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

November 4, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L059 - Tue 4 Nov 1986 / Mar 4 nov 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRAVERY AWARDS

ADVOCACY GROUPS

BRAVERY AWARDS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

ITALIAN MEMORIAL DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

FUTURES PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOMES

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

EXTRA BILLING

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

NURSING HOMES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

VISITOR

MINORITY-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

NURSING HOMES

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

AID TO DISABLED

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

BARRISTERS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN (CONTINUED)

TOWNSHIP OF MARA ACT

CEDARHURST GOLF CLUB ACT

UNIVERSITY OF ST. JEROME'S COLLEGE ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Shymko: I would like to inform honourable members that today is Italian Memorial Day. May we make some comments with reference to that, with the permission of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I understand the member has requested unanimous consent of the House in order that other members may make brief comments. Is there unanimous consent? There is not unanimous consent. I understand there is not unanimous consent because there is a time for members' statements.

Mr. Shymko: In the past, we did allow for that.

Mr. Speaker: That is correct, with unanimous consent.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRAVERY AWARDS

Mr. J. M. Johnson: This evening I will have the honour of being in attendance at the 10th investiture for the awarding of the Ontario Medal for Police Bravery and the Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery. The Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, will be presenting medals for bravery to 10 policemen and 11 firefighters.

One of the recipients, Constable Adrian Knetsch of the Waterloo Regional Police Force, is from Drayton in my riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. On January 24, 1986, this police officer risked his life in saving a young woman trapped in a burning house.

Two other recipients, Ontario Provincial Police Constable Kevin Adam of Red Lake and Constable Tim Robbins, saved a woman from drowning in an icy river, again at the risk of their own lives. Kevin is the son of OPP Constable Alex Adam and Judy Adam of my home town of Mount Forest.

Three firefighters who will be receiving the Ontario Medal for Firefighters are neighbours from Elmira: Tim Gingrich, David Holmes and Dale Martin.

I ask the members of this Legislature to join me in paying tribute to all 21 brave individuals, policemen and firefighters, who are to be so appropriately honoured by our Lieutenant Governor on behalf of the citizens of our province for their acts of bravery.

ADVOCACY GROUPS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We now have Rick Hansen Man in Motion Week and, as I understand it, there is even a suggestion that we rename a township in this province in his honour. I would like to make slightly more practical suggestions for the handicapped as alternatives to honouring his accomplishments and his presence among us.

Specifically to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who is not yet in the House, but also to the government, how about bringing forward legislation this week to establish Advocacy Ontario, as proposed in July by the Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities? This legislation will provide advocates or representatives for handicapped residents of nursing homes, homes for special care, rest homes and other institutions. These would be independent representatives funded through the Ministry of the Attorney General, not through the two on-line ministries.

I know the Attorney General has been working on this legislation and has established objectives for it under the representatives funding legislation to enable clients to lead lives as independently as possible, to reduce the need for guardians or conservators, to reduce incidents where clients are abused or neglected and to promote respect for and ensure the rights, freedoms and dignity of clients.

Given that in recent days we have seen that there is not enough food given to people in nursing homes, that criminal charges are possibly pending in some of these nursing homes and that there have been delays in inquests that should have been automatic in this province, I encourage the government to introduce this legislation. We will give it swift passage and it will be a very meaningful response to Mr. Hansen's visit.

BRAVERY AWARDS

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to join in the remarks of my colleague the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson). On May 6, 1986, one of my constituents, Captain Jack Esselment of the Hagersville detachment of the town of Haldimand fire department, saved a man's life. Upon arriving at the scene of a house fire and without taking the time to don his safety equipment, Captain Esselment entered the burning building, found a 72-year-old man unconscious and dragged him to safety.

It is unselfish acts of bravery such as this that we recognize later today with the awarding of the Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery and the Ontario Medal for Police Bravery. These medals are a small token of Ontario's appreciation, not only for those being recognized today but also for the thousands of police officers and firefighters who regularly risk their lives to make this province a safer place in which to live.

At this time, I would like to take the opportunity to offer my personal congratulations and I hope the congratulations of all members of this House to Captain Esselment and other firefighters and police officers being recognized with medals of bravery today.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Davis: I would like to speak briefly on the subject of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto. As most members are aware, Metro Toronto council last month gave a qualified endorsement of the implementation of market value assessment for the region. The implementation of

section 63 reassessment would result in lower taxes for 410,000 home owners, but at the same time, more than 305,000 home owners would face increases in their property taxes, some as high as 2,000 per cent.

Yesterday my colleague the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) asked the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) whether he would release the property-by-property data indicating the impact of market value assessment, but the minister refused to commit himself to releasing the data at this time. I find this appalling, particularly when thousands of Metro home owners, including many thousands in Scarborough, are worried whether they will be able to shoulder any substantial increases in their taxes. With market value assessment now on its way in Metro Toronto, the 715,000 home owners have a right to know what the exact impact will be on their taxes from such a move.

Once again, on behalf of these home owners, I ask the Minister of Revenue to live up to his government's promise of being open and accessible and to release this data today.

APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR

Mr. Breaugh: I want the assembly to note that near the end of the spring session the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly tabled its report on appointments in the public sector. We did so after a great deal of work, examining in other jurisdictions and in our own minds what would be a fair and reasonable way to proceed with appointments in the public sector. The members will be aware that the federal government has made some substantial moves on this process to end what has been known as the patronage system in Canadian politics.

I was sorely disappointed with the government's official reply to the committee report earlier this week. I think it is ridiculous to assume that in this day and age there cannot be a review of such appointments. Of course, there can and should be. Even the federal government has gone so far as to acknowledge that. I recognize it is probably cheaper for the government of Ontario to send a press release to various newspapers and deal with that as proper notice, but I do not for a moment believe that is proper notice.

The committee's report was a compromise report. It was a reasoned response to a request from the government to design a process for appointments in the public sector. It basically asked for proper notice so that people would know what these positions were. It defined a process so that people could follow it and it opened up the process for all citizens in Ontario. Frankly, it is not acceptable that a patronage system which did not serve this province well for many years is replaced by a new patronage system. We demand a process that provides for reasonable appointments in the public sector.

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

Ms. E. J. Smith: As this is Crime Prevention Week, I would like to point out that the city of London has shown great leadership in this area by establishing some years ago an anti-vandalism committee of council, which works very closely with all the schools and the London Board of Education. As a result of this initiative and close co-operation, we have two people who are being honoured this year in Crime Prevention Week in London.

One is Janis Koyanagi, student council president of G. A. Wheable Secondary School. She and the service club in her high school, through her, are being honoured for their work on anti-vandalism in the city of London. James Leathham, administrator of the anti-vandalism program, is also being honoured for this program, which he put together as a 1985 summer employment experience, working in police, law and youth program initiatives. These two represent the many citizens of Ontario from all our ridings who will be honoured during Crime Prevention Week.

I know all members will be pleased to honour them and to encourage such initiatives in their communities.

ITALIAN MEMORIAL DAY

Mr. Shymko: I would like to inform honourable members that today is Italian Memorial Day. On this day we join with the province's Italian community in commemorating Italian soldiers who died in all wars.

[Remarks in Italian]

13:44

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Today I wish to announce the details of improvements to the benefits paid through Ontario's two major social assistance programs: family benefits and general welfare. This is the third occasion since I became minister that I have announced improvements to these programs.

The first occasion was before the House one year ago when $81 million in new funding was introduced. The second package of improvements was implemented just two months ago. It consisted of $25 million in increases to recipients with high shelter costs. The total cost of the package I am announcing today is estimated at $72.7 million for the year 1987-88. Consequently, this House may wish to take note that, including the present announcement, the province has implemented almost $180 million in improvements to social welfare programs since January 1986.

Approximately 260,000 recipients of family benefits and general welfare assistance, representing almost 500,000 people, will benefit from the measures I am announcing today. All the improvements become effective on or before January 1, 1987.

Today's increases recognize this government's wish to make it possible for everyone on social assistance to keep up with the cost of living. Therefore, I am announcing, effective January 1, an increase of five per cent in basic allowances for all social assistance recipients -- across-the-board increases that exceed the growth in the cost of living.

This will mean that social assistance recipients in greatest need, those with high shelter costs, will receive a total of 10 to 12 per cent higher allowances in January 1987 compared to January 1986.

In addition, I am pleased to announce, first, a special $16 increase in the portion of monthly basic allowances earmarked for dependent children who are age 16 and older. This increase is in recognition of a greater rate of food consumption within this age group.

Second, I want to announce a $50 increase in the maximum discharge benefit that is paid to family benefits and general welfare assistance recipients when they leave an institution to establish themselves in the community.

Furthermore, I have been concerned about the problems experienced by single people on general welfare assistance who are seeking accommodation in commercial board and lodging settings. The current maximum allowances are simply inadequate. For this reason, in addition to the basic five per cent increase, I am raising their maximum allowance by another $50.

Finally, I wish to announce an expansion of the annual benefit of $80 for children's winter clothing. This was introduced in 1985 for recipients of family benefits only, because of the greater length of time they need assistance. Beginning this year, however, we are also providing this allowance to families receiving general welfare assistance, because a growing number of families on general welfare assistance are compelled, through no fault of their own, to rely on assistance for longer periods. General welfare assistance recipients can expect to receive their clothing benefit by the end of this month. In future years, it will be provided by the end of October.

These improvements are a key part of an overall strategy of this government to ensure that the allowances provided are fair and adequate. As a result of the special increases I have announced during the past year, the purchasing power that recipients facing higher shelter costs had lost over the past decade has now been restored.

In closing, we recognize more remains to be done to improve Ontario's social assistance system. In that regard, members may recall my announcement of an independent and public review of this system.

Today's announcement demonstrates that we are not putting action on hold while we explore the possibilities of more fundamental change through the review process. With today's package and in conjunction with my two previous announcements, I am confident we have begun to address the needs of the economically disadvantaged in this province.

Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Community and Social Services has waved his magic wand, but I ask on behalf of all the people who need help in the province: Will the food banks disappear? No. Is the housing in this province going to improve? No. Is the money there for seniors who also have needs for food? No. Does this get rid of the problems of the needy? No.

