplement and through provincial programs such as Gains. This will be the main priority in our own pension reform effort. In this instance, government alone has the responsibility and the resources to solve it."

Given that statement by the Premier, and the minister's own marvellous intentions, why will her government not move now?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think it is abundantly clear the recommendations I have received through the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens and from other provincial organizations have all indicated they feel very strongly there should be an increase. I have forwarded those recommendations to the Treasurer of Ontario. It is now up to him, in his wisdom, to implement the changes when the timing is appropriate.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know there is something called "cabinet solidarity." Has she taken the view to cabinet that there should be an increase? Can she tell us what the response of cabinet has been? What is her feeling about the inactivity of her cabinet colleagues with respect to help for seniors?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to enlarge upon the comments I have already made. The recommendations have gone forward. I have suggested the Treasurer will make those announcements when the timing is appropriate.

Mr. Peterson: I find it very difficult to deal with this question with the minister's government; perhaps someone else should be asked, although the minister is obviously providing the thrust in this regard. How can she take one position and the Treasurer take another? When is he going to take a position on this issue? We have discussed it many times in this House and she now apparently recognizes the benefit of it and the justification for it. When is her colleague the Treasurer going to move on this subject?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I respectfully suggest the member should put that question to the Treasurer when he is in the House. The Treasurer is faced with many requests and he is the one who has to make the final judgement about the appropriateness of the timing.

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. It concerns the operation of rest homes, or nursing homes masquerading as rest homes, in Ontario. The minister already has extensive powers available to his inspection services under sections 3, 17(2) and 18 of the Nursing Homes Act with respect to homes that are operating as nursing homes but which do not choose to call themselves by that. Why has the nursing homes services branch refused to investigate complaints about care now being provided in the rest homes of this province? The minister will know there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands, operating completely unregulated at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if the member has a particular home he thinks it is our obligation to investigate and inspect, we will certainly do it. Why does he not send over the information? If we report back to him that under the terms of our legislation we ought not to be looking at that circumstance, then he can raise the issue with regard to how wide our legislation is and whether we ought to have increased power. He should feel free to raise it; let him send it over, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rae: Since this is question period, I will send it over verbally to the minister. I would simply like to point out to him that the case of the Idylwild Rest Home in London was brought to the attention of the then nursing homes inspection branch over a year ago, and at that time the branch advised them to go to the local municipality. The local municipality had already told them to go to the Ministry of Health.

This is a home that calls itself a home for residential and nursing care. It provides care for 33 people at the present time. Much of it is heavy care. Extensive information has been provided to the Ministry of Labour such that the negotiations that are currently going on between the Service Employees International Union and the employer, which have been going on for over two years for a first contract, are now being heard under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: So everybody seems to be convinced of the fact that there is a problem, except for the Ministry of Health.

Why has the nursing homes services branch taken the view that it will not, as a matter of course, investigate homes operating in this way? Why is it insisting that people go to the municipality when the minister knows full well it is the obligation of his ministry under the Nursing Homes Act to make these investigations and respond to these kinds of complaints?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member wants to play his little game with the cameras on, which is to suggest that the Ministry of Health says everything is okay in that particular facility. I have not said that; I just said that if the member wants to send this information over, we will be pleased to look into it.

Of course, he does not want to send it over before question period, because then he will not be able to make his speech for the cameras, suggesting that something else is wrong in another facility in this province. Since the member does not want to use these nice yellow envelopes whereby he can send it over in the morning and we can have an informed discussion about any one of the now 500 homes he wants to bring up here without prior notice, then he will have to make do for this afternoon with this answer:

(

a) The member should be accurate in what he says; (

b) he should not suggest that the Ministry of Health says anything is okay in that facility; and (

c) he should remember that this ministry acted to close a couple of nursing homes and a home for special care long before the member's Health critic suggested he pick up this issue after he had fumbled a dozen others.

Just let the member be accurate, Mr. Speaker. Send over the information, Robert, and if, after all that, the union, which obviously has given you information that you are acting on without checking with us, proves to be correct, then we will take all the appropriate action, as we have done in the past. Admittedly, that will spoil your game here, though.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister is aware that at least one of his predecessors recognized there was no adequate rest home legislation. As a matter of fact, his ministry at that time promised rest home legislation in Ontario. The present condition is that rest homes are under the same kind of jurisdiction as boarding houses in Ontario.

Is the minister aware that at least some rest home owners and some medical officers of health want this kind of legislation? It is a well-known fact that there is a certain level of expectation from the general public when their parents, their loved ones, go to these rest homes. Is the minister not going to act on the concern expressed by his own ministry up to five years ago about the need for rest home legislation in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the honourable member that some operators, I understand, would have welcomed this sort of change. I should say to him, though, and I know he will want to relate this to his leader, that my ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services have both been reviewing what steps we might take to rationalize inspection services, the allocation of programs and the distribution of patients throughout the system. The sort of thing the member is discussing has been looked at by both ministries and is still under review.

What I want the member to relate to his leader is the fact that all this work has been done by my colleague and me and our ministries under the guidance and direction of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), who has shown a great deal of concern and leadership in this particular area. When the time comes, and it will, for a sorting-out of various facilities and ministry responsibilities in this area, all to benefit seniors, the credit will be due to the guidance and leadership shown by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The fact of the matter is that in this instance a complaint was registered with his ministry more than a year ago with respect to the operation of an illegal nursing home in this province, and his ministry did nothing. He has done nothing, and he turns a blind eye to the operation of bootleg nursing homes in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I would specifically like to ask the minister: when his ministry received a complaint in May 1982 with respect to the operation of the Idylwild Rest Home, and when evidence with respect to the level of care, the degree of medication received by each patient and the conditions under which the workers are operating was presented to the government and has been available to the government for more than a year, can he explain why he has done absolutely nothing with respect to the operation of this and who knows how many other homes?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because the union is in a contract dispute there, as he has informed us, I know the member wants to help out the situation in some way. Really, Bob, it does not matter how many times you ask the question. The ministry is primarily responsible for inspecting the nursing homes in this province. The rest homes and the day-to-day inspection of rest homes is not a day-to-day responsibility of this ministry.

I want to make it clear that I know he had to stand up, under orders from whomever, and use the words that have been written for him before he came in here, "bootleg nursing homes." But any responsible leader who wants to stand up day after day, and I know he wants to, to raise allegations about various operations and operators in the system has to show some degree of responsibility.

There are more than 200 nursing homes. Now he is introducing all the rest homes in the system into the equation. If you want to play that game, Bob, I will tell you what -- sorry; if the leader of the third party wants to play that game, I can suggest to him that I will sit here every day and he can raise each individual home with his particular allegations brought to him by a union that currently is in a first-contract dispute. I am not doubting the legitimacy of it.

I am just suggesting that any responsible member of this House who has a question to raise about any of the facilities first ought properly to bring that circumstance to the knowledge of the hold him down -- particular minister and then we can have an informed discussion.

His colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has learned from firsthand experience that when he raises a concern about a particular facility, and when that concern is documented and he has the least bit of concern about it, this ministry looks into it and, if that concern is legitimate and proven, we will take firm and direct action against that facility. But that is as a result of carefully considered information, not a bunch of wild claims without notice that he wants to bring here every day. Follow his example and you will do better.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my next question is to Larry as well. I would like to ask --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: Be fair.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He corrected his.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You were not listening; he corrected himself.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He corrected himself.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that was a slip of the tongue, as it was with others. This practice is not allowed. Members must refer to the riding and not to personal names.

Mr. Martel: You didn't hear the minister, did you?

Mr. Stokes: You didn't hear him imputing motives.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: I can tell the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) I have heard him many a time.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think there is perhaps a little concern and I think it is useful to have you look at the record. I wondered whether anybody would pick it up, but I thought I heard the Minister of Health, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, suggest in his just-completed answer that a member of this assembly, most particularly the member for York South (Mr. Rae), had put his question because he had been ordered to raise the issue by someone.

I would like you to look at the record, sir, because it sounded to me very much like the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick might have been imputing motive, which by my reading of the standing orders of this place I understand may not be allowable.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that if the word "Larry" is deemed by you to be an insult, I will withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: You obviously did not hear what I said.

Mr. Rae: I did.

Mr. Renwick: We heard what you said when the Minister of Health called my leader "Bob."

Hon. Mr. Davis: Your hearing aid wasn't in.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You tuned out too soon.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South; a new question.

HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the failure of the ministry and of the government to implement a promise made some time ago with respect to homemaker programs under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. This promise was made in 1981 and renewed in the speech from the throne in 1982. It was renewed again by the Minister of Health in answer to a question from me on December 15, 1982, when he said: "We are not yet finished 1982-83. I hope to have at least some of those six programs in place by that time."

Given that this is Senior Citizens' Week and that the seniors of this province are looking for some action from this government with respect to its promises on homemaker programs, when is the minister going to make good on his promise with respect to the implementation of homemaker programs in 1982-83? It is gone for 1982-83. Can he please tell us what is going to happen for the rest of this year and next year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we expect to have it in place this fiscal year.

Mr. Rae: Many officials in his ministry, in response to questions from us, first said in March that this program would be introduced in May or June; now they are saying that they can give us no firm date and that they believe it may require legislation before it can be introduced. Can the minister confirm whether or not it is the view of the ministry that it is going to require legislation, and can he tell us why he has not introduced that legislation up until now if it does require legislation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, it does require legislation. Second, we have two concerns we are working through; they are a precise feel for the financial implications and how the program will work. Since we announced it some time ago, we have had a lot of ideas brought to our ministry and to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which is co-operating with us in this. Many suggestions have been brought to us which we found very useful. Therefore, the legislation has had to be rewritten to accommodate this.

Mr. McClellan: Maybe another five years?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me repeat what I said. We expect to have it in this fiscal year.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, will the minister be bringing in a complete service across Ontario or will it be more in the way of pilot projects as we have seen in the paramedic promises?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is not certain yet. Depending on how certain we are with regard to how the program should take shape, we may introduce it in four, five or six areas where we can identify the greatest need and can get a good idea of how it will work in various other parts of the province, i.e., a cross-section of four, five or six different types. We may phase it in on that basis, but that has not been ascertained yet.

Mr. Rae: The minister will know that as the summer approaches there are a great many people caring for either their parents or their grandparents who desperately need a break, who desperately need some kind of respite care. Since he is going to be looking at homemaker legislation, will the minister please consider at exactly the same time bringing in programs that will provide for respite care?

He will know that respite care has been recommended by many groups that have been meeting on this question, and it is something that again would provide a tangible benefit for a great many people who do need help for themselves, who want to care for their relatives, who do not want to see them go into rest homes or nursing homes but who need some assistance, some kind of break, some kind of respite. Can he bring in legislation to deal with that as well?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am really pleased the honourable member raised that, because we have been able to provide a substantial number of respite beds throughout the province without having legislation in place and without providing direct funding for it. One of the ways we have been able to do that is by working with some private nursing home operators and some hospitals to accomplish that.

The best example I can cite is the one the member complained about last Friday, the Northwestern General Hospital-Bestview Holdings project, which he suggested somehow ought not to have gone ahead and that we should not have done business with Bestview directly. I have to tell the member that as a result of that project, Bestview is providing 240 beds, 120 of which are funded by the government through the nursing home system. Some of the other 120 will be available as respite beds for people who would otherwise end up being institutionalized in that institution or others.

Families who live in the immediate or surrounding area now will be able to use those private sector beds as respite beds for their people.

If the member puts today's question together with last Friday's question, he will find that because of the ingenuity of the private sector operators and our ministry, we have been able to answer the concerns raised today with the very same project he was so outraged about last Friday.

2:40 p.m.

HOME INSURANCE

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last year there were six million cords of wood burned in Canadian homes. Statistics Canada says more than 20 per cent of all single-family homes in Canada now are using wood as a source of heat. According to the Canadian Wood Energy Institute, which met here in Toronto last week, fire insurance companies now are charging a surtax of 25 per cent to those people who report using wood.

Can the minister tell us whether this is really justified by the statistics and the results of claims in insurance?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot, but I will inquire and report to the honourable member.

Mr. McGuigan: I understand the ministry currently is publishing a booklet promoting wood safety. Would the minister include a

chapter in that book on the felling of trees? A great many amateurs are felling these trees and a young resident in my riding was injured and now is a paraplegic because of just such an accident.

I wonder whether the minister would take a look at that and try to advise people of the dangers and the proper methods of going about felling a tree.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will certainly take that under advisement.

SECURICOR INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY LTD.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. On April 20, in a letter to my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) dealing with investigators and security agents, the Solicitor General indicated he would be bringing forth legislation in the spring session and the bill would completely overhaul the legislation that is both needed and overdue."

In his response to my leader on June 7, the minister indicated it would be only a short while before he was able to decide whether to proceed with hearings or lay charges in terms of the Securicor shenanigans at Automotive Hardware.

Can the Solicitor General tell us whether the investigation is complete and whether he is ready to inform this House as to what he intends to do?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot.

Mr. Mackenzie: Inasmuch as we have been at this for better than a year, and given the fair and impartial hearings which the Solicitor General said were necessary before the Ontario Labour Relations Board on the Automotive Hardware-Securicor situation and the continuing saga of intimidation and infiltration, Bedford Bedding and Central Precision Casting being just two examples, does the Solicitor General not think it is time we had this cancer removed from the labour relations situation in the province?

Is it not important that the minister should conclude this case at the earliest possible opportunity?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Yes, it is important.

FOREST REGENERATION

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It arises out of a supplementary that was asked last Thursday regarding wasteful cutting practices.

The minister has had the report from the Forest Utilization Practices Review Committee on his desk since last June. This issue has been under review since 1975 and, in fact, the penalties that are imposed for wasteful cutting practices have not changed since 1952. The minister has also gone on record as saying the supply of forest products to the end of the century is tight but manageable and will depend on the elimination of wasteful cutting practices.

Can the minister tell us, and I repeat the question, why he has not tabled that report and when he is going to table that report?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to share that information with the member for Halton-Burlington when we have completed creation of the new regulations with respect to wasteful practices and harvesting techniques.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Is the minister telling us he is not prepared to share the problem with the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Pope: The member knows and has reviewed the forest management agreement provisions. He is aware of the application of these provisions and the impact they will have on wasteful practices, on harvesting techniques and on regeneration techniques.

He is also aware of the financial structure that is required and of the commitment this government has made through the forest management agreement system. He knows full well the net impact of the agreements, 17 of which have been signed, covering approximately 50 per cent of the licensed land in Ontario by the end of this year. He knows full well the impact of that agreements system is to improve our harvesting techniques and utilization practices, and that is happening all across Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister when is he going to update the forest resource inventory so that we can get an exact account of what is available in which species and age class. When is he going to do a review of the reforested areas to determine the success of the one for one, or two for one planning, after a three- to five-year period, to see what kind of survival rates we have and what kind of silvicultural practices he has to entertain to meet those requirements by the year 2000?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the inventory work is ongoing, as the member for Lake Nipigon is aware. Through our forest management agreements, we have had some notable successes in utilization and cutting practices which will aid natural regeneration. We have been looking at ways of increasing our reforestation efforts.

We are not satisfied yet, there is no doubt about that, but we have made significant increases, both in the acreages planted and as far as access into these areas are concerned, again through our forest management agreements and financial commitments through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. We are satisfied, as we enter into the forest management agreement process throughout all the licensed forest lands in Ontario, that the net impact of all our programs is going to be more natural regeneration of higher quality, more artificial regeneration restocking programs of higher quality and, we think, a better effort in terms of our entire reforestation program.

There is no doubt that as a result of the forest management agreements and some of the new initiatives we have undertaken in the past five years, our success rate in reforestation, particularly artificial regeneration, is greater. The location of nursery facilities in smaller communities throughout northern Ontario has aided the survival rate of the stock as it is being planted. The tending operations and site preparation operations, both under the forest management agreements and under our regular contract, have had a significant impact as well.

I think the picture is one of improvement. We have a way to go yet, but with our commitment to the forest management agreements system and the dependence upon our professional foresters, we are confident that improvement will be seen shortly.

DAY CARE CENTRES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour, who met this morning with representatives from Action Day Care Centre, as I understand it. The minister is aware that their project under the Canada-Ontario employment development program to create 25 jobs in the day care sector seems to have got messed up because the project was lost somewhere between his ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services for a month and a half or more.

Now that the COED money has gone, what kind of assurances can he give them that there will be money available to get this project off the ground in terms of finding money from other projects that have not worked or extensions of money from the federal government?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I can give the honourable member the same assurances I gave the ladies at our meeting this morning. Actually, if one wants to look at it in the fullest perspective, if that application had not been lost, if it had gone through on time, it probably would not have been accepted, because we were out of funds at that time for nonprofit projects.

