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

November 29, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L064 - Tue 29 Nov 1977 / Mar 29 nov 1977

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BOUNDARY PROPOSALS IN THE ROBARTS, ARCHER AND MAYO REPORTS

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND POLICE DISCIPLINE REVIEW BOARD

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOUNDARY PROPOSALS

POLICE ACCESS TO OHIP DATA

PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF POLICE

USE OF INFLUENCE

NURSING HOMES

LIQUOR ADVERTISING

USE OF MEDICAL DATA

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

LICENCE FEES

LOT LEVIES

ASSISTANCE TO PENSIONERS

POLICE ACCESS TO OHIP DATA

SAULT JAIL

RESOURCE EQUALIZATION GRANTS

FACILITIES FOR RETARDED

GLENDALE TRAINING CENTRE

FACILITIES FOR DISTURBED CHILDREN

EDWARDSBURGH LAND ASSEMBLY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MANAGEMENT STUDY

INCO EMISSIONS

POLICE ACCESS TO OHIP DATA

REDRESS ON POINT OF PRIVILEGE

INTERPRETATION OF SESSIONAL ORDER

REDRESS ON POINT OF PRIVILEGE

PETITION

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

MOTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

NURSING HOMES

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SANDWICH, WINDSOR AND AMHERSTBURG RAILWAY ACT

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BOUNDARY PROPOSALS IN THE ROBARTS, ARCHER AND MAYO REPORTS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, upon the release of the report of the royal commission on Metropolitan Toronto, the Archer report on the regional municipality of Niagara and Dr. Mayo’s report on Ottawa-Carleton, I invited the municipalities, local boards and the general public to advise me of their views and concerns about the various recommendations. Throughout the province’s review of the findings and recommendations of the reports, very close attention has been directed to the municipal and public response to the proposals. In this way, we hope to respond to the concerns of the residents of Metropolitan Toronto and the two regions in our review and decisions on the three reports.

To date, the response to the Robarts report has been substantial. At present more than 400 submissions have been sent to me from municipalities, local boards, private organizations, ratepayers’ groups and many individual residents. Most of the municipalities and local boards in Metropolitan Toronto have already submitted their briefs on the report, and I expect to hear from the remainder in the near future.

It will be a surprise to no one, I am sure, that the boundary proposals in the report appear to have received the greatest amount of scrutiny and concern, certainly from the public. More than 75 per cent of the public’s briefs have been directed to the boundary issue alone. I might add that this figure excludes more than 7,000 coupons sent to me from residents of Scarborough objecting strongly to any shift in that borough’s boundaries. From early indications, I expect that a similar expression of public concern may accompany the soon-to-be-submitted borough of North York brief.

In examining these submissions, it is apparent that little public and municipal support exists or can be anticipated in the future for the municipal boundary proposals recommended by the royal commission. It is evident to me that many residents of Metropolitan Toronto are very concerned and upset about the possible effects that the commission’s boundary proposals might have on existing local services, local taxes and community identification. With only a few exceptions almost all public submissions have objected to any major change to the present boundaries of the local municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto.

Only the boroughs of York and East York have expressed support for the boundary proposals in the report. Other municipalities have objected to the commission’s proposals and have either requested no change or have recommended alternative boundary arrangements.

Mr. Nixon: These are the Robarts recommendations.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Many of the arguments in opposition are persuasive. For example, major shifts in municipal boundaries can cause significant emotional and physical disruptions to the community. Our view of Mr. Robarts’ report, so far, indicates that no significant improvements to the system of representation on the Metropolitan council would necessarily occur through major municipal boundary shifts. There may be other alternatives to arriving at more equitable representation arrangements, if it is seen to be necessary.

It is also evident that the proposed boundary changes alone would not provide substantial benefits to the overall financial position and servicing potential of the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto.

On the other hand, the boundary proposals in the report would have only a minor impact on the total local government spending and taxation due to the large portion of the local tax bill taken by the Metropolitan and educational levies. The analysis of the report also indicates that short-run tax shifts would be rather small -- increases or decreases in the range of $10 to $20 per household.