There are many losers, but the biggest loser today is the minister, who did not get the money. He got less than 10 per cent of the $800-million windfall. Shame.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Responding to the announcement of increased assistance for recipients of social assistance in Ontario, I would like to take a novel approach. Let us pretend the minister did not do this today and give him a chance to do it again tomorrow. Let me tell him about some of the things that should have been in here but that are not.

We in Ontario have all been talking ad infinitum about Rick Hansen. Even though in answer to my question the minister hinted on October 22 that he might be making things better for the disabled in this province, he has done nothing to narrow the gap for the elderly and the disabled. The minister should come back tomorrow and try to narrow that gap a little bit. A five per cent increase is not going to do anything at all.

The minister has also put down here that this year, the average length of time that people are on welfare is dramatically higher than it was last year. He knows that is nonsense; it is almost identical. We made the argument last year that people on welfare should be receiving the same kind of assistance as family benefits recipients. Why is it good this year when it was not last year? I ask the minister to be a little more reasonable with us.

The minister has added $ 16 to the amount to go for teen-age dependants. That means a family benefits mother will have a little more than $100 for each child, compared with as much as $500 a month, which the ministry gives foster parents to look after teen-age children. The minister then has these preposterous economics on page 4, where he says that because of his work, "the purchasing power which recipients facing high shelter costs had lost over the past decade has now been restored."

I do not know which bureaucrat hiding among the denizens of the bureaucracy over there worked slavishly for months to come up with that statistic for the minister, but I ask the minister to come clean. He knows it is really tough on our recipients in all the major municipalities in Ontario, and they have not made up the deficit this year.

I again ask the minister to come back tomorrow and give us another shot at it. I will pretend this never happened, and the people of Ontario will forgive him.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I want to take this opportunity to inform the honourable members that, after years of underfunding, Ontario's municipalities can look forward to increased transfer payments in the coming year. This continues a trend first established last year by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

For example, in the area of municipal roads construction and maintenance, there will be a 4.6 per cent increase-that is, 4.6 per cent above our base figure-for a total allocation of $568.9 million. In addition, we have been able to retain our $30-million Ontario municipal improvement fund for roads, which will provide funding for much-needed municipal transportation improvements.

These increases represent this government's and this ministry's commitment to provide the necessary funding to ensure that the municipal roads network can accomplish the efficient movement of goods and people. This, in turn, will enhance the economic viability of our communities.

With this commitment, this government clearly states its belief in the role played by roads in the social and economic development of Ontario.

Mr. Gregory: I note that the Minister of Transportation and Communications got up with a great whoop-de-do to announce virtually a repetition of last year. He said there will be a 4.6 per cent increase for municipal roads construction and maintenance. In the construction industry, 4.6 per cent is not even up to inflation.

The minister went on to say he will carry on -- again whoop-de-do -- with something he did last year with $30 million, notwithstanding the fact that during the last provincial election, the Premier announced $40 million a year for five years. The minister is now taking great credit for coming up with $30 million.

Where are the funds for all the hundreds of bridges that need repair in Ontario? With the additional revenue of $400 million, I am surprised he was not strong enough to get more money for his ministry.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Yesterday the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced provincial global funding allocations. In keeping with our commitment to provide municipalities with information on transfer payments as early as possible, I would like to outline details of the municipal transfer payments and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs unconditional grants program.

Comme l'a mentionné hier le trésorier de l'Ontario, un certain renouveau économique en Ontario nous permet d'augmenter les paiements de transfert aux municipalités à un taux plus élevé que celui de l'inflation et par des montants plus importants que ceux des années passées.

Overall, Ontario municipalities will receive transfer payments totalling $3.6 billion during 1987, an increase of five per cent over 1986.

The unconditional grants program administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will deliver to municipalities a total of $821.3 million in 1987. This is an increase of 4.9 per cent, or nearly one full percentage point over last year's increase of four per cent. Nearly $40 million in new funds will be made available to municipalities through this program.

As announced by the Treasurer yesterday, transfer programs to municipalities will increase by about five per cent. The 1987 program will contain important initiatives, which will be particularly welcomed by municipalities.

Ce programme permettra d'accorder des sommes additionnelles aux municipalités de l'Ontario dont la croissance économique est plus faible, particulièrement dans l'Est et dans le Nord de la province.

Municipalities in the east and the north lack the necessary financial resources to finance local services adequately and have shown a clear need for additional revenues.

The enrichment, of approximately $7.5 million, will be delivered to low-growth municipalities by raising the resource equalization grant ceiling from the current $1.25 per household to $3 per household.

To ensure that northern and eastern Ontario benefit sufficiently from the initiative, there will be an added provision that the grant increases to municipalities located in these areas will be at least five per cent over 1986.

Les municipalités du Nord et de l'Est de cette province pourront profiter grandement de ce financement additionnel. En moyenne, ces régions auront droit à des subventions qui augmenteront d'environ six pour cent, au lieu de 2.5 pour cent, si notre gouvernement n'avait pas mis ces sommes supplémentaires à leur disposition.

All municipalities will receive an increase in their total 1987 grant entitlements.

As an additional benefit to municipalities this year the payments in lieu of taxes, which the province makes on institutional properties, will be increased by 50 per cent from $18.4 million to $27.6 million. These payments have not been increased since 1973, even though municipal mill rates nearly tripled during the intervening 14 years.

The move to increase these payments demonstrates this government's responsiveness and sensitivity to the representations made over the past several years by our colleagues at the municipal level.

Because of changes to the programs and institutional payments, most municipalities should now be able to levy mill rate increases for 1987 at or below the rate of inflation.

I will be sharing this information on unconditional grants with the executive committee of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario later this week.

Les municipalités de la province recevront donc $821.3 millions en 1987, ce qui représente près de $40 millions, ou encore 4.9 pour cent, de plus que l'an dernier.

The government is keeping its commitment to municipalities by providing them with information on their transfer payments as early as possible to give them sufficient time to plan their next year's budget in an orderly manner.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to give members the good and bad news in the announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs about unconditional grants.

The good news is that the bad news is coming earlier than it ever has in the history of Ontario, so that at least they know what they have to deal with.

The second piece of good news is that the province has updated its version of paying its own property tax. I am sure they are grateful for that. Smaller towns will get about $7 million. They could build a good road with $7 million. It is a question of which of them will actually build the road.

The other interesting thing is that there is an actual increase in here of $40 million, which would build a very good recreational complex in any community in Ontario. The bad news is the dressing rooms will be in Cornwall, the ice pad will have to be in North Bay and there will be a refreshment stand just outside the Tunnel Bar-B-Q in beautiful downtown Windsor. It is going to be tough to use it.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: A year ago today, the Ministry of Skills Development launched Futures, a program designed to help unemployed and marginally employed young people to find permanent jobs. On the first anniversary of Futures, it is my pleasure to report that our new approach to the very serious problem of youth unemployment is paying off and that Futures is proving to be a great success.

In its first year of operation, Futures and the programs that preceded it helped almost 50,000 young people in Ontario, and two thirds of those young people have found work or have opted for further education or training. I am particularly pleased that about 4,000 young people, who had dropped out of school and faced extreme difficulty finding work, took up our option of a government commitment of one year's employment in return for a personal commitment to upgrade their education on their own time.

These results are due to the interest and enthusiasm of young people themselves, to the dedication of the men and women in the organizations that deliver Futures -- our community colleges and the youth employment counselling centres throughout the province -- and to the excellent response and co-operation of the business community.

Unemployment among young people aged 15 to 24 exceeded 12 per cent before we launched Futures, and while it has since dropped to below nine per cent, it is still unacceptably high. For that reason, we are expanding the Futures program this year.

Dans le Nord de l'Ontario, par exemple, où le nombre des jeunes sans emploi est particulièrement élevé, nous avons entrepris, en collaboration avec le ministère des Affaires civiques et culturelles, d'offrir des services aux jeunes autochtones vivant dans des réserves isolées.

En tout, 21 localités ontariennes de plus bénéficieront du programme l'Avenir, cette année. Aux 20 pour cent des participants au programme l'Avenir qui ont besoin d'une préparation de base à la vie et au monde du travail, nous offrons des services de formation préprofessionnelle dans 25 centres supplémentaires et nous ouvrons, cette année, 24 nouveaux centres de placement l'Avenir.

With our youth employment and training programs established and expanding, the Ministry of Skills Development is now focusing with equal energy and enthusiasm on breaking new ground in the area of adult training. We are proceeding to implement Ontario's Training Strategy, which I announced two months ago, on September 4.

Earlier today, I had the pleasure of officially opening the Ontario skills development offices in Ottawa and Brockville. Last Friday, Seneca College's office officially opened for business.

At the rate we are moving, all the elements of Ontario's Training Strategy will be in operation within a very short time. With our three elements, our training strategy, our Futures program and our apprenticeship system currently under review, we believe we can co-operate with private employers and unions to build the world-class training system necessary to ensure Ontario's long-term prosperity.

Mr. Jackson: Five days ago, the Minister of Skills Development announced in his estimates, when referring to his Futures program, "It has all the earmarks of a runaway success." After two days of rather intensive questioning, we now have a ministry that has all the earmarks of a runaway ministry.

An hon. member: He has run away himself. He is not even there.

Mr. Jackson: He has run away. We discovered with some concern that since April 1, this ministry has expanded from 64 people at the head office of the ministry to 170 staff. It is a threefold increase for that bureaucracy.

There is no comprehensive database for the statistics on youth employment in this province. For example, there are no stats on job retention for Futures graduates, on program drop-outs or on how many have found permanent jobs, and yet this minister is asking for millions of dollars to continue this program without effective monitoring of it.

This week in Toronto, there is a Futures conference where all the youth employment counselling services and the community colleges have assembled. They have enumerated significant problems with this program, if the minister would care to listen. There is a conflict between the youth employment counselling centres and the colleges. There is a conflict because they are fighting over students, they are fighting among employers and they are fighting for shrinking dollars. The minister knows of at least five groups we have identified, the Kettle Point, Ohsweken, St.

Thomas, Collingwood and Burlington youth employment counselling services, that may or may not get funding for the balance of this year.

The minister knows the Futures program is putting dollars into the pockets of young people in Ontario, but it is not putting skills and recognized skills into their hearts and minds. That is what the promise of this program was supposed to be. It was a promise that was envisaged by the ministers of the previous government. I am disappointed that on an occasion such as today, when the previous skills minister, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), announced 29 different youth employment counselling centres, the minister comes to the House on this anniversary with three.