As the member may recall, of the original $200 million, $100 million was put aside for municipal projects, $50 million for nonprofit projects and $50 million for private sector projects. At the time it normally would have gone through, we were at $60.4 million for nonprofit; so it probably would have gone on a B list and would been deferred to wait and see whether we received any additional money.

I want to make this very clear: of the thousands of applications we have received, this is the only one that was misplaced or delayed because of a bureaucratic error, and I think that is a record we can be somewhat proud of. However, just because of the fact that it was delayed we are trying to work something out, and I gave the ladies the reassurance that I would get back to them some time this week, I hope, with encouraging news.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If one of the minister's suggestions of where the money might come from was two options, one being more federal money coming in, he hopes, and the other being that some projects might not be going through and there might be money available for it, can he tell us how many approved projects are holding fire, unable to hire people because they cannot find qualified COED people to fit the kinds of projects they have been funded for? How many of these projects are totally inappropriate to the kinds of people who are actually unemployed and have gone through their unemployment insurance at this point?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: To the very best of my knowledge, there are very few who fall into that category right now.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is looking specifically at the difficult funding problems facing the nonprofit day care centres, I wonder whether he might also consult with his colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) regarding the situation of exemptions from property taxes for those nonprofit day care centres that are located in municipal buildings and specifically in buildings owned by boards of education. The minister will no doubt be aware that the policy in that regard has changed in the past couple of years, and it has changed to the detriment of nonprofit day care centres across Ontario. I wonder if he might comment on that.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on that, but the Minister of Revenue has listened intently, I am sure, and will take the honourable member's points under consideration.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

SCHEDULE

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I would like to ask the minister about some concern that has arisen in Brant county over his recent letter to the Brantford Chamber of Commerce regarding the completion date for Highway 403 between Brantford and Woodstock.

The minister has indicated in the past that we anticipated a completion date of that stretch by 1985. In his most recent correspondence he indicates it may be a year later. Can the minister reassure my constituents that this highway is progressing as quickly as possible, as it is indeed a very vital and needed link for the movement of both people and goods in and out of my city?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused, because I too received two telegrams, one from the Brantford Chamber of Commerce and one from the mayor of Brantford late last week, following a letter I had sent to the chamber of commerce in reply to a request from them for an update on the project. To my knowledge and recollection, the project is proceeding as was originally stated and promised to the residents of that area.

As the members from the area will know, last year we awarded a major contract for the grading of one

section of the highway from Rest Acres Road westerly. This was followed, this past winter, by a clearing contract. This has since been followed by the tendering on June 1 of the next major grading contract, which goes as far as Highway 53; that contract will be awarded in mid-July.

It is our intention to award the paving contract for the

section to county road 25 in the spring of 1984. The paving contract for the

section between the county road and Highway 53, for which we are just calling the grading tenders, will be awarded as soon as that grading contract is completed. I cannot say when that will be. It depends upon the weather this fall and the progress of the contractor who gets the job.

Our plans are that the

section of highway will be both graded and paved as far as Highway 53 and cars will be running on it before the end of 1985. To my knowledge, the

section at the far end -- the connection with Highway 401 -- was always going to be done after the part to Highway 53. Once one gets to Highway 53, one is almost there. That will take another year. It is a very major job. Under the present schedule, we hope it will be completed by the end of 1986.

I cannot see where there has been any slippage in our progress. It has not been because of budget restraints. Although we have had to delay a number of contracts this year. we have not changed the

schedule that was set up for Highway 403 in any way.

Mr. Gillies: I thank the minister for his answer. I am sure he is aware that part of the concern is the stated intention of the ministry not to proceed with the easterly portion from Brantford to Ancaster until the link to Woodstock is complete. Will we be able to accelerate the starting date for the easterly portion, perhaps with some funding from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sorry I cannot be overly optimistic on that section. My commitment is that it will be commenced following completion of the

section between Brantford and Woodstock. That is still our intention. Unless the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) gets very generous, I do not expect we will be able to accelerate it. We have Highway 404, Highway 410, Highway 406 and a number of other major projects scheduled, not to mention Highway 115 to Peterborough and the start on Highway 407. These are also very high priorities and must be funded.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the slow start for Highway 403 has meant that during this period of construction the

section of Highway 2 just west of Paris must carry all the traffic in that area? It is probably the most heavily travelled two-lane highway in the whole province, if not in Canada, and therefore one of the most dangerous.

Will the minister be able to get the ear of the Treasurer from time to time, as does the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) at this moment, and point out to him how serious a matter this is? Can he not point out the importance of getting Highway 403 opened up west of Brantford because of the tremendous danger on Highway 2?

At the same time, will the minister point out that the province has not been outstanding in its support of the Brantford community during these many months when its level of unemployment has been as great as almost any other centre across Canada? If it were not for the federal industry and labour adjustment program, which is just now coming to an end, the situation would have been even more serious.

A case can be made -- and I am counting on the minister and the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) to make it -- that this is the time when something especially useful should be brought to bear in the Brantford-Brant county situation. Speeding up Highway 403 is the best thing that could possibly be done.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with the assumption that very little has been done for Brantford or the Brantford area; I want to make that very clear.

3 p.m.

It is not feasible to speed up the construction of Highway 403 beyond the dates I have given to the honourable members today. Last year a major contract was awarded for grading; it will be finished before the end of this year. The one we are calling this month that will be awarded in July is about an $8-million or $9-million contract. That much dirt cannot be moved overnight, and it will take the contractor some time.

I cannot give a scheduled date for calling the tenders for the paving of that section. However, I will say that the tenders for the paving of that

section will be scheduled to coincide with the completion of the grading at some time in 1984. Whether it will be June, July, August or September I do not know. That will depend on the progress of the grading.

It is not a case of money or of the Treasurer becoming more generous. If he could become more generous certainly we could work on other projects that are ready to go, but that one is not being delayed because of money.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister can tell me when he intends to install a GO Transit station at Queen Street East and De Grassi Street?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure if that is a supplementary.

SCRUTINY OF SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Has the minister been made aware of the re-emergence in Ontario of the broker/dealer firms with their accompanying high-pressure sales techniques, most notably in communities outside of the major investment centres of Metropolitan Toronto?

Since many of the losses are suffered by pensioners and other investors who are really totally unsuited to the risky nature of this kind of investment, is the minister considering any form of additional scrutiny over this sector of the securities industry, particularly since the Ontario Securities Act was amended in 1978 to permit once again such high-pressure sales to be conducted over the telephone?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have heard some complaints with respect to the broker dealers portion of that legislation, but in conversations with the Ontario Securities Commission I have not had it substantiated that real problems exist.

I understand the previous amendments to this act were as a result of other changes that had taken place in the legislation in keeping with other practices throughout the province in other industries. Certainly if the legislation as it now exists does not deal adequately with certain problems, I am always prepared to look at it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Some unsuspecting people have lost substantial amounts of money as a result of these tactics by broker dealer salesmen who then undertake to repurchase but do not do so. In the Kitchener-Waterloo area in particular there are a number of reported examples.

Will the minister encourage the Ontario Securities Commission to investigate the complaints that have been publicized with a view to restricting, if not suspending, the conditions of operation allowed under

section 36 of the act? Then the public would be protected and the reputation of the investment community as a whole, including investment dealers and brokerage firms whose salesmen formally adhere to an established code of ethics, would be secure in dealing with the public.

Certainly if the minister wishes I will send along those examples, and I hope he will look into them from that regulatory point of view if he would.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, I think the member for Kitchener put this quite fairly and is not singling out an entire industry. There may be one or two firms he is particularly focusing on.

As I mentioned, I have had discussions with the securities commission about it in the past; I certainly will be pleased to have those discussions again. If any further steps are indicated I will be pleased to take them.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. As the minister knows, according to the Experience '83 booklet, the Ontario summer Experience program administered by the Ontario youth secretariat ostensibly offers summer job opportunities to young people between the ages of 15 and 24. Is the minister aware that the jobs provided through the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority at Pioneer Village are being restricted to young people under age 18?

This discriminates against applicants aged 18 and over and appears to be a way of saving money on wages, since the minimum wage is $2.65 for those under age 18 and $3.50 for those over that age.

Has the provincial secretariat or the Ministry of Natural Resources issued instructions, or do they condone this restriction of the Experience '83 job opportunities by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of that practice. I will look into it and respond to the honourable member.

Ms. Bryden: Does the minister also know that some of the jobs at Pioneer Village that were formerly handled by summer students are being handled by persons employed under the new employment expansion and development program for unemployment insurance exhaustees despite assurances this program would not supplant workers currently employed?