In response to these municipal and public concerns, I wish to announce today that it is not my intention to proceed with any major changes to the existing boundaries of the area municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto. In reaching this decision, I have considered very carefully the arguments and evidence both in support of and in opposition to this proposal. I am also hopeful that this decision will now permit us to concentrate our efforts on the other important proposals in the report, for example, on improving accountability, the level and allocation of responsibilities and the financial and other resource capacities of the municipalities.

Mr. Lewis: The government might even appoint a commission to look into that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I note, however, that the boundary proposal in the report would correct some of the existing minor anomalies in the boundaries between some of the area municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto. I have in mind, for example, the southeast

section of the borough of York, extending east of Bathurst Street and along St. Clair Avenue to the Spadina Road area of the city of Toronto, affecting, as a matter of fact, the apartment building in which I live. It should probably be included in the city of Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: Conflict of interest.

Mr. Nixon: Make it a suburb of Chatham.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am hopeful that such minor refinements in municipal boundaries could be undertaken with the mutual agreement of the affected municipalities and with a minimum of disruption and cost to the communities.

As for boundaries in the regional municipality of Niagara, again the majority of responses from the public was against any change, in particular the proposal to establish the new city of Lincoln. No municipal councils supported the change. I am not convinced that this new municipal configuration would of itself protect farmland, as Mr. Archer contends. I am, therefore, of the view that the internal boundaries in Niagara should remain as at present.

Let me now turn to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Here, too, boundaries are generating a good deal of response and no little consternation. I think it is important for me to say something now about what should be done about the Ottawa-Carleton boundaries. It is my hope that this can lay to rest the speculation and while I don’t expect euphoria, I would like to get on with our analysis of what I consider to be equally, if not more important, issues of roles, responsibilities and electoral processes in local government in Ottawa-Carleton.

Conditions are different in Ottawa-Carleton than in either Metro Toronto or Niagara. For that reason, I think some boundary changes would be in order.

Mr. Roy: Like what?

Mr. Lewis: Just a personal preference, I take it, a kind of a pin on the map.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are some that I do not accept. Again it is evident to me that the residents of the areas that would be affected by boundary changes are very concerned and upset about the possible effects on existing local services, local taxes and community identification.

As in Metro, I am not convinced the changes provided substantial benefits to the overall financial position in the arrangements in Ottawa-Carleton. I wish to state today that I am not prepared then to accept the proposal that Rideau and Goulbourn be merged, nor do I accept the proposal that Russell township be included in Ottawa-Carleton.

I would, however, like to encourage the incorporation of a western city in the Kanata area much along the lines proposed. It is my view that that proposal has some general support and the urbanizing area should be within the bounds of one municipality. A shift to Arnprior of some of the northwest corner of West Carleton township makes sense as well.

One of the most controversial propositions was that Rockcliffe Park village and a part of Ottawa be joined to the city of Vanier. I cannot in all conscience propose to continue the situation in which one municipality, Rockcliffe Park, enjoys such an imbalance in the representational arrangements, which is very seriously out of line with our general goal of greater equity.

I, therefore, propose that those parts of Ottawa suggested to go to Vanier remain in Ottawa, that that part of Gloucester remain in Gloucester rather than be joined to Vanier, and that Rockcliffe Park join the city of Ottawa. There may also be some minor adjustments that the municipalities may wish to pursue to adjust boundaries, which we will be pleased to consider.

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND POLICE DISCIPLINE REVIEW BOARD

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Later this afternoon I’ll be introducing two bills to amend the Police Act.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister kidding?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: One bill will establish a new system for dealing with citizens’ complaints against the police, a subject on which I have previously addressed this House.

Mr. Roy: Don’t get carried away.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The bill would create a civilian authority at the provincial level to oversee the handling of these complaints and any consequential disciplining of police officers.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a change.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Complaints and discipline would be the special focus and responsibility of this new authority. The ministry accepts the principle that the police should not be the final arbiters in their own cause. We are, therefore, proposing the establishment of a new commissioner of citizen complaints who would be independent of the police. The complaints commissioner would be principally concerned with receiving and looking into the complaints of citizens who feel aggrieved by action taken at the local level.