This program is encouraging high school drop-outs. You have only to go and talk to different school boards to determine that. The identified at-risk young people, those on supervised, alternative learning programs, are leaving schools lured by very attractive advertising from this government with the promise of a one-year job, and they are not getting their secondary school graduation diplomas.

Yesterday, the minister admitted there is absolutely no linkage between his ministry and the Ministry of Education. His parliamentary assistant sat through those estimates and deftly listened but did not respond to the fact that there is no linkage between our schools and the Futures program.

Mr. Warner: No wonder the minister ran and hid. From Gregory in Wonderland, we turn to the voice of reality.

The reality is that, according to the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, "A stimulative monetary policy could create jobs for employment disadvantaged youth at a lower cost to the taxpayer than the Futures work experience program."

This program has accommodated approximately 30,000 young people -- not the 50,000 in the statement, but 30,000. At the end of August, 109,000 young people were out of work. There is a drop-out rate in the pre-employment program of between 25 per cent and 65 per cent in Toronto and a drop-out rate in the work placement program of 34 per cent in Toronto.

The $100 a week on the pre-employment program is 51 per cent below the poverty line. The $4 an hour is 22 per cent below the poverty line. The low wages are exacerbated by a lack of affordable and decent housing and of day care.

At best this program is a Band-Aid, and at worst it prolongs the day when we can have meaningful employment for all the people of Ontario. Shame.

14:10

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General will be pleased to know that my question today is for him. It relates to the now famous Birthe Jorgensen report. It has come to light today that in April 1986 the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped and the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly sponsored a conference focusing on issues relating to the elderly and disabled.

Apparently, Ms. Jorgensen was on a panel discussion on this very issue, the violation of people's rights in institutions. It now turns out that Ms. Jorgensen herself gave a copy of her report to a representative of the nursing homes branch of the Ministry of Health and to the legal counsel for the Ministry of Health, who was on the same panel with Ms. Jorgensen. It also appears that representatives from the policy development branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General were in attendance at the conference and therefore they too would have got copies of the report.

How can the Attorney General explain the reality that in both his ministry and the Ministry of Health this report was put on a shelf somewhere and allowed to gather dust and nothing whatever was done with it?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have made inquiries in my own ministry to determine when the report was received. I have read the report now. It speaks in a very general way about these important cases. As the member knows, as the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) reported yesterday, an investigation is in the course of being conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police. I am making inquiries as to why the report was not brought to my attention or to the attention of the Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. Grossman: Surely the Attorney General has to agree with me that the possibility of successful action in this matter is seriously hurt by the fact that there are six months, if not more, between the events and the investigation being undertaken. I remind the minister that it is not only inappropriate but out of keeping with all sense of ministerial responsibility for the minister and his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) somehow to try to walk away from their responsibilities as heads of their departments. With respect to the Attorney General, it is not adequate for him or his colleague to say: "Do not blame me. Blame my staff. They did not deliver it to me."

Will the minister indicate to the House today that he and his colleague the Minister of Health are prepared to do what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) had to do when he found out that there were some major shortcomings in the occupational health and safety branch of his ministry, that is, have someone conduct a complete investigation of the internal workings of both ministries?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank my honourable friend for his little lecture, which I will take to heart. The point of his question is whether there is any risk that prosecution will be made more difficult because of the delay. If the member reads the report, he will see that the information that was used by the writer was received by the agents of Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities on a confidential basis. We are making inquiries as to whether Concerned Friends are in a position to waive that confidentiality so an investigation can be conducted. If they are, an investigation will be conducted.

If they are not prepared to waive confidentiality, it follows that we will not be able to interview any of the people who gave Concerned Friends that information.

The other thing that is revealed is that Concerned Friends advised the complainants to them that it would be inappropriate to go to the police force or investigative agencies with their complaints. This has produced a delay. As the Leader of the Opposition will know, many of the complaints that Concerned Friends had are several years old, but we will do our best to see to it that the police conduct a full investigation in the circumstances.

Mr. Grossman: We must remember that the Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the crown, had a responsibility that has been put in some jeopardy because of the maladministration inside his ministry, which caused a serious allegation not to be dealt with for some six months at the very least. I remind the Attorney General that his colleague the Minister of Health admitted yesterday that the delay may make it difficult for police to investigate the allegations.

I also remind the Attorney General that, because of his determination not to fill the deputy minister's position in his ministry, there was a situation where he did not have a full-time deputy minister, he had acting deputy ministers for an extraordinary length of time. Therefore, the Attorney General must bear some responsibility for his administrative decisions in not appointing a deputy minister and he must also bear the full and direct responsibility for the inadequacies of the ministry on which he reports to this House in failing to bring the report to his attention.

Will the Attorney General launch an investigation similar to the one launched by the Minister of Labour in terms of investigating administrative shortfalls in his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not know what to make of all that, but let me see if I can respond this way: The delay the Minister of Health referred to in the press reports is a function of the fact that in many cases the complainants who spoke to Concerned Friends did so several years ago. I think the most extreme case was five years before the matter came to light. There is no doubt that delay makes the investigation more difficult. Conceivably, many of the old people who were the objects of the complaint will have died in the intervening five years.

The matter is made more difficult because Concerned Friends, which is in every way an excellent organization and with which I have met from time to time, thought it appropriate -- and I do not quarrel with this -- to accept these complaints on a completely confidential basis. I respect that, but it follows that it may again make the investigation difficult.

The very investigation the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about is going to take place, is indeed under way, and we will have to see what that investigation produces.

On the subject of the Deputy Attorney General who was acting Deputy Attorney General for some time, I regard it as a relatively, though not untypically cheap shot to assert that he would not be able to administer the department effectively during the period when he was acting.

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the acting Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet concerning the Conference on Northern Competitiveness currently being held in Sault Ste. Marie.

The chairman of our northern caucus, the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce), who is attending the conference, has indicated to us the report that was prepared for the conference is a disgrace, is out of date, is completely inadequate and fails to address the current economic problems facing the north. One of the reasons for this is undoubtedly the government's lack of understanding of the north. Perhaps another is a result of the fact that the government paid consultants from southern Ontario to write the report.

Can the acting Chairman of Management Board explain why the government was unable to find qualified consultants in northern Ontario who would have known what are the real issues there?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will try to answer that. I can understand why the member for Rainy River did not think it was a good report; he is a member of the opposition.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the cabinet of Ontario have shown their good faith in establishing programs for northern Ontario. Our bona fides are accepted by any objective and reasonable observer. There is no question that the people who prepared the report were capable and well motivated. As far as we are concerned, the report was a reasonable one.

Mr. Harris: The acting Chairman of Management Board knows that this southern report is an insult to northerners. They know the problems they are facing. The government spent $164,000 in the south for a southern report that still perpetrates the myth that the north will never be anything other than a collection of rocks and trees.

14:20

The conference agenda is a complete sham. It appears as though the conference is nothing more than an elaborate public relations exercise. In view of that, can the minister explain why the conference agenda has not addressed tourism, agriculture, secondary industries or transportation -- any one of those areas?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I understand the conference is being well attended by people from the north. The Premier and a number of cabinet ministers are there. I notice a good number of opposition members from both parties also attended, although most of them have returned now, which is appropriate as well.

I think the agenda was appropriate. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Peterson) has indicated quite clearly by his actions in the decisions of this government, backed up by the Treasury, that in the long-range development of the north we are not as pessimistic as the honourable member has indicated.

Mr. Harris: The member should listen to his own Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Yesterday the minister, in his other hat as Treasurer, fessed up to $800 million a year or $400 million for six months. He has admitted in this House on a number of occasions that the economic recovery that gave him that $800 million is not being shared equally in areas such as northern Ontario.

Other than a piddling amount for roads, which still leaves him short with inflation-indexed dollars of previous commitments for roads in the north, why was there nothing in his economic statement yesterday and nothing in his $800-million worth of money for northern economic development, if he really wants us to believe he is serious about the north?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: When the honourable member refers to a piddling amount, I am not sure what kind of cat he keeps at home. The amount that is referred to in the statement of yesterday actually gives the municipalities of northern and eastern Ontario a substantial leg up on the provision of new roads and municipal transportation. We think it is quite appropriate. I am surprised the honourable member is not expressing the gratitude of his own municipality.

Mr. Gillies: The minister put his leg up on the north?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is dogs that do that.

Mr. Rae: Both my legs are on the floor, Mr. Speaker, and I do not have a cat at home.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Treasurer in the absence of the Minister of Health. We had to get from the Ontario Medical Association and not from the Minister of Health, who would not provide it to us, a copy of the president's letter that has gone out from the OMA to its members with regard to the question of uninsured services.

In the light of that information, I would like to ask whether the Treasurer feels that a situation in which a doctor has charged an individual in Thornhill $70 for storing medical charts for seven years as part of his uninsured services and $30 for booking an outpatient's operation would be covered by the letter from Dr. Railton to members of the profession?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Health is attending a meeting of health ministers in Ottawa. He provided me with a copy of a statement that I believe he made public there. It does not give the specific answer the honourable member requests dealing with a specific doctor in a specific location, but I want to read just one paragraph. I am quoting the Minister of Health:

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer has read only part of the statement from the Minister of Health, which I have also seen. The minister has simply said he will be reviewing the guidelines and will be discussing them further with the OMA. He says he has some reservations about the OMA guidelines as contained in the letter. Patients are not really helped by whether or not the Minister of Health has reservations. They have to deal with this problem every day.

In particular, does the Treasurer think a professional rate of $30 for every 15 minutes is justified for the following services, as indicated in Dr. Railton's letter: telephone advice; doctors' certificates, e.g., back to school; consultations with allied health professionals; interviews with paramedical organizations or others on behalf of a patient; case conferences; and interviews with relatives?