Will the provincial secretary assure us that if NEED employees are filling jobs formerly filled by summer students, alternative summer jobs will be made available so that the target of 680 summer jobs through the conservation authorities will be met for students who desperately need this money to meet their post-secondary education expenditures particularly?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I will give the member the assurance that I will indeed inquire into the situation and respond to her as quickly as possible.

REPORT ON WIFE BATTERING

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The minister has no doubt had a chance to read the report on wife battering, which was tabled by the standing committee on social development last year in this House, and I wonder if he can advise us whether he has adopted the recommendations relating to the Ontario Housing Corp. contained in the report?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will have to apprise myself more fully of the

section the member speaks of. I will do so and respond later.

Ms. Copps: I understand from his reply that perhaps the minister is not aware of the recommendation. If he is not aware of the recommendation, may I turn his attention to the standing committee report, which was tabled in the House last December.

Can the minister advise why, in spite of the recommendation to the Ontario Housing Corp. in that report, the Association for Spanish-Speaking People in Toronto was recently informed by the ministry that it has a new policy that forces a battered wife who is here as a sponsored immigrant to break this sponsorship before she will be considered for Ontario Housing? This policy flies in the face of the spirit and the letter of our standing committee report.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Before I get into answering that remark I would like to review who was making that statement. The member often comes into this House and says that certain people in the ministry make certain remarks or answer correspondence. I think all of us are aware of the fact that remarks can be taken out of context. I am not saying this is so at this particular time, but I want to do a review of the situation.

If the member has that correspondence and wishes to send it to me with the background material, I will review it. If it is not in accordance with the policy of this ministry and this government, I will have no fear in making that very publicly known; but I am not going to stand in this House this afternoon and attempt to answer a question on a subject I am not familiar with at this point. Knowledge is one thing to have; knowledge to express to this House is the best thing.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it has been about seven months since that report was introduced, and other ministers have chosen to read it and respond. Will the minister give us a response today or very soon as to whether or not he accepts our recommendation that some form of second-stage housing should be developed in Ontario for women who leave hostels and emergency care but need some other kind of assisted housing before they can go back into mainstream private housing?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is interesting for the member to stand up and say the report came in seven months ago. There are many reports that come in to this government, and I do not pretend to have each and every report at my fingertips in this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would suggest very strongly that I have the opportunity to go back. Mr. Rae can sit there and smile, because it is fine to have his lack of --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member should refer to people by their ridings, please, rather than by names.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Rae: Call me Bob.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for York South, Mr. Speaker, rather than Bob; I will agree to that, sir. Indeed, I will say to the member for Scarborough West --

Mr. Wildman: Don't be so sensitive.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Sensible is one thing; that is what I happen to be.

An hon. member: He said "sensitive."

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I suggest to the member for Scarborough West that the ministry and the Ontario Housing Corp. are and have been reviewing policies on the availability of housing in this province for a number of different types of people who might qualify. I have to suggest very strongly to this House that not only is this ministry doing the reviews but the discussions also take place between ourselves and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

I trust that most members of this House realize we are in a position of having a partner in the development of socially sponsored and assisted housing. It is costing the people of this province roughly $1 million a day to provide the housing we have on the books at present. If we are going to expand that portfolio and that opportunity, we are going to be looking for the senior level of government to be a very substantial contributor.

I suggest strongly to this House that we will continue to review it. I hope that in the next period of time, though I am not going to commit myself to tomorrow or the next day, we will have some changes in policies relating to the provision of socially assisted housing in Ontario.

TRANSPORTATION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister in a position to say when the report of the Task Force Study of Transportation and Living Costs in the Far North, which was inquiring into the high cost of transportation and consumer goods, will be ready and tabled in the Legislature? Is the minister aware that it went before the standing committee on resources development several weeks ago and still has not seen the light of day?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member knows he should ask that question of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), who is responsible for that report.

Mr. Stokes: Is the minister aware that during a trip all the way up to Fort Severn this past week with the Lieutenant Governor we were made aware that there was a study by his ministry looking into the possibility of reinstating the barge system between Moosonee, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Winisk and Fort Severn? Did his ministry not make that commitment along with the Minister of Northern Affairs to look into alternative means of transporting goods along the coast?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know my officials have been working with the Ministry of Northern Affairs on this study, but the study is a document of that ministry. We have been giving them technical assistance. I believe there has been some consideration of reinstating barge service on Hudson Bay. I cannot quote right offhand what the status of it is at this time, but the tabling or bringing forward of the report will be done by the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I hope this is relevant. I want to point out to the minister that it is difficult for us who are not from the north to get accurate information on problems such as this. Both the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) and the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) indicated a year ago they would like to see the members of the Legislature have the opportunity to travel in the north in one of the off times and see these problems firsthand.

I wonder if the minister would take this question up with the Minister of Northern Affairs and also with the member for Cochrane North, who has a considerable knowledge of the north, and report back to us on the feasibility of seeing that the members from the south of this province get to see firsthand the problems of the north.

Hon. Mr. Snow: All I can really say to the honourable member is that I do not know if this has anything to do with the original question, but I will bring it to the attention of the Minister of Northern Affairs.

EXAMINERS IN PSYCHOLOGY APPOINTMENT

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health with respect to the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology. It is my understanding that no Minister of Health in the 20-year history of the board has made an appointment to that board without the support of the board itself and/or the Ontario Psychological Association. It is further my understanding that this year for the first time this Minister of Health has made such an appointment.

Why has he broken that tradition this year; and why has he not accepted the nominations, or at least listed the nominations, of either the board itself or the Ontario Psychological Association?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is very simply because I believe that the board, like all the others in the area of health disciplines, ought to have a lay representative of the public. Such a member brings not only the reality of impartiality, which has always been the case with the board, but also the appearance of impartiality. This is in the full spirit of the McRuer report and all the subsequent steps taken by this government with regard to all other boards. I felt it appropriate to do nothing less with regard to this board.

I would emphasize that this is not casting aspersions, and it should not be taken as such, on the board, its competence or the names it brought to our attention.

Mr. Sweeney: It is my understanding that the minister's appointment to the board this year is Mr. Robert Potvin. Can the minister indicate what special qualifications this man will bring to the board in line with the answer he has just given us? Can he explain why, in response to a letter addressed to the Premier (Mr. Davis) by the chairman of the board, the minister's executive assistant had indicated that the minister was prepared to withdraw his choice but that at the same time he would also withdraw all intended appointments of psychologists to councils and boards over which he has had jurisdiction? That does seem like a form of intimidation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is an unfortunate connotation to put on it. The point we are making to the board is that psychologists have really received a great deal of time and attention from the ministry. We have given them a number of appointments and brought them into our policy-making process. They have asked for this for many years. They have been very pleased that the ministry has been courageous enough to bring them into areas where previously there was resistance. The ministry previously had not invited the psychologists in because of that resistance.

The point we were making in that letter was that there were occasions on which we had stood up to pressure on their behalf in order to get them involved in the process. We were pointing out that it took equal courage for us to act in this circumstance, where they were not entirely happy with what we did. But if they expect us to do the right thing -- and this is sometimes the difficult thing when it is to their benefit, I think it is equally appropriate for them to be willing to accept those circumstances where we do something they do not entirely agree with but that is equally right. This is the only point we were making.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask you two things. When the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) referred to my leader as Bob on two occasions, why did you not rise on either occasion? Second, referring to

section 19(

a) of the standing orders, when the minister was busily casting all kinds of aspersions and imputing motives, why would you not ask him to withdraw the imputations? I would ask you to look into and respond to both those issues.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: What the minister said is true.

Mr. Martel: Yes? Well, if you are saying it is true, I suggest you ought to withdraw as well; withdraw that.

Mr. Rae: Are you saying that?

Mr. Martel: Because if things such as the minister's statement are true, Mr. Speaker, you take your job seriously.

Mr. Speaker: You are totally out of order.

Mr. Martel: No, I am not.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you are.

Mr. Martel: Tell me why I am out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Just resume your seat, please.

Mr. Martel: I would like to know why I am out of order. I am rising on a point of order on

section 19(a).

Mr. Speaker: For the last time I shall tell you that you cannot enter into debate with people across the House or on this side of the House. You know that.

Mr. Martel: I am directing my point of order directly to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I was not disputing your point of order; I was disputing your conduct after you made your point of order. I am not going to argue with you. Please resume your seat and we can get on with the business of the House.