Does the Treasurer not realize that, as a result of this letter, not only is there not going to be a stop to the amount of additional charges that are going on, but there is also going to be a flood of additional charges, because they have now been officially sanctioned in a document signed by the president of the OMA?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member asked for my opinion, and I really cannot give it to him. I am somewhat unreconstructed on matters of charges in many of the professions, as the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) knows. However, I feel that the Minister of Health, in the statement I quoted, has been quite specific that in those areas where an extra charge is recognized, the full force of the authority of the Minister of Health will be brought to bear, and he has indicated reimbursement. I do not see how he can be more definite than that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The House leader will remember that during the debate on Bill 94, the Minister of Health indicated that one of the steps that resulted in Bill 94 was the fact that the OMA, in a deal that was struck by the former government in 1978, was unable to enforce any regulations or guidelines on any of its members. Therefore, the only way of controlling extra billing was to bring in legislation.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not prepared to agree with the honourable member that this is the only way that aim might be accomplished. The House is aware that negotiations with the OMA on a new fee

schedule will have to be under way soon, since the previous agreement runs out in April 1987. It seems to me those are matters that could be discussed. It may well be that a professional agreement can be arrived at, and I am quite hopeful that this will occur.

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

Mr. Rae: I was at the conference in Sault Ste. Marie yesterday and this morning. The people of Ontario vote for political parties; they do not vote for government by consultants. What we have seen over the past two days has been government by Coopers and Lybrand.

I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer directly about the statement he made yesterday. Can the Treasurer comment on what he thinks the impact would be on northern Ontarians, who are very much, by their own statements and even by statements made by the government, living in a different Ontario from the one in the south. How does the Treasurer think they are going to respond to his statement yesterday, which says:

"Part of the increased revenue has been allotted for such priority funding as agricultural support programs, health care programs and capital for economic development projects such as the GM-Suzuki assembly plant in Ingersoll, as well as infrastructure for the Toyota assembly plant in Cambridge."

What kind of impact does the Treasurer think that statement is going to have on a northern conference that gets this statement today and is trying to understand what kind of priority the government of Ontario attaches to development in the north? They had Coopers and Lybrand yesterday, who told them how bad things were and indicated there was nowhere to go in the future. They have this statement from the Treasurer arriving today, which indicates that the priorities for the government are in Ingersoll and Cambridge, not in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the honourable member misunderstands the facts. The statements by the government having to do with new programs in support of industry and economic growth in northern Ontario were made at the time of the last budget. Those involved substantial funding of the northern development fund and additional funding to assist especially hard hit towns. I specifically mention Sault Ste. Marie, which is --

Mr. Martel: Try Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is fine. The funding the honourable member has referred to is for those special requirements for funding that have occurred since the budget. Those were decisions taken for the location of GM-Suzuki, for example. It also undertook the funding of additional forest firefighting, additional funding for Ontario health insurance plan payments to doctors over and above what had been originally required, and the $400 billion of additional funding that was referred to was not spent on increasing general programs but on specific payments that were required during the budgetary process.

14:30

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer cannot get around the fact that he chose to make a statement yesterday and he chose to indicate that he had extra money coming in because of what has happened principally in southern Ontario in terms of the increase in revenue and the increase in economic activity. He knows that even since his last budget, layoffs have been announced in Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Smooth Rock Falls and Sault Ste. Marie and that other layoffs are pending in community after community. That situation has got worse since his last budget.

Why was there no provision in the statement he made yesterday to deal with the crisis facing northern Ontario? Why was there nothing at all for the north in the statement he made yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I guess the honourable member is under the impression that the statement was some kind of mini-budget. There were no new announcements of expenditure. If he is confusing in his mind my announcement of transfers to the universities and the municipalities, there was additional funding there. I am afraid the honourable leader of the third party has confused those two matters.

Mr. Foulds: Now that the Treasurer has admitted his statement yesterday contained nothing new, in spite of finding $405 million in his budget that he did not expect to find, can he tell me what economic steps he and his government are going to take to ensure that the more than 5,000 people who have been laid off in northern Ontario in the past year are put back to work, as they want to be?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member knows the answer to that question is a difficult one. One of the useful things the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is also the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, is doing is that he is up in the north meeting with northerners to achieve some answers to the questions the member is asking. We have listened to the suggestions of opposition members from the north, but their suggestions are not practical. This conference being held in the north is a practical approach to finding out what the needs of the northern community actually are and to act upon them.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Who is that? Is the Attorney General prepared to accept these questions today?

With regard to the issue we raised yesterday, the government House leader acknowledged it was possible to implement all of the narrow Bill 105 on pay equity in the public service by way of internal government regulation and simple implementation. We know of the minister's commitment to pay equity for women in the public sector at least. Will the minister do his job as minister responsible for women's issues and recommend to this House and to his colleague that immediate implementation occur?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I suppose if I am to be the lead figure in question period from now on, I am going to get these little lectures. The reality is --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I suppose the problem is that I find these little lectures a little unctuous. I will just have to get used to them and do my best.

Let me say to the honourable member that the government decided some months ago the way it was going to proceed with pay equity in the Ontario public service, the broader public sector and the private sector. It was decided, for reasons that were made plain at the time, that the OPS bill should be advanced first and should be advanced in the form of a bill, so there would be recognition of the right that was being established by the bill and those who were beneficiaries of the bill would have not a regulation but a statute as vindication of their right, making plain exactly what benefits were to be assigned to them by the Legislature.

For my own part, I think that was a sound decision, and I continue to do what I can to encourage the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) to pursue it. I think it is the right policy. We will be introducing a bill for the broader public sector and the private sector in due course.

Mr. Grossman: I will begin by apologizing to the Attorney General for requiring him to come to the Legislature three or four times a week and hear the views of people other than himself. I know he finds it more enjoyable in cabinet, where people worship at his feet, but we have other responsibilities.

One of the responsibilities we have over here, instead of thanking him dearly for moving this far on public sector pay equity, as his colleagues do, is to represent the women of this province who are wondering why he will not move very far at all. My question, therefore --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: My question to the Attorney General, if he will be so kind as to receive it, is this: Why will he not do what he has full and complete authority to do as a member of the government and say to the 29,000 women in the public service that they can have pay equity this week simply by putting through the appropriate arrangements in cabinet tomorrow morning?

Hon. Mr. Scott: First, let me accept the honourable member's kind apology, for which I am grateful. I have been misunderstood. I did not intend to convey that I objected to questions raised by the opposition or by members of this House; it is only to questions from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman).

I am delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition say he is going to speak for the interests of women, and well he should, because they cannot even get on the executive of his political party.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Everything was so polite here for a while. Does the minister have a brief response?

Hon. Mr. Scott: That was a brief response I gave.

Mr. Harris: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, one that can be corrected quickly by the Attorney General in correcting the record as to his accusation about the number of women on the Progressive Conservative executive. If the Attorney General will check, there are probably more women on that executive than there are on the Liberal executive.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

14:40

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General. It is partly of a factual nature. I honestly do not know whether the Attorney General knows the answer to it. I ask this in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston).

The minister was not here, but he may recall that over a period of years a number of different crackdowns have been announced at different times with respect to nursing homes. It is almost a ritual occurrence. At one point in the ritual, the then Minister of Health appointed a prosecutor from the crown attorney's office to the nursing homes branch who had a particular responsibility to deal with cases that had prosecution as their response. I wonder whether the Attorney General can tell us today precisely what is happening with respect to that office.

Hon. Mr. Scott: May I begin by saying to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) that this is a question. This is about a 9.8. This is a meaningful, intelligible, shortly phrased, pointed question. This is what it is all about.

Mr. Speaker: I hope we can have an answer in the same vein.

Hon. Mr. Scott: What is more, the question has something to do with the public business of Ontario. As the honourable member says, I am aware that a prosecutor was assigned for the task he described. I will make an inquiry today and attempt to provide a report at the earliest possible moment about the matter the member raised.

Mr. Rae: Because of the Attorney General's lifelong interest in freedom of information, which interest will no doubt continue for the rest of what we all hope will be his very long life, I will ask him a very simple question.

While he is investigating that, perhaps he can explain the suppression by the Minister of Health of the Crittenden report, which was in the hands of the Minister of Health in March 1986. It contained information that was critical, to put it mildly, of the operation of several nursing homes. It raised profound questions about the standard of care in the nursing home industry, to use the official phrase, and was not released by the Minister of Health until four o'clock on a Friday afternoon in the middle of September 1986.

While the Attorney General is finding out where the prosecutor is who is supposed to be prosecuting cases that are involved, perhaps he can also find out why the Minister of Health suppressed for six months information relevant to the care of people living in our nursing homes.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The same question has been put to the Minister of Health from time to time in the House, and he has provided his answer with respect to it. However, I will undertake to bring the member's concerns to his attention as soon as I can.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Gregory: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. As the minister will recall, he was asked yesterday whether he would release individual assessment reports to the public and to the members of this House. In asking this question, my colleague the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) expressed his concern about the financial implications this assessment process could bring to bear on a number of home owners in the city of Toronto. For this reason, I would like to ask the minister the same question. Why will he not release these individual assessment reports to the members of this Legislature and to the very public that will be directly affected by their outcome?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to make public any information in the ministry that would be in the best interests of the community. In this instance, it is the judgement of the officials in the Ministry of Revenue that if the property-by-property assessment impact were released, it would create a flood of appeals to the Assessment Review Board that would make tax collection during the interim period a chaotic situation.

When the officials of the municipalities concerned want to discuss this with our officials, we will be quite pleased to talk about it, because we are thinking of the best interests of the municipalities concerned. At present, there is a resolution by Metro Toronto council accepting the concept of reassessment at market value across the whole of the Metro Toronto area, and we want to co-operate in every way for the benefit of all concerned.

Our rejection of releasing that information in the past has been on the basis of an understanding with the municipalities that it would not serve the taxpayers or the municipal councils since we give all that information in ranges and in geographic areas but withhold the house-to-house information the member is requesting. All those matters can be discussed, and if the municipalities want that information released and understand the difficulties it may create for them, we are prepared to give it consideration.

The public has a right to know and to understand the contents and implication of these reports. Will the minister agree to release these reports immediately to enable both the public and the members of this House to see what the effects will be on properties and homes in this city?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have already agreed to sit down with the Metro Toronto chairman or his officials and with the officials of the ministry, who the member, a previous minister, knows so well. They are very competent people. They can work out what is in the best interests of the municipalities and the ratepayers and move forward the prospect of this reassessment.

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a serious question for the Minister of the Environment. Given the major story that appeared in yesterday's Hamilton Spectator concerning the alarming rate of absenteeism and illness among the workers at the Woodward Avenue sewage treatment plant in my riding, can the minister give us a statement in this House which will identify the toxins that have been discovered in the plant? Can he tell us whether the workers were exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls and when those workers were informed that they were working with PCBs? Can he give us any other pertinent information on the health situation in that plant?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I appreciate the fact that the honourable member has drawn this to the attention of the House. As the member is aware, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has the jurisdiction over occupational health and safety. I will want to discuss with him the plant itself, because there is a peripheral involvement to the Ministry of the Environment.

Primarily, the Minister of Labour will be addressing the issue of the exposure to any chemicals by the workers in that plant. I know the Minister of Labour will want to discuss that with me and in the House tomorrow. I will be pleased to indicate to him that the member has asked that question and that he will be looking for that information.

Mr. Mackenzie: Now that it is obvious we have a very serious health threat to sewage treatment workers across Ontario, is the minister prepared to see that there is ordered an immediate, comprehensive and independent health study of the workers in sewage treatment plants across Ontario? Is he also prepared to see that we will institute pretreatment of all industrial wastes so the contaminants are not dumped into the sewers by hundreds of plants in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Speaking to the first half of the member's question, most certainly. Because of this report and others that have been forthcoming, it seems to me that such an assessment of the problem that exists in the various sewage treatment plants across the province would be a good idea, in conjunction with the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), who has an interest in that, but again primarily with the Minister of Labour. I want to discuss the member's suggestion with the minister. As I say, this is not an isolated incident, and that is why it is important.

In regard to the second half of the member's question, about pretreatment, one of the reasons we put forward the white paper on the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program was to get the kind of input the member is giving today and that others have given about those discharges that would not go directly into waterways but would go into sewage treatment plants. We have had good input from various sources on that. I am giving serious consideration to finding a mechanism that would deal with those discharges as efficiently as those going directly into waterways. Certainly, pretreatment is one option that is very viable.

14:50

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The question has to do with the housing needs of our province.

We are talking today of thousands of Ontarians living in hostels; 12,000 to 14,000 people in Metro Toronto alone are living in hostels. There are more than 2,000 people in this province who are psychologically disabled who are living in boarding houses. We have hundreds of people, at least 200 in Toronto, who live in the streets, and there are other people doing the same in Ottawa, Windsor, Hamilton and other cities.

We are talking about people who do not have walls or a roof or a hearth or a place really to call their own. We are talking about a very serious housing crisis. What is the minister prepared to do to alleviate this growing housing crisis to provide affordable and supportive housing in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is aware of the fact that my ministry shelter responsibility is with respect to emergency shelter, such things as hostels, and that the responsibility in this government for long-term permanent shelter or housing rests with my colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling). He announced very recently, during the last three or four weeks, an additional 3,000 units on top of the 6,700 units he announced earlier this year.

That is the two-phase program. The Minister of Housing is responsible for permanent housing; we are responsible for emergency housing. In Metro, for example, this year there will be an addition in excess of 3,000 emergency beds.

Part of the problem that we are having in large cities, such as Metro Toronto, is a significant number of people coming into this area from either western Canada or eastern Canada.

Toronto social services just recently did a random access of 2,000 recent files and found that 1,300 of the 2,000 had come into the city during the last few weeks from either the east or the west. They are doing their best, with our assistance, to keep up, but it is very difficult under those circumstances.

Mr. Cousens: It is not only difficult, but it seems to be something the government cannot cope with, because the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Community and Social Services have not come together to try to solve the problem. When are this minister and the Minister of Housing going to get together and come up with a comprehensive housing policy that begins to address the needs of the people in our communities?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: For the first time in the history of this government that I am aware of, the Minister of Housing is a member of the cabinet committee on social policy as opposed to just the resources committee. In other words, housing is now seen by this government as a social need in addition to an economic need; so we do work together.

The second point is that there is regular consultation between the Ministry of Housing and my ministry as to the kind of long-term housing that is needed and the supportive mechanism from my ministry that will make it possible.

Third, the Ministry of Health and my ministry have just jointly announced, in consultation with the municipality of Metro Toronto, the Habitat program, which will provide longer-term shelter, not short-term shelter, for ex-psychiatric patients coming out of psychiatric hospitals.

There is a joint program among Toronto, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Thus, there are co-ordinated programs with the Ministry of Health and there are co-ordinated programs with the Ministry of Housing, but there is a long way to go.

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister is no doubt aware that in December 1985 the Ministry of Labour shut down the composting operation at the Windsor West sewage treatment plant because of a work refusal, and from December 1985 to September 1986 the city dumped sewage sludge in the Maidstone township dump illegally. After September 1986, the Ministry of the Environment granted the city an emergency permit to dump sewage sludge in the Maidstone township dump. That permit expired on October 31.

Will the minister please tell us why he has approved another emergency permit, which would allow the city to continue to dump sewage sludge in the township of Maidstone?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member will appreciate, there is divided opinion on this if one looks at the people he represents in his constituency and at those who are in Windsor. One difficulty is that the people of Windsor are concerned that if the sludge were left in the plant, it would spill over into the waterway. That is certainly not an option; so it is a matter of determining where the sewage sludge can go. At present, the only location that appears to be available and acceptable is Maidstone and there has been a limited extension for it. It is not the best of all worlds, as the member would most certainly agree.

There was a hope that the occupational health and safety issue -- the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) alluded to the problems that exist in this regard -- could be resolved so that the health of the workers could be protected and the composting could be resumed. That has not been resolved at this time, but I understand the sides are working towards that end.

Mr. Hayes: The city, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Labour have had a year to resolve this problem. Rather than making the necessary improvements to the plant, the problem has been transferred from the city and dumped on the county. The city has probably already spent in excess of $100,000 alone to truck that sewage sludge into the county. Will the minister stop the emergency permit and resolve the problem at the source, which is the sewage treatment plant in Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There is one difficulty I encounter in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) when I do that, namely, do we place in jeopardy the health and safety of the workers working in the composting plant? There is always very great concern about that; so it is balanced off. I know the member does not want me to place undue pressure on the Minister of Labour to allow that operation to resume as it existed in the past.

Alderman Bounsall of Windsor has expressed his views on the matter. He is very concerned that the city have a location to place its sludge, at least on a temporary basis. It is not a long-term solution, and I think the member will agree about that. We are attempting to resolve the occupational health and safety issue as quickly as possible, while at the same time protecting the workers in the area.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the next member for a question, I would like to inform all members that in the lower gallery we have a former Speaker of the House, the former member for Lake Nipigon, Jack Stokes.

MINORITY-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Under Bill 75, minority-language trustees were elected this fall to public school boards by both separate school ratepayers and public school ratepayers. However, these trustees will have to resign at the end of December when Bill 30 comes into effect because all of them were elected by separate school supporters and will no longer be eligible to remain on public boards. A second set of elections will have to be held. The minister's staff advised the boards on how to structure the elections this fall.

Can the minister explain why his staff failed to warn the boards of this problem and failed to recommend ways to structure their elections to avoid the problem and why his staff actually approved the election procedures that created the problem?

Hon. Mr. Conway: These elections across the province to establish the minority-language education councils have not been characterized by failure but rather by enthusiasm, commitment and interest. I want the record to speak very clearly to that reality.

15:00

We recognize there may be the rare situation where a second election will be required because, as a result of the impact of Bill 30, not Bill 75, the trustees to which the member made reference will be dropped from the public boards as of December 31, 1986. Where that is the case, and we do not expect it to be a very frequent occurrence, there will be procedures in place to provide for new trustees in early 1987.

Mr. Davis: Subsection 136i(3) of Bill 30 states that if a member of the public board has been elected by a separate school supporter, he cannot remain on the public board. Will the minister tell this House how many new elections he expects to see on January 1 because of his incompetence and inability to deal with that problem?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Surely it is an unkind cut for the member for Scarborough Centre to suggest that in this historic initiative we in this government have been incompetent. Quite to the contrary, we have been very competent, concerned and creative in meeting this important requirement of our charter and of our new Constitution.

There is no separate school representative who has chosen the path to which the member makes reference without knowing well in advance what the consequences would be at the end of December 1986. Let me say to the member for Scarborough Centre and his friend from Manotick that we in the ministry have taken extraordinary measures to inform not only the trustees but also all in the Ontario community.

I do not expect many elections. Where they are necessary, they will take place and they will be like the elections just completed. They will be done very well and with a great deal of input.

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

Mrs. Grier: I have a simple one-part question for the Minister of the Environment. He has heard today from my colleagues the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) of concerns in sewage treatment plants. He is aware of similar problems in sewage treatment plants all across this province.

Does the minister agree that if the industries that now dump their wastes into municipal sewers were forced to treat those wastes before they dumped them, many of these problems could be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Yes.

Mrs. Grier: That being the case, will the minister please explain why his municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program does not regulate the 12,000 industries in this province that currently dump their wastes into municipal sewers?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This question was longer; so the answer will be longer in this case.

I will mention two things in this regard. First, it is incorrect to say those matters cannot be addressed. One of the options is pretreatment, as I mentioned to the member for Hamilton East. Another is a bylaw that would apply across the province in various municipalities and would involve those discharges going into the sewers. Either of those options is viable.

In addition, the MISA program contemplates that the sewage treatment plants themselves must have discharges that are acceptable. Therefore, the municipalities will want to ensure in any event that the materials going in will be acceptable so that they do not encounter those problems in sewage treatment plants.

The white paper for the MISA program contemplates representations made by various people and groups, and we are listening very carefully. As the member knows, we are always prepared to listen to her ideas, ideas from the Conservatives and from everyone in the province.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the minister of unction, the Attorney General. It concerns the alleged suppression of information in the Crittenden report, alluded to by the member for York South (Mr. Rae).

While the minister is investigating that alleged suppression of information within the Ministry of Health, will he investigate the suppression of the report of Sam Ruth of the Compliance Plan Review Board, which we understand has been in the minister's hands since last June?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will do that.

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Attorney General. The minister seems to be launching out now in a great new area of social reform -- the enforcement of access rights for noncustodial parents, who are usually fathers -- when we have still seen neither hide nor hair of the maintenance enforcement reform that principally affects children and mothers, which was approved by this Legislature many months ago. Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I said to the honourable member yesterday when I met her in the building, we are giving consideration to developing a mechanism that will make the enforcement of this act easier. We have had occasion to attend in Manitoba, which, as every member knows, is Nirvana for the honourable member and those associated with her. We have had the advantage of their suggestions about how the act can be made to work effectively. I found those very helpful, and we hope this scheme will be better on that account.