3:20 p.m.

PETITIONS

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor on behalf of the mayor, all the council members of the city of Niagara Falls and 3,161 residents of the city. The petition reads as follows:

"The Ontario Waste Management Corp. has narrowed down areas of selection for hazardous industrial waste disposal, incineration and treatment to 19 sites. Niagara Falls is one of the all-components disposal sites.

"We cannot have this. We must protect the environmental health of our region. This is the last place in the world a hazardous waste facility should be located. We are already threatened by dioxin and other toxic wastes in the Niagara River from the Love Canal and other chemical dumps on the US side. Chemicals that might leak from the Ontario water site through ground water into the Niagara River pose an additional danger.

"We have the threat of a chemical spill on the US-owned railway delivering chemicals from Niagara Falls to New York to Detroit and, while only four per cent of the waste to be dumped is generated in Niagara, huge amounts will be trucked in from other areas, creating a hazard on our local highways and roads.

"The proposed site for the facility in Niagara Falls is composed of prime farm land. The facility could take as much as 600 acres. We cannot afford to lose this amount. Farm land is an important economic resource to the Niagara region and will become more so as food-producing land in North America continues to disappear.

"We would join in asking the Ontario ministry to remove Niagara Falls as a site for locating any hazardous waste facility."

RENT CONTROL

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 754 tenants of Denison Mines housing in Elliot Lake:

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

"We, the undersigned, do wish to protest the rent increase in Elliot Lake of 24 to 50 per cent. You have committed us to a wage restraint program, so how can your government justify this rent increase by our landlords?"

These homes were mostly built after January 1976, and the tenants are requesting amendments to bring such accommodation under the rent review legislation.

GREENSHIELDS NURSERY SCHOOL

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition from members of the Green- shields community, who hereby request continuation of the Greenshields Nursery School, run by the members of the community as a charitable co-operative. They are firmly opposed to an outside group operating a noncharitable nursery school in their community. According to the petitioners, "This is our community, and we want to maintain control of it."

The petition that is being presented has been circulated in the community in support of the continuance of the Greenshields Nursery School Co-operative Inc. This continuance will be jeopardized without the room at Greenshields Public School. The program that has been established over the past seven months to satisfy a perceived community need has been very successful and well received, as evidenced by the waiting list.

The petitioners are concerned about the establishment of a profit-making nursery school in the area; its costs, quality and the disruptive effect it will have on the children. In contrast, their school, licensed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is concerned only with the wellbeing and welfare of the children. These concerns, unfortunately, are not shared by some in power.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, first reading of Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this bill will extend to November 7, 1983, the delivery date for major household appliances qualifying for exemption from sales tax if purchased before August 9, 1983.

INSURED HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Renwick, first reading of Bill 74,

An Act respecting Insured Services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to declare that surgical procedures for breast reconstruction are insured services under the Ontario health insurance plan.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Renwick, first reading of Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am taking my marching orders, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) would say, from the trade union movement. The purpose of the bill is to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to work more than five consecutive days without a day of rest.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Lupusella, first reading of Bill 76,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, this bill has two purposes. The first is to provide that the Legislature sit part of every month during the year instead of the current policy whereby it may sit continuously for a four-month period in the spring and two months in the fall and be recessed or adjourned for the rest of the year.

The other

section of this bill declares that the designations member of the Legislative Assembly and MLA are the official designations of the persons who are elected to the Legislative Assembly.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day it gives me pleasure to recognize Shirley McLoughlin, the British Columbia Liberal leader, who is seated in the west members' gallery.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I would like to table the answers to questions 191, 228, 232, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 305 and 306, all of these standing on the notice paper; and also the response to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper 60 [see Hansard for final sitting day of session].

I would like to remind the House it has been agreed that we will stack all votes that are required today until 10:15 this evening.

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved second reading of Bill 64,

An Act respecting certain Health Facilities.

Mr. Martel: This is your big chance, Larry, to prove we are all wrong. You have all kinds of time here. Give us the stuff, Larry. Tell us we were wrong. Come on, tiger.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this important bill, I would say to my friend across the way, I am reminded of the adage, success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. For that reason, I think it would be useful to recall a bit of the paternity of this bill before the members opposite begin to fight and fall over each other in taking credit for this government legislation.

Mr. Martel: Come on, tiger, give it to us. Show us we were wrong all this last six months.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps the best way to dispel that myth without getting the member for Sudbury East ejected -- he is voluntarily ejecting himself -- is to document in a very objective way the course we have been following to ensure the standards under which our excellent health care is delivered to all our citizens.

To begin, I want to borrow briefly from a widely publicized speech which my esteemed predecessor, now the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), made on the subject three years ago. At that time he recalled there were 483 nursing homes with a total of 22,290 beds when the Nursing Homes Act was passed in 1972. Today there are only 339 homes but there are 29,090 beds. We have 144 fewer homes today than we had 10 years ago, although we have almost 7,000 more beds.

How did this happen? "Since the act was passed," the former Minister of Health recalled at that time, "Quite a few small, inefficient and in some cases badly managed homes closed, while a great majority of homes became much more efficient and added trained staff, higher quality volunteer units and highly trained managers." He went on to say, "In the past five years, 63 nursing homes in the province have closed and 60 have been sold."

That means that on average at least one nursing home has closed each month. In virtually every case, the homes have closed because they could not meet the standards set by the ministry. To continue the quote: "In many cases in which nursing homes have been sold, as you know it has been because the former owner could not come up to our standards while the new owner could. We would not let a sale go through unless we were reasonably certain the new owner was prepared to provide us with a timetable and guarantees to bring the home into line."

Mr. McClellan: What was the date of that speech?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will get it for the member. I could continue at some length to quote from that fine speech, but I think it is sufficient to say the ministry has pursued over these past 10 years a deliberate policy to upgrade and expand the nursing home capacity of this province by encouraging new and remodelled homes and by squeezing out the inadequate ones. Over the last year alone we have stepped up enforcement, getting more action more quickly and, of course, increasing the number of inspections dramatically.

We have heard a great deal recently about a number of homes which are still not meeting our standards, but happily this is not a large number because most of the nursing homes operating in Ontario today are now purpose-built facilities, well managed and compassionately run for the benefit of the residents. These few exceptions have become the focus of the ministry's attention and the motivation for this legislation.

While nursing homes have attracted the most public attention, this ministry has also been moving against private hospitals which do not meet our standards. These hospitals provide medicine and provide a wide range of services which are paid for through ministry grants or the Ontario health insurance plan. The number of these hospitals continues to decline. Beverley Private Hospital voluntarily closed this past year rather than comply with our demands for major reconstruction to provide a higher level of patient care.

The mix of services which contributes to the variety of health care delivery in Ontario is particularly evident in both ambulance and laboratory services. We have ambulance services operated by local government, as is the case in Metro Toronto; by the ministry, for example in Ottawa and Windsor; by hospital boards, for example as in St. Catharines; and by private businesses, as in Hamilton and Halton-Mississauga, to name some.

Ironically, we can intervene immediately where problems arise in hospitals or in other publicly operated services, but until now we have been severely restricted in dealing with shortcomings of privately operated services.

While we are equipped with the legal tools to discharge effectively this responsibility in the public hospital sector, this has not been the case in the regulation of private sector health care providers. I am referring not only to nursing homes but to private hospitals, ambulance services, laboratories and specimen collection centres. In all these areas, we have found that real gaps exist in the ministry's authority to deal with certain conditions which might endanger patients or the public.

Currently, if an operator contravenes the regulated standards for patient care, safety or operational procedures, the ministry's chief recourse is to propose to revoke or to refuse to renew the licence. However, the ministry's proposal may be appealed to a review board, and the board's decision then may be appealed in turn to the courts.

This, of course, in terms of the legal protection necessary for those involved in the process, is as it should be. However, throughout this entire appeal process the licence remains in full force and effect. The prolonged delays which inevitably result are, I submit, unacceptable in those circumstances where health or safety might be at risk. Let me cite a few examples of the problems caused by the current procedures.

In the ambulance field we have been unable to revoke the licences of operators who have been convicted of defrauding the Ontario health insurance plan by claiming they had ambulances and staff on duty when they did not. Therefore, communities have continued to rely on operators who have displayed a wanton disregard for the safety and security of the public.

In the area of private laboratories, we have encountered similar abuses, such as where labs have billed for tests not performed or not ordered. Even though we have launched prosecutions, these operators have retained their licences to conduct tests and interpret findings which are indispensable to the diagnosis and treatment of illness.

In the area of private hospitals, we have been prevented from implementing the recommendations of coroners' juries for immediate action against certain facilities.

Finally, in the nursing home industry, I need not remind the members of the continuing problems we have encountered with a few poorly run establishments. Since the beginning of this year my ministry has commenced legal actions, either prosecutions or proposed licence revocations, against 32 operators who failed to correct regulatory violations within a reasonable time; but these homes are still in business.

The Health Facilities Special Orders Act will empower the ministry to take more direct action in such cases as the Ark Eden Nursing Home case, where we ought to be able to go in and look after the welfare of the residents or the public. This legislation will broaden the grounds for licence revocation based on the operator's fitness to hold a licence. We will be able to act if the operator's conduct demonstrates a lack of competence, honesty or concern for the welfare of those he is charged to serve.

The bill will authorize the ministry to move in to arrange an interim supervisor and interim care and take whatever steps are required to forestall a threat to the health or safety of the people depending on the facilities.

Through a provision which is relevant to laboratories and specimen collection centres, we will have authority to order the suspension or cessation of a specific activity. This power could be invoked, for example, if service levels or competence in certain testing areas were found to be inadequate and possibly hazardous to patients. Similarly, the ministry will be empowered to suspend a licence temporarily, pending the correction of specific problems in the health facility.

A ministry order for any of these purposes will take effect immediately upon delivery of the notice to the operator; that is, before the long hearing process starts instead of when it concludes. This step is an essential precaution to protect the welfare of nursing home residents, private hospital patients and the communities which count on private ambulance and lab services.

3:40 p.m.

The bill contains appropriate safeguards for the interests of operators, including time limits for the ministry's involvement and compensation for the ministry's use of the facility. Operators will retain their rights to appeal to the review boards and to the courts. The key change is that the ministry will be authorized to move swiftly, decisively and effectively to remedy dangerous situations. No longer will a few unscrupulous operators be able to frustrate the regulations by bringing their performance in line prior to the hearing, then relapsing once it is over.

No longer will the appeal process be used as a device to circumvent health care responsibilities. This measure is especially urgent in the nursing home industry, where my ministry is now intensifying the enforcement effort very substantially.

To place the bill in context, it is one of a group of measures we are planning to take to preserve and enhance the quality of care in our 340 nursing homes serving over 29,000 residents. Specifically, these further activities are as follows.

Full reports on each nursing home based on the annual relicensing inspection will be available to the public after July 1 this year, to provide information that will be useful in selecting a home and in making judgements about its quality of care and level of service.

To broaden residents' participation in decisions affecting their quality of life, we intend to make residents' councils mandatory for all homes through an amendment to the nursing homes regulation.

We plan to create an external appeal process, providing residents' councils with access to an independent authority to investigate problems and make recommendations to the home and the ministry.

Finally, we will expand the protection for residents to maintain their nursing home accommodation while in hospital. Currently extended care coverage terminates 72 hours after a resident is transferred to a hospital. A new regulation will extend this period appropriately.

The bill before the House will strengthen my ministry's position in confronting the few negligent homes that have flouted health and safety standards. Those operators will know the ministry stands a fair chance of success in proceedings to close them down if they persist in regulatory violations. They will realize that to stay in business they have no choice but to deliver the quality of care for which the taxpayers are paying and which their residents have every right to expect.

In

summary, the Health Facilities Special Orders Act is a measure intended to safeguard the lives and health of Ontarians who rely on these facilities for essential health care services. As such, I suggest this legislation deserves the full support of every member of this House.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will preface my comments by saying I think it is incumbent upon every member of the House, certainly in view of the proceedings over the last six months -- whether the minister is the godfather or the member of the third party is the godfather or otherwise of this legislation -- to recognize and support the legislation.

However, there are certain basic misunderstandings at the public level about the role of the ministry in this whole scenario. I have to point out, while I commend the minister for accepting and recognizing that these changes must be brought about, that the legislation as it is presented is not going to be the panacea for changes in the health care delivery system in Ontario.

I look specifically at and refer the minister back to the situation at the Ark Eden Nursing Home. His own colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), under the triministry project, made the Ministry of Health inspection service aware of certain difficulties at Ark Eden for a number of days, weeks, if not months, before the ministry decided to act in this situation. I think there is one glaring omission from the legislation.

The minister is saying, and rightly so, that in certain circumstances this year he has acted against 32 nursing homes where they have not responded adequately to ministry intervention. I would have to say, however, preceding that lack of response is another lack of response that is even more glaring, critical and crucial, that the minister, even through his inspection service or through his own field service programs, has been unable to respond when patients, relatives and friends bring to his attention serious problems surrounding nursing homes, homes for special care and other institutions across this province.

I know the minister, for example, is well aware that in the case of the home for special care at Jacksons Point, his ministry was aware two years before the death of Jimmy Black that there were very serious and unresolved problems in that home. Yet his ministry officials not only did not demand changes in the home, they were part and parcel of an attempt to preclude that information from coming to the fore at a coroner's inquest.

When I refer the minister to the changes in this legislation, I ask him whether he feels his ministry has a certain responsibility for what has been going on here for a number of months and years. It has not been a legislative impediment that has prevented him from acting in a number of these situations, it has been the refusal on the part of his ministry to come clean with the public about the problem and act as quickly and fortuitously as they should have done in the past.

The fact they are bringing in legislation now to allow a takeover of a number of institutions including ambulance services, medical laboratories. private nursing homes and private hospitals is not going to put an end to the abuses we have seen in the system, abuses to which ministry officials have turned a blind eye.

For example, there is the question of ambulance services. The minister may be aware that there are a number of ambulance services across this province that have been under very severe scrutiny and inspection by his ministry. Again, the results of those reports have not been made public. We in the opposition do not have access to the report that was done by the ministry about the ambulance services of Thames Valley in London.

We know that in many instances the Metropolitan Toronto area is extremely under-covered when it comes to ambulance services at night and on weekends. We know there is a very serious manpower shortage. We know the ministry has access to this information and is aware that in many instances the ambulance service across the province is in a terrible state of disarray. The information is not lacking to the ministry but to the people of the province. From it, we could make valid judgements about ambulance and other services.

The takeover legislation suggested here will do nothing to prevent that kind of thing from happening. The takeover service suggested in this legislation will do nothing to counterbalance an issue I have raised with the minister on a number of occasions and about which I understand there is still no corresponding legislation. That issue concerns two ambulance employees with Metropolitan Toronto who voluntarily resigned last year after admitting to having sexual intercourse with a patient who had called on the emergency line while suffering a drug-induced reaction. Subsequently, those two employees were able to get jobs in other ambulance services, one in this province and one in another.

What was the minister's response? The ministry did not have legislation to deal with that. In fact, the ministry called up the local ambulance service in Tillsonburg, Ontario, and told the employer that if he did not fire the employee he would have his licence revoked. However, there was no issue to deal with the certification of that employee. He voluntarily breached a code of ethics that is far greater than any government regulation. By his own admission, he breached that inviolable trust given to ambulance drivers and others working in the health field, yet he is free to practice his craft anywhere in Ontario. That has not been altered.

If the minister is interested in pursuing this, he will find that when the good people of Tillsonburg called Metropolitan Toronto to get references for this employee who had voluntarily resigned, they received very good references about him. It was not until my office contacted the office of emergency services some weeks later that the rumbles began and the Tillsonburg people were told if they did not let this person go they would have their licence revoked.

The ministry has information of this nature at its fingertips in any number of cases. This legislation does not deal with the basic difficulty when a ministry official refuses to act.

3:50 p.m.

We talk about the issue of laboratories, laboratory error and incorrect billing, and yet consistently the Canadian Society of Laboratory Technologists has attempted to develop self-regulating capacity over the last 10 years. It goes back to the time 10 years ago when one of the minister's predecessors promised the society that it would have an opportunity to become self-regulating, to make sure that people who are working as medical technologists in private, publicly financed medical laboratories were trained, able and capable of doing that.

That society has again been put on hold and has been told the minister is going to be bringing in some omnibus legislation over the next couple of years to deal with all of the self-regulating professions. Again, even though they were promised 10 years ago there would be legislation to make sure people working as medical technologists were trained in the field, that has not been forthcoming.

This legislation will not deal with that issue or the difficulties caused by errors on the part of untrained medical technologists in private laboratories across this province. There have been known cases of injury and death to patients as a result of untrained people being in a position to carry out these activities. It seems this legislation will again move in on a company that is fraudulently carrying out the activity, but it will do nothing to ensure quality of care being maintained at the private laboratory level.