Ms. Gigantes: Can the Attorney General explain to us why, when we were in committee discussion of this legislation, he suggested he would have his mechanism for enforcement in place by September? He is now telling us that it is "maybe," and with lame excuses. Perhaps he might think of plugging into the very excellent system in Manitoba, since he thinks so highly of it.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The delay the member for Ottawa Centre refers to has been occasioned because of the complexity of operating a system of the Manitoba type in a province that has as many centres of population as Ontario has, eight or 10 times the number that exist in Manitoba. I thank the member for her suggestion that we should plug into the Manitoba model. It is a good model, and we are relying on the experience they have had in Manitoba in order to make our system as good, if not better.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mrs. Marland: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. As the minister is aware, the standing committee on regulations and private bills has been dealing with Bill Pr7, which is a bill allowing the Huron county council to become the library board and to disband the existing library board.

In her letter dated October 27 to the chairman of that committee, the minister says, in referring to the Public Libraries Act, "The act does not provide for nor encourage the replacement of a public library board by a committee of council."

In the light of her later support in the letter for this bill, does the minister now consider that the Public Libraries Act needs to be amended?

Hon. Ms. Munro: No, I do not consider that it needs to be amended.

Mrs. Marland: If the minister does not feel the act needs to be amended, then I have to ask her why the library board of Huron county is so different from any other library board around Ontario that she seems to feel she can support Bill Pr7.

Hon. Ms. Munro: As it is constituted at present, the Public Libraries Act allows for municipal councils and library boards to determine where the local issues lie. I believe that is the extent to which this minister or this ministry can go. In all other cases, and I am presuming also in the case of the Huron library, those issues have been dealt with. In my mind, this does not indicate any necessity for revision of the act itself. The act has plenty of leeway for incorporating local concerns.

AID TO DISABLED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Today the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) failed to come through with anything substantial for Ontario's disabled. Yesterday I was asking the minister a number of questions or raising concerns with him in his estimates, and nothing was forthcoming.

I have a very specific request to make. Has the minister considered or will he consider making available to the disabled community of Ontario the same thing as he does to the seniors of Ontario; that is, the property tax grant, which is not available to disabled people living in their own homes, especially since the value of the property tax grant has dropped from its initial $500 to being worth only $325 in 1980 dollars today?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will give that consideration, yes.

15:10

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is kind of the Treasurer to consider it. How quickly does he think we could see that? Is it possible to get an announcement of that sort of thing before Rick Hansen leaves Ontario, so we might leave something substantial in his wake instead of weeks and townships named in his honour?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would be misleading if I indicated we could proceed that quickly. I am sorry I am a little conservative in the way I respond. I think the community is responding very well to Rick Hansen's presence. I understand he may be in the gallery tomorrow, and we are looking forward to that.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We have gone through question period today with 10 ministers out of a cabinet of 21. Some might say that not only is this fewer than half but it is also the bottom half.

Mr. Andrewes: Now, we would not say that about the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Harris: Some might want to say that, but --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Which standing order are you referring to?

Mr. Harris: It deals with a motion to adjourn the House if we cannot have better attendance by the cabinet so we can have reasonable attendance and respect for the Legislature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

BARRISTERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 147,

An Act to amend the Barristers Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Today, I am presenting the Barristers Amendment Act for first reading. This act will give effect to the statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of December 10, 1985, abolishing the office of Queen's counsel in Ontario.

The bill is very simple. It repeals the existing provisions of the Barristers Act dealing with QCs. It then abolishes the office of Queen's counsel entirely. For greater certainty, all existing QC patents are cancelled. Finally, the bill prohibits the use of the title "QC" in the practice of law in Ontario. In our view, this will prevent lawyers with QCs appointed in other provinces or by the federal government from holding themselves out to the public as QCs.

To enable Ontario lawyers to use up existing stocks of letterhead, professional cards and the like, the prohibition on public use will come into force only on September 1, 1987. The courts will remain in control of their practice with respect to gowns, precedents and the like, and we expect the Law Society of Upper Canada will enforce the general prohibition in an appropriate fashion.

I am aware that many lawyers will feel a wrench or pang of regret, as I myself do, in giving up this traditional honour. However, I believe that most, if not all, will soon become comfortable with the idea that their reputations among the profession and their standing in the community will depend on the merits they have demonstrated and not on a piece of paper given out without criteria or control by the government of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 12,

An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act;

Bill 70,

An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act;

Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Legal Aid Act;

Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act;

Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act;

Bill 28,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act;

Bill 32,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act;

Bill 130,

An Act to repeal the Gold Clauses Act.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 131,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Mr. Gregory: I adjourned the debate on Monday, October 27, when I was making telling points on the minister, Tinker Bell, who is the chief minister on the government side in charge of tinkering. Of course, precisely the point I was making was that he was doing that with this bill. Nothing is really accomplished with these amendments.

Whereas he removes exemptions on certain sections, he adds exemptions on others.

I see nothing wrong. It follows a course I began as Minister of Revenue to put an exemption on property tax or assessment for amusements. This was done for the first time at Marineland. That is fine, but what I do not understand is the paradox of adding this exemption for amusement rides at the same time as the minister is going to assess parts of farm properties. This indicates the government does not have its priorities right. I can see removing taxes from amusements -- that is fine -- but why add taxes for the farmer who already has a somewhat desperate time managing?

This is going to be particularly difficult for farming co-operatives. Farming co-operatives now find they are going to be assessed on the common storage bins. This is counterproductive. The farming co-operatives are not making money; they run as nonprofit organizations. If they go bankrupt as a result of this additional taxation, they are going to have to build them on their own properties, on their own farm lands. Then, of course, they will be tax-exempt. This seems to be a little silly. It is a bit of the tinkering we were talking about a moment ago.

Why do this at all when they have the option of having it on their own property and having it tax-exempt? From the standpoint of saving everybody money, it seems to me that to operate through a tax-exempt co-operative would be far more productive than doing what the minister is doing.

I have a great deal of difficulty with this. I have to ask myself why the minister is doing it, because it does not seem it is going to produce any more revenue for anybody except, I suppose, for communities that have amusement parks but no farms. I suppose that qualifies my riding. Maybe I should not be arguing against this bill because of these amendments. It certainly would benefit my area.

15:20

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the members of the official opposition and the various members of the other party who are conversing please discontinue their conversations. It is not fair to the member who has the floor. Please carry on your conversations elsewhere, including the whip.

Mr. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your interjection there, because it points out to me that the members of my party and the third party missed entirely the intelligent remarks I was making. It leaves me no alternative but to go back over my remarks to make sure the members get the benefit of them.

Mr. Dean: Just your intelligent remarks.

Mr. Gregory: That should take a little shorter time then. I find it a paradox, as I said, but I could not be heard because of the interjections over here. It is paradoxical that we would take an exemption off assessment in one area and add an exemption in another area. I do not understand that. It seems to be counterproductive.

I wonder what this bill is supposed to do besides give the appearance of a very active government making changes to the bill. The changes are being made for change's sake because there is nothing to be gained on this one. That is why I classify it as tinkering. We are getting a succession of bills being tinkered with in the House these days, making minor changes that do not mean very much.

Of course, the local government newspaper will build them up and say they are important. The press are not here now, they are outside, but they will build it up and say it is one of the many bills this active government has brought forward. Surely, somebody somewhere is going to analyse some of these important bills and point out how useless they are in what they have accomplished.

The act of changing a bill for the sake of changing it, the act of taking an exemption off one place and adding it on another, with the net result of zero or zilch, is not the proper way to present legislation in this House. I am surprised at the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), whom I have always regarded as having a high degree of intelligence. Surely he has looked at this and observed that it accomplishes nothing. Why are we wasting the House's time on it? I do not think there is any advantage to it. I hope the Treasurer can enlighten me on the grand purpose of it all.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Are you talking about all of Bill 131?

Mr. Gregory: No. I am talking about the

section dealing with the removal of the exemption on amusement rides and the other

section dealing with taking away the exemption from farm buildings. Is the minister with me?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Gregory: Thank you. Now that we have the minister straightened out, we can continue. There is no sense in belabouring that. I am sure I have repeated it several times, even over the interruptions on both sides of the House. The minister knows exactly what I am talking about. I hope when this goes to committee of the whole House, or whatever happens to it, he is going to see the merit of which I speak and remove those sections or change them.

I need help from my whip. Where is the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe)?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) be seated, please? Maybe we can get some of the conversations quietened down. Let us take a little break of silence until we get all the conversations quietened down. It seems we are like a tomcat making its calls around and interrupting the member.

Mr. Davis: That is the normal procedure for the Liberal government.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: That is quite right. It is a shame that so often we in this House have so little respect for fellow members when they are trying to make a point. They have conversations and meetings going on all the time a member is trying to speak. I can appreciate that what they are talking about is far more interesting than what I am talking about at the moment, especially when I have heard it four or five times. If the next speaker will get here, I will have done with it.

Having said that, I thank the members for the opportunity to comment on Bill 131.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there comments or questions?

Mr. Breaugh: Perhaps the record ought to show that the reason we watched the previous speaker stammer around for three or four minutes was that his whip was trying to find the next speaker for his own party. The record should show that.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not really a point of order.

Mr. Breaugh: Is it a point of order now? Mr. Speaker, you asked for questions or comments and that is what you got. You did not get a point of order.

Mr. Gregory: On the same point of order.

Mr. Breaugh: There is no point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I stated it was not a point of order.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Since the member has impugned my motives, I would like to say that my true reason for carrying on was that I suspected he was going to be the next speaker and I wanted to make sure we had someone else.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member asked me why I introduced the

section dealing with amusement rides. On December 14, 1984, the member for Mississauga East, who then was Minister of Revenue, announced he would introduce an amendment to the Assessment Act to exempt amusement rides from municipal taxation. I agree with what he said on December 14, 1984. His staff, now my staff, is just as good as it used to be.

The other thing is that he felt this was tinkering. The changes in farm assessment are designed not to increase or decrease the assessment but to see that certain decisions of the courts are not going to reduce assessments that have always been accepted by the farm community in a way that will be seriously detrimental to the municipalities. I am talking about assessments on silos and certain farm buildings.