For example, when I think of the case of nursing homes across this province, again I must caution the minister that we need legislation -- and he has promised the legislation as of July -- which will allow the public to have access to the inspection services across this province. For too long the public has been kept in a cloud and has not had access to information which ministry officials have had for a number of years. We have no way of being able to make a qualitative judgement as to whether the measures he proposes are going to change the system.

It seems that here we have an omnibus series of regulations covering a number of areas which will give the ministry power of takeover and control over periods up to six months, but at the same time there is no built-in corresponding accountability by the minister and the ministry to the Legislature and the public. Until we have that corresponding accountability on the part of the minister, the corresponding access to information on the part of the public, it will certainly not put the public in a very good position to judge the efficacy of this kind of legislation and whether it is working.

For example, when the minister moves in on a nursing home and that information is not made public, if there is supposedly a decision by the ministry to withdraw action because it has seen that certain difficulties have been met, we have no way of judging. Unless that information is made public right from the beginning, we have no way of judging whether a proper result has been achieved between the ministry inspection services and the private nursing homes.

That is why I hope the minister will be in a position to support one of our amendments which is going to call for the posting of notices, both in nursing homes themselves as well as the local assessment and placement offices, to let the public know the ministry is taking action to move against these nursing homes and establishments.

It seems to me that unless such information is made public, if everything continues to be carried on behind closed doors, then we will find ourselves as ill-informed after this legislation as the public has been prior to the legislation.

No one knew that the Ministry of Health had information about Jacksons Point for two years without acting upon it, that the violent tendencies had been exhibited in the past and no one knew the fact that the residents had gone to the local ARC establishment with bruises on their bodies or that a Ministry of Health worker was aware of that fact until it came out, against the wishes of the Ministry of Health, at a coroner's inquest. How can we judge the efficacy of the work they are doing unless we have full public disclosure, and that is not included under this legislation.

I think the second and more crucial issue in the long term is the complete absence of any new regulations or any new initiatives regarding programming. Again, I know the minister has commented in the House on a number of occasions that he will be bringing in appropriate legislation in the future. I might add, for example, he mentioned that 72 hours outside a nursing home is not long enough and they are examining that to find out whether it is appropriate. I believe that promise was also made some time ago and we are still waiting.

On the issue of programming and whether nursing home residents have access to occupational therapy, physiotherapy and to at least the minimum quality of life which is indeed guaranteed in our homes for the aged, at least this legislation should have taken into consideration that kind of programming as well.

In its absence, while I can commend the minister for his good intentions and for his avowed commitment to bringing in that kind of legislation in the future, it would seem to me that the impact of bringing in that legislation would be far greater to nursing home patients all over Ontario than would he the impact of this legislation which allows for ministry takeover in those limited circumstances where he perceives there to be crucial problems.

If I am looking at the number of nursing homes on which he has acted over the last year, he is talking in his terms about approximately 10 per cent or less of those nursing homes across Ontario. What about those patients in the remaining 90 per cent of nursing homes who do not have access to guaranteed programming, who do not have access to even the minimal kind of services that they would be receiving in the homes for the aged?

Again, on the point that was raised by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) this afternoon on the issue of rest homes, the minister will no doubt know that the Ontario Council on Social Development last year called upon the cabinet to recognize at least as a bare minimum a second-level lodging requirement, as had been established in the city of Hamilton to deal with the whole concern of rest homes across this province. The minister will no doubt be aware that his predecessor promised some kind of legislation to deal with those patients who, in essence, are patients out of the health care system who are in the rest homes because they are not able to cope out on their own independently.

It would seem to me that certainly the minister has got to reach out to those people, and yet the legislation which he is bringing in of major takeover powers will really only be a piece of legislation that I presume his officials will be using in a last resort situation. We will not be privy to the leadup to that situation where the ministry inspectors are out on the site, are not happy with what they see and would like to see changes.

I believe that information has to be made public. I believe we need some very specific programming legislation to ensure that we are not simply guaranteeing the provision of a bed and board; which is basically the situation at the moment, bed and board and, in the case of extended care patients, a minimum level of nursing care service.

The minister has to guarantee, for example, that when people go into a nursing home they are not going to suffer atrophy of the limbs because they do not get out bed and that they are going to be able, at least according to their ability, to live a quality of life somewhat comparable to what they would be getting either in a home situation or in other situations. Frankly, this legislation does not deal with that.

I have another concern, on which we will he introducing an amendment. It is a concern about the time limits that have been placed on the takeover proposition. Unless I am reading the legislation incorrectly -- and the minister may want to respond to this -- it seems to me that when a takeover notice is posted the period for appeal as outlined in the legislation, the period for action on the part of the ministry, is only limited to a one-year period.

4 p.m.

If I understand the legislation correctly, what the minister is saying is that if he moves in to either warn or to take over a facility he can have a six-month takeover period which can be renewed every six months, depending upon certain circumstances. However, the response time by the nursing home operator, the ambulance operator, etc., the appeal process must be initiated within 15 days. There is no corresponding demand upon the ministry to either convene a hearing or to hear the procedure within a very limited time period. I believe the period in question is one year.

If the minister looks at the Ontario Human Rights Code as an example, he will see that when a person is brought before the tribunal of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, there is a certain time-limited period in which action must be initiated, which is far shorter than what he has included in this legislation.

If the minister is seriously going to provide a forum for concerned rebuttal and for at least a response on the part of those people whose businesses have essentially been taken over, it would seem to me there should be a shorter prescribed period of time during which the ministry must respond with either an appeal or some kind of forum so people can have a chance to air their various points of view.

It would seem to me that the promise to commence action within one year, if I read the legislation correctly, is not a promise to conclude action. Also, it would seem to me to be highly unfair if the ministry were to move in on a takeover proposition and then not convene a hearing for one year. Action would be commenced within one year. By the time one actually sees the resolution, one could be talking two or three years, which seems a long time when the minister is being granted wide-ranging takeover powers, which I think in essence are supported by all members.

I must say that in philosophical terms, the minister's power of takeover is certainly justified in the sense that the licence to operate in the first place is granted and conferred upon individuals in this province at the behest of this government, presumably representing the people. I believe too that the minister and the government, under unusual and extenuating circumstances, should have the power to move in immediately. I do not have any problem with that power.

I do believe that, in an effort to allow a fair hearing in a court in these situations, the minister should look at a shorter period in which the appeal process is actually completed and a decision is determined one way or the other. To say only that an action may commence within one year gives no termination date and could put someone's personal position in jeopardy for a period of a number of years without seeing a resolution. I believe the minister would not see that situation to be fair; nor would we.

I might say in passing that although we are supporting the legislation, we will be introducing a number of amendments. One will deal with the issue of programming. As I said before, I know the minister has promised to bring in programming legislation some time in the future and that is being worked on.

At the same time, he did promise in the last session to bring in some legislation on nursing homes, which he has come through with and for which I commend him. I might add that some of his colleagues in cabinet have made other promises in the past that they have not come through with. I respect the fact that he has tabled this legislation in this session, as he promised he would do in the last Legislature.

However, it seems to me that what he is doing is conferring ever-increasing powers upon the ministry without the corresponding public and legislative accountability. That public and legislative accountability must be determined through full disclosure of all actions taken by the ministry inspection service vis-à-vis any and all nursing homes across Ontario, vis-à-vis any and all ambulance services across Ontario and vis-à-vis any and all private laboratories.

It should not simply be a question of the ministry inspectors and the private nursing home operators cosily working out an arrangement where they deal with perceived shortcomings. I think that information must be carried out in a public forum so that we in opposition and the members of the public have a chance to see just what is going on, on an ongoing and individual basis, in facilities that are largely supported by public tax dollars in Ontario.

Along with that legislation, it is critical that we have parameters of programming for nursing homes and other health facilities across this province. Unfortunately, those parameters are sadly lacking in this legislation. I hope that by the time the next session is convened, the minister will have had a chance to include a complete programming package for nursing homes across Ontario.

As an interim step to that, we will be proposing an amendment in this legislation which will include the notion of programming under one of the areas where the minister can make a determination that lack of programming is causing a possible impairment of the health or safety of any person in a facility. We are recommending this amendment in recognition of the universal need for programming in Ontario. I believe that if the minister were to be true to his commitment in the Legislature to bring in programming legislation, he should rise to support us on that amendment as well.