We want to make it clear in this amendment that if a farm building is not directly associated with a manufacturing process, it should properly be assessed, but if it is associated with a manufacturing or farming process, it would be exempt. This matter has become more and more confused because the courts have found on actions both ways. The recommendation from the officials is that this amendment clarifies the matter.

I am not for a moment saying this bill is a matter of major concern, but it does improve situations for the benefit of the taxpayers and the municipalities.

Mr. Gregory: The Treasurer points out, and rightly so, that I indicated I was going to introduce the legislation. I repeated that six or seven times in my remarks earlier. I agreed with that. I agreed with the exemption on amusement rides and that sort of thing. What I described as counterproductive was doing it at the same time as adding assessment on farm property. That is what I commented on. I was not criticizing in any way. How could I criticize legislation I intended to introduce?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was wondering the same thing.

Mr. Gregory: Even I am not that silly. I want to assure the minister that I agree with that part of it. I disagree with the contradictory part where he is taxing --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Got it now.

Mr. Gregory: He has it now. I can repeat it three or four times or I can speak more slowly. It is understood now.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to indicate we will support the bill on second reading, although we have a number of concerns we would like to raise at this time and perhaps hear about during the hearings that I understand are going to take place on this bill. We will also deal with them when we get to clause-by-clause in committee of the whole House.

The bill is like many of these taxation bills, although this is an assessment tax amendment; it is inconsistent. It closes an exemption in one case and provides an exemption in another. The Treasurer, who is a widely read and scholarly man, will know Emerson said at one point that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds," and it will be the only defence he has in terms of consistency in his taxation policy.

15:30

I know some of my colleagues will also be speaking on this bill. We do not intend to hold it up, but some of them have particular concerns because of the effects the bill could very well have in their ridings. I am thinking of my colleagues the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke)

First of all, we should indicate that sections 1 and 4, as I understand it now, render liable for business assessment -- and I emphasize business assessment -- such nonprofit corporations as are engaged in commercial activities. As I understand it, what that means is that credit unions, food co-operatives, golf and country clubs and other nonprofit organizations will be liable to be assessed at business assessment rates in the municipalities. I understand the reason for this is that a number of court decisions have basically destroyed what the original intent of "nonprofit" was. I am not sure of my grammar there, but I hope I am getting the message across.

As I understand it, until 1983, case law had traditionally held that the true test in determining liability for business assessment and taxation was whether the activity being carried out was truly a commercial activity. The intent to make a profit was an important consideration but not the sole test. I understand there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1983 which held that a credit union, for example, was exempt from the business tax because the preponderant purpose of a credit union was not that of making a profit.

Many other judicial decisions have followed, so that such organizations as insurance associations, the Ontario Jockey Club, which is a favourite of the Treasurer's, social clubs and golf and country clubs have also been exempted.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Toronto Stock Exchange?

Mr. Foulds: I was just getting to the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Are they friends of yours?

Mr. Foulds: In fact, the very next sentence in the notes prepared by my researcher, Jim Mundy, indicated that several other nonprofit commercial enterprises, such as the Toronto Stock Exchange and all real estate boards, are now before the courts seeking similar status, I believe.

I can understand what the Treasurer is getting at. The loss to the municipalities from this exemption, or the potential loss, or the loss when credit unions gained the exemption, was $700,000. The Ontario Jockey Club decision caused tax losses of $3.1 million to the four municipalities of Toronto, Mississauga, Fort Erie and Etobicoke in 1984 and 1985.

While I understand the intent of the Treasurer, I have some concerns that I want to raise with him. Perhaps another way of going at it would be to try to define better, or more clearly, what is a nonprofit organization serving the needs of a common group of people. I would argue that perhaps we should be looking at some future time, if this amendment goes through -- and I suspect it will -- at the possibility that there might be a differential business or commercial rate for such organizations as small credit unions.

Although they would be eligible for assessment tax, it might not be legitimate to have them taxed at the same commercial rate as, say, a bank is, because they do not have the access to the same services provided by a bank and they therefore do not have access to the same kind of income that a bank has and the same kind of profit.

It may be worth looking in the future at some way of providing a tax break for genuine nonprofit organizations, such as a small food co-op or a credit union, which is not available to other large commercial enterprises. I know that may be difficult, but I cannot help but get the feeling that in this case the Treasurer has cast his net just a bit too far, and only a few of the larger business organizations should be caught by this section.

There is another one I want to deal with on second reading. I will deal with the more complicated

section on silos and farming equipment in a few minutes. In sections 1 and 4, the Treasurer is removing an exemption. On the other hand, in sections 2 and 3, he provides for the exemption of amusement rides from property taxes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I like to keep things balanced. This is not a tax grab.

Mr. Foulds: I hear it is called the Vince Kerrio amendment because of the representations made for Marineland in Niagara Falls by the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That was announced by a former Minister of Revenue, whom Vince Kerrio did not influence too much.

Mr. Foulds: Although I understand the technical definition, the question I have on the granting of this exemption is when does permanent machinery become real property? I would say as long as it is permanent, as long as it is not movable.

There may be some difficulty with that, and I would like that difficulty explained in the clause-by-clause debate. I know it is difficult, but I also worry about removing this assessment from municipalities that have relatively little assessment.

The Treasurer will argue that he is replacing it with a grant in lieu of those taxes. To the best of my knowledge, he has not yet announced what proportion those grants will be and whether they will be indexed to the tax that the municipality applies in the future to commercial enterprises in its jurisdiction.

We know very well that a grant of so many dollars this year, even with the modest inflation rate of between four per cent and five per cent we are facing, will be worth far less in five or six years than will the assessment value be to them. I would like the Treasurer to address that concern.

I have no difficulty whatsoever with

section 5, which indicates that the assessment on pipelines will be reassessed with the general reassessment; it makes sense to me. Administrative efficiency and consistency there seem to be good arguments.

I want to get back subsections 2(1) and 2(2). Those are the subsections that deal with the taxation of structures. In this section, I understand the minister is trying to tax those things that really are structures as opposed to those things that are machinery. That relates to the problems I just talked about with the amusement rides.

Have the ministry officials worked out and can they make public their

definitions of "structure" and "machinery"? I have read the bill fairly carefully and admit frankly that I am not clear in my own mind on that. It would be useful if that could be brought forward, at least for thought on second reading, and certainly during the hearings and in the clause-by-clause discussion.

I understand one of the things the Treasurer is trying to do in subsections 2(1) and 2(2) is to stem an erosion of municipal property revenues, which in the ministry's information could reach $1.92 million per year. That is a substantial amount that would be withdrawn from the municipalities if the snowball effect takes place.

15:40

Those are the comments I have on second reading. Those are some of the concerns we have as a party. We understand that what the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue is trying to do in terms of the principle is to make the taxation system fairer for the municipal level. We note some slight inconsistency in that, but we are prepared to be persuaded. On second reading, we will be voting for the bill.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the comments by the honourable member. It is my thought that the bill might go to a standing committee so that people with specific concerns can give us their suggestions. If the clarity of the sections can be improved, we are quite prepared to look at proposals.

I was persuaded to go with at least one of the sections when the council of Etobicoke came in and said that because of the Supreme Court decision on the Caisse Populaire de Hearst, the Ontario Jockey Club had said, "That applies to us as well; we are nonprofit," and the courts exempted the club on that basis. Etobicoke said, "We cannot afford to lose that assessment, amounting to many hundreds of thousands of dollars." As the member pointed out, it is more than $3 million in the communities associated with racing. It is obvious that had to be corrected.

The amendment clarifying business as more than nonprofit or profit-making is, in my view, best carried forward through the assessment program policy manual. We have tried to make an amendment that puts in all the possibilities. We have even suggested we might say that everybody is exempted except these people, including the stock exchange and so on. We found that was not the kind of general legislation I wanted to put forward, although in the long run that may be the best solution.

However, we feel it should be acceptable that these amendments, backed up by statements in the publicly available assessment program policy manual, should make it fair and understandable for all. This is not an assessment or tax grab. It is an effort to maintain fairness and equity, and it is supported by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, except for the exemption on the amusement rides.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Ashe: We have to put one thing on the record to start. I am sure it was maybe a slip of the tongue by the Treasurer when he seemed to indicate that it was his great revelation and his great thinking that were going to suggest that this bill should go to a standing committee. I am sure the Treasurer will be magnanimous enough to recognize publicly that it was this party which has insisted that this bill should go to committee so that enterprisers out there would have the opportunity to express their views, which cannot be done directly here except through members. That procedure is more than appropriate in this case.

When we rise to speak on an amendment to the Assessment Act, it opens up an interesting area. There is no doubt that everything in this bill impacts on assessment here and there throughout the province. Thinking of it in that vein gives me a little opportunity to discuss some rather specific areas of assessment anomalies within the city of Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto area. There are places within this municipality that would be affected by

section 1, the definition of business, by subsection 2(1) and so on. I think the latitude is here on second reading in that regard.

The Treasurer has his Minister of Revenue hat on today. When we talked a few days ago -- I guess it was only yesterday; it just seems a few days ago -- he had on a different hat as Treasurer and Minister of Economics.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Time flies when you are having fun.

Mr. Ashe: That is true. When you are having fun, it just flies by. That is why it seems like a week instead of only a day. It is a kind of reverse psychology, I suppose.

One of the things I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Revenue is that shortly after coming to office in a roundabout, devious way some 18 months ago, he appointed his parliamentary assistant and a bunch of other people to look into some of the assessment problems and to make a report, which was duly done.

It may have been in one of the utterings that was not too well thought out at the time, but it seems to me the Minister of Revenue indicated, when the question was posed about the anomalies, the inconsistencies and the unfairness to a majority of taxpayers within Metropolitan Toronto -- I will paraphrase him, but if he wants his exact quote I am sure I can dig it out for him -- "If they do not do it" -- "they" being Metropolitan Toronto -- "I will do it for them."

In some of the pronouncements I have heard from him in the past few weeks, as the dialogue and the buck-passing have gone back and forth between the Metropolitan Toronto council and the Minister of Revenue, it seems to me he has backed down somewhat from that commitment. I realize it may have been politically prudent to back down from it. Some of us have had that problem before, and I am prepared to acknowledge that, as I have in other situations.

I would like to hear the minister, at the appropriate time a little later on, try to put those two different points of view into a similar perspective, so I could see them the way he has seen them.