I might add that it is a very large and wide-ranging bill, which I think might have been better discussed at a committee hearing over the course of the summer. I had an opportunity to discuss that possibility with the minister, and although he said he would be very happy to call a committee if we saw fit, I think he was looking to have this legislation passed as soon as possible. We are prepared to support him in that. We do feel, however, that there are some major deficiencies in the bill, some of which we will be addressing in our amendment and some of which I hope the minister will be addressing in the deliberations I know he will be carrying out this summer.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, during the course of his introductory remarks, the minister said that failure is an orphan. Maybe we can try to find one, if not both, of the parents of this particular failure.

Before we came into question period I told my legislative assistant we were doing the nursing homes bill this afternoon. She asked me why on earth we need

an act to enforce the act. That is a pretty good question, is it not? Why on earth, in 1983, are we asked by the government to pass a piece of legislation that gives, for the first time, powers to the Ministry of Health to enforce the Nursing Homes Act and regulations?

I do not know when the first Nursing Homes Act in Ontario was passed -- probably in the 1930s or 1940s. Does the minister know. sotto voce? Was it 40 years ago? Was it before or after the Conservatives took power in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Afterwards.

Mr. McClellan: This is not an academic question. We are supporting the legislation, but please do not ask us to applaud the government for putting teeth, for the first time in 30 or 40 years or whatever the hell it is, into its Nursing Homes Act. It is an absolute disgrace that in 1983 we are standing here putting enforcement provisions into the Nursing Homes Act and regulations.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not think that aside was parliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker: I am being very --

Mr. McClellan: Is the Speaker calling me to order?

The Deputy Speaker: Well, yes.

Mr. McClellan: I will try to be more nicey-nice for the sake of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), whose delicate ears I have somehow offended. How can a member of the cabinet be upset about language when for 10 years she has been sitting there, presiding in cabinet and in government over a regime that has failed to enforce, because it lacks enforcement provisions, the Nursing Homes Act and regulations?

In effect, we have a situation in this province where a licence does not mean a thing. A licence from the government of Ontario to run a nursing home in Ontario is no guarantee to the friends or relatives of the residents of the nursing home that they will be protected against violations of the fire safety regulations, against violations of the nursing care regulations, against violations of the nutritional care provisions of the act or against violations of the environmental provisions of the Nursing Homes Act and regulations. A licence means nothing.

While we are pleased with the speed with which this minister has responded since we started to raise the concerns in a concerted way again in 1983, I have to remind him that we have been raising all these concerns since both he and I were elected in 1975, and I am sure these concerns were raised by many members of this assembly prior to 1975. The minister, for reasons known only to himself, has chosen to respond to the concerns we have raised -- concerns that my leader raised in his speech on April 25 and that I raised in January, February and successive months during 1983 by accusing us of making, in essence, false allegations about the standard of care in specific nursing homes.

4:10 p.m.

It was necessary for us to do our own investigation of nursing homes because of the consistent refusal of the Ministry of Health for as long as I can remember -- which is back to 1975 -- to provide information from the nursing home inspection reports.

We took the advice of one of the minister's colleagues, the Minister for Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), who on May 8, 1981, was asked by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) why the nursing home inspection reports should not be made public. The minister said:

"Mr. Speaker, why does the honourable member think he needs to have a report to go in and take a look at the place? If he has two eyes, if he can see lightning and hear thunder, it seems to me one can go and look at a nursing home and see whether the floors are clean, whether the level of care is valid and whether the conduct and care is proper."

That is precisely what we did.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Please send that to me.

Mr. McClellan: I will be happy to.

We did what he invited us to do. We sent our most experienced research staff members to a number of nursing homes. They visited the residents and kept their eyes and ears open. What we have been relaying to the minister since the speech of the member for York South (Mr. Rae) on April 25 and my own speeches in February, March, May and June is the evidence of eyewitnesses. It comes from people I regard as professionally responsible, thorough and competent. The evidence dealt with blatant violations of the Nursing Home Act and its regulations and clear and obvious deficiencies in the quality of care in these nursing homes

The minister may choose to say these are wild accusations which are unsupported by the observations of his own nursing home inspection branch staff. But if I were the minister, I would be rather nervous that his nursing home inspection staff cannot see what my staff did see. I would be concerned. I would be alarmed.

I do not want to dwell on the allegations lest the minister think I am concerned about the nature of his response to our raising specific allegations based on eyewitness observation. I received two letters this month; they were both dated June 1 but I received both on June 3. They deal with one of the nursing homes that was mentioned by the member for York South in his speech on April 25. I refer to the Lincoln Place Nursing Home.

The minister chose to single out our observations about the Lincoln Place Nursing Home as typically exaggerated and untrue; I do not think he used those words, but that was the inference. Let me just cite part of the letter from the director of resident care, M. Bailey, from the Lincoln Place Nursing Home.

"Dear Mr. McClellan:

"This letter is in response to the allegations made in the House on Monday, May 30, which allowed the media to have a heyday with the half-truths, statements taken out of context and untruths made by yourself in regard to the care given residents at Lincoln Place Nursing Home."

She goes on in a similar vein to tell me what she thinks of me, along the lines of the minister's own contributions to the discussion here in the Legislature.

The second letter, dated June 1, is from a lady whose anonymity I will protect. She writes:

"Dear Mr. McClellan:

"My heartfelt thanks to you in bringing before the people of Toronto the truth about the conditions at the Lincoln Place Nursing Home. It was my unfortunate experience to be exposed to the deplorable experience as my mother spent, thankfully, only 10 days there and then was sent to Mount Sinai Hospital."

She goes on to detail in the letter that her mother became ill at the nursing home and that she approached officials of the nursing home -- let me just read this:

"On three occasions my mother complained to the nurse on the second floor that she was having difficulty in breathing only to be told: 'Go back to your room. You look fine to me.' Also the 'I-don't-give-a-damn' attitude of the administrator when I went to visit her office at 10 o'clock yesterday morning to speak to her about my mother. She was totally unaware that mother had been taken by ambulance to Mount Sinai Hospital. I removed all mother's belongings and left."

The minister has a choice as to whose word he wants to hear and whose concerns he wants to pay most attention to. I just offer him a friendly piece of advice not to be so quick off the mark with allegations of exaggerated half-truths or untruths with respect to the eyewitness observations that we have laid before him in this assembly, because he is on the thinnest of thin ice. If the minister needs proof of the pudding, it is in the fact that we have the legislation in front of us this afternoon.

It is all very well to say on the one hand that there are a number of people who deserve credit for the fact that we have enforcement legislation in front of us today and on the other hand that failure is an orphan and nobody is really responsible. That just will not wash. Political accountability is the keystone of our political system. It is supposed to be the keystone of the parliamentary system. There is supposed to be such a thing as ministerial responsibility, which obviously in Ontario is honoured in the breach; nevertheless it remains, at least theoretically -- a notion perhaps confined to the musings of political scientists in this province.

The minister answered a question I put on the order paper with respect to one of the nursing homes I had expressed concern about as early as February -- February 16 or 17, I do not have the exact date. It was about the Barton Place Nursing Home, which is at the corner of Bathurst Street and Barton Avenue in Toronto. It is in the minister's riding and is adjacent to my riding; probably we both pass it frequently travelling between home and work.

Barton Place is on the list of nursing homes against which a notice of intent to revoke the nursing home licence has been sent. Today, the minister tabled in the House the answer to written questions 299 and 300 which asked for information about the number of times this home had been inspected and what violations had been discovered in the years 1982 and 1983.

4:20 p.m.

Barton Place, this wonderful, caring institution -- I wonder whether the minister is going to its strawberry social on Sunday -- on January 12, 1982, was in violation of the nursing care regulations.

There were further violations on January 14 for nutritional care; on February 25 for fire safety: on May 3. 1982, for environmental health; on May 20, 1982, for nutritional care; on July 13, 1982, for environmental health; on July 16, 1982, for fire safety; on September 7, 1982, for nutritional care; on September 7, 8 and 9, 1982, for nursing care violations; on September 9, 1982, for fire safety violations; on October 1, 1982, for environmental health violations; and on November 19, 1982, for fire safety violations.

I guess there was an interval for Christmas when the ministry inspectors did not go in there; then on January 19, 1983, there were fire safety violations. On February 3 and 4, 1983, there were nursing violations; on March 1, 1983, environmental health violations; and there were additional violations on March 15 and 30, April 5 and 15.

We turn the page back to 1982 and see that no penalties were imposed on the Barton Place Nursing Home. Perhaps the minister gave them a little gold star. After all, the