In the meantime, we know a majority of the people in Metropolitan Toronto are overpaying their property taxes for the benefit of the minority. Unfortunately, as the minister has identified on more than one occasion in the past few days when answering questions from my colleagues, that is why the house-by-house study was not put on the record. I acknowledge and agree with him that it would be an impossibility to do so. The reason is that he knows and I know, but unfortunately the majority of the taxpayers do not know, they are overpaying.

The minister has an onerous responsibility to bite the bullet, if he is allowed to by his cabinet colleagues.

If the Metropolitan Toronto council does not want to own up to the overcharging of all those people and if the city of Toronto wants to keep balancing that ball, trying to sit on the fence and be all things to all people and have it every which way, he should bite the bullet and bring some fairness and equity by pointing out what the Metropolitan Toronto council or the Toronto council or the Scarborough council can do based on the present legislation, which is to phase in things and look at other avenues of taking care of some of the problems that no doubt will be created for some people in a financial sense.

I suggest the property tax assessment system being bastardized does not take care of legitimate concerns in any way. The minister will have to take care of them in the proper way, not through the system itself but through other means of taking care of those who have financial needs that cannot be met from their own sources of income.

Getting back to the contents of Bill 131 in a more specific way, we support the principle of what the bill is trying to accomplish. Frankly, I think the minister has done a very poor job on the bill, which is why we have insisted that it go to a standing committee, so that many legitimate concerns can be brought before him. Knowing some of the people within that

section of the ministry, I hope and trust that by the time the committee hearings are begun, some reasonable amendments will have been put forth by the government to clarify the intent of the bill.

15:50

That is extremely important. The intent of the bill is laudable. We have to protect the tax base of the municipalities. If we do not protect the tax base in the industrial, commercial and business sectors, we all know where that tax loss goes -- on the residential taxpayer. We cannot support that, just as the government cannot support it. The intent of the bill is fine, with the exception that has already been pointed out of the amusement-ride exemption, which seems a little inconsistent, but I personally have no problem with that principle. Similarly, the pipeline change seems crazy with those kinds of updates.

On the bill and its intent, which is to stop that erosion, that is fine. Unfortunately, we all know that within the policy manual -- and I was there when the policy manual that is currently used was put in place by the excellent staff in that half of the ministry, including the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Lettner.

The minister and legal counsel will agree that if a case goes to court -- and there is no doubt that the implementation of this bill is not going to stop or reduce the number of cases that are going to go to the courts, whether it be the Assessment Review Board or a higher court -- it is going to be increased. I am sure that for those who are trying to use the law in their favour, the judge or the hearing officer is not going to be leaning towards what the policy manual is suggesting and guiding; he is going to go by what is in the legislation passed by this Legislature.

That is an extremely important difference that will have to be thrashed out within the committee when it hears some legitimate concerns from businesses.

We have heard, as I know the minister has heard, from many significant businesses in this province. I am relating to subsection 2(1) of the bill as to what is going to be included in that all-encompassing "buildings and structures" et al. The problem is that in the

interpretation and the legal advice many of these large firms are receiving, the "et al" could be everything. Again, I understand and accept that is not the intent and that is not what the policy manual says, but it is not clear enough within this legislation. We have heard from the Canadian Portland Cement Association, Nabisco Brands, Molson Breweries and Dofasco Inc., some of which have no particular axe to grind at this time and which have not been companies that have tried to get their assessments lowered and in effect to avoid taxation.

All we are talking about is making sure the intent of the bill and the legislation is comprehensive and clear enough that it maintains the status quo before some of these exemptions were derived from the court system because of appeals that the ministry lost. That is the route to go. That is what the minister is trying to do. I do not think this bill does it. The words in the bill have to be somewhat closer to the intent as contained within the policy manual that guides the assessors out in the field and that will ultimately guide the courts in any decision that is made.

With the opportunity before a standing committee of this Legislature, I am sure the minister will be hearing this over and over. If he wishes, I am sure there can be many suggested amendments that may provide some guidance to him if he does not already have them in his hip pocket. Frankly, if he does not come forward with them, we will. I am sure the party on the left will look very carefully at the intent of the reasoned amendments that will come forth. I hope it will support them and put forth an amendment to the Assessment Act that will be helpful not only in the short term but also in the long term.

There is one other area, and I realize other speakers have spoken on this issue before; it is the new definition of "business" contained herein. The minister has the same problem here that he has in the buildings and structures section, subsection 2(1) of the bill. Once again, under the definition in here, everything that is perceived to be nonprofit but in competition, even the agencies of good to the community, will be deemed by anybody else wanting to use them as an example. That is the key.

They are not going to appeal a nonassessment; I can appreciate and accept that, although there is no doubt from the wording of the bill that the assessment policy could change tomorrow. That is not the government's intent now, but it could be different tomorrow.

What I am concerned about is that there are some other organizations that have in their view a similar purpose, that have in their view a similar status and would use that definition in a court, an appeal court or a higher court of law to suggest they belong in the same category, etc.

The minister has some real problems there. Although I can appreciate what he acknowledged when responding to the previous speaker, that he might have some concerns in identifying a particular named group, such as the Toronto Stock Exchange, the Ontario Jockey Club and so on -- and I am sure none of us has any great pity for those agencies; they should be paying business taxes, and we are not opposing that -- I do not think the definition in there right now takes care of all the situations. It is possible it will have to go into describing, for example, what is not a business.

I appreciate this is a negative way of approaching it, and it may be deemed not to be very practical legally, but with the legal minds that are available to the minister, I suggest a practical solution can come forward.

I think the minister has excellent intent in this legislation. We do have to protect the tax base of municipalities, whether it be in the industrial, commercial or business tax sector, for the benefit of the residential home owner. For that we give him full support. Unfortunately, he is trying to do it in a flawed way, and I hope that between now and the time the standing committee deals with the bill and hears public representations, he will have had much opportunity to mull over and look at the other ways of clarifying the intent.

Again, I laud the minister and the ministry for the intent in this bill. We will be supporting it, and of course we will want it to go to a standing committee for hearings.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member has made an extremely useful contribution. I appreciate his support, at least of the principle of the bill, which is what we are debating now. I have already indicated my own concern with the wording in the attempt to achieve that principle. Specifically, the alternative to the definition of "business" might have been to add a

section saying, "Whatever the courts say or the lawyers argue, the following businesses are going to be assessable for business tax, and that is that." We may have to do that; it may be the only way to do it.

The former minister's suggestion that we try to define what is not included is sort of backing into the difficulty and would just create another bonanza for the people who have made themselves wealthy on the basis of our attempts in this House over the years to have some clear definition of assessment and business tax.

I have a feeling that even our best efforts may not accomplish perfection, but the honourable member did say that if we could not do it, he and his colleagues would do it for us or assist us. Cutting down the rhetoric a little bit, I invite him, his colleagues and honourable members everywhere in this House to assist us in this wording. If they have concrete suggestions, I know they will bring them forward to the committee, where we can look at them, but as soon as we can get them, we can give them consideration.

I am in no way wedded to these words, but I am committed to the principle, along with the honourable member. I believe appropriate work, with the kind of assistance that is available to us, will give us a bill that is workable. In looking at the alternatives, my view is that this is the best, along with the assessment manual that the honourable member created or was present at the creation of. I believe that with good intentions on all sides, we can create wording that will stick in spite of the best efforts of those who would strike us down.

Mr. Ashe: I appreciate the response by the minister. Let me reiterate that I guess it was taken as a threat, and I did not mean it in that context. What I was saying was that I am sure the minister, his deputy, his assistant deputy and others already have some thoughts or already have been given some suggestions as to how these sections can more properly portray the intent they now carry.

I would rather see the minister bring them forward than have us try to take credit for them. That is not the purpose here. We all have the same ultimate purpose, which is to come forward with legislation that is fair and defensible, not only now but also in a court situation in the future. That is the only context I was putting it into.

16:00

Mr. Breaugh: I want to get on the record this afternoon some objections that have been raised with me and other members by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It is something like the situation with the two opposition parties. We do not have a great problem with the principles in the bill, but some of the mechanics are bothersome. We hope that when the bill goes out for public hearings, there will be an opportunity for groups such as this association to raise their objections.

I want to categorize AMO's objections to the bill basically in the three sections where it has noted some problems it thinks will occur. The first is in the area of attempting to implement the provincial view that machinery is basically machinery and will be taxed that way and to look at the effects of that when one deals with such things as amusement parks. It is a complicated piece of business, perhaps more complicated than it should be.

In attempting to look at amusement parks, what is a permanent piece of machinery and what is a movable piece of machinery? Is there any real difference? It occurs to me and to many of us that in a number of municipalities, attempts have been under way to bring in amusement parks or some kind of local development. Almost as an afterthought, people start to think about whether it is a good thing or a bad thing in terms of assessment. It turns out to be not quite as good a ride as people originally thought. There seems to be some problem around the edges when you get to taxation.

I note AMO has brought to the attention of the minister that it thinks there are some problems with that

section of the act; so do I. One of the difficulties may simply be that in developing amusement parks around Ontario, they are often touted as being big revenue boosters and sources of jobs. The sad

part is that, after the fact, we often find there are not a great many permanent jobs attached to them. Often the jobs are not much more than temporary jobs at the minimum wage. The assessment on these properties is not quite the same as on a new Suzuki plant or, better yet, a new General Motors plant. We are beginning to have some understanding that maybe these things are not quite the great boom they were initially thought to be.

I want to caution the minister that several municipalities are having difficulties with this

section of the act. I want to draw his attention to those difficulties and, I hope, get his commitment that when we do go to public hearings he will attempt to listen to the municipalities and to resolve the problem.

Part of the problem is the process here. The process is that people in and around the Legislative Building and in the minister's office redraft

definitions; they have an impact on our municipalities. Through their organization, the municipalities try to make a centralized position known to the minister, but there is not a lot of negotiating back and forth in a direct way. That perhaps is part of the problem that the minister ought to look at.

The second area they look at is essentially a proposal to offer grants in lieu of lost assessment. Over the years, many of us have expressed some unhappiness with this process. I note that again today the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) rose to announce a wonderful new program, whereby in a slightly different vein, grants in lieu of taxes are being upped for the first time since 1973.

Although it sounds like a