Mr. Lewis: You have already appointed Phil Givens.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The complaints commissioner would have the power to order public hearings before a new body known as the citizen complaints and police discipline review board.

Mr. Lewis: This is the Vernon Singer bill, I presume.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Under the proposed system, existing local police complaint bureaus would be continued. It is felt that the local police are in the best position to respond to complaints in the first instance, that they have the expertise to conduct a proper investigation and that they have a responsibility to answer the concerns of the citizens they are sworn to protect. The new mechanism at the provincial level would apply to all police forces and would be superimposed upon existing complaint bureaus.

We are indebted to the various studies and reports recently made on this subject. The report of Mr. Arthur Maloney, QC, was of particular assistance in preparing the legislation, as were the reports of the Honourable Mr. Justice Morand and His Honour, Judge Rene Marin. Although no one system could be adopted in its totality, the proposed legislation draws extensively from these reports.

I wish also to advise that the consultation process was very successful in this instance. We are grateful to police associations, police governing bodies, chiefs of police and other interested groups for the full co-operation they have extended during the course of discussions. The points of view were, of course, many and varied, and my ministry was involved in a lengthy process of compromise and conflict resolution. I now feel, however, that the time has come for action. We must venture into this field in a highly visible way and then let the experience in action decide whether the structure created is doing the job it was intended to do.

Mr. Roy: The minister is hard to recognize on that line.

Mr. Lewis: It is called the Frank Drea syndrome.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Under the proposed system, a citizen having a complaint against a police officer might take his complaint to the police force concerned or to the commissioner of citizen complaints. Where possible, citizens would be encouraged to take their complaints to the local police complaint bureau. A police force receiving a complaint would be required to record and investigate it and to keep the commissioner of citizen complaints informed. The chief of police would have a discretion to refer more serious complaints to the complaints commissioner.

The system is designed to encourage the early and informal resolution of complaints at the local level.

[2:15]

The complaints commissioner would act as an external and independent reviewing authority and would oversee the handling of citizens’ complaints by police. His jurisdiction would be flexible. He would have a discretion to refer complaints received by him to the local police for investigation and disposition. He might also choose to investigate a complaint and would have an investigative staff for this purpose. The complaints commissioner would also, at the request of a dissatisfied citizen, investigate and review any particular complaint or the procedures followed by the police in its response.

The investigatory power of the commissioner of citizens’ complaints would be similar to those of the Ombudsman.

The complaints commissioner would be empowered to direct that a public hearing be held before a citizen complaints and police discipline review board where there is evidence of misconduct by a police officer that is of a serious nature. The hearing would follow an investigation of the complaint by the complaints commissioner, either of his own motion or in response to the request of a dissatisfied citizen. The police officer would receive proper notice of any allegation of misconduct made against him. Disciplinary penalties might be applied where the misconduct is established.

The bill retains existing safeguards and protections for the rights of a defendant police officer and further extends these protections.

I expect the members will wish to consider this bill in some detail in committee and reintroduction may therefore be necessary.

The second bill implements the recommendations of the McRuer royal commission inquiry into civil rights and contains other housekeeping provisions.

Mr. S. Smith: Who does the minister have in mind for the commissioner’s job?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: For example, regulations made by a board of commissioners of police would require the approval of the Ontario Police Commission and would be available for public inspection. The bill would also alter the composition of a board of commissioners of police by repealing the requirement that one member be a judge.

The bill also affects police budgets by permitting the municipal council to determine their amount. The board of commissioners of police would, however, have a right to appeal to the Ontario Police Commission and the commission might, after a hearing, order that additional moneys be provided where essential for providing and maintaining an adequate police force in accordance with the police needs of the municipality. Authority would also be provided to pay the legal costs incurred by members of a police force where a royal commission is examining the conduct of a member in the performance of his duties.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this bill will draw the support of the members and receive a speedy passage into law.

I would add that I will also be introducing a third bill to prohibit the use of radar warning devices in motor vehicles.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, today after question period, I will be introducing a bill to amend the Condominium Act.

As the hon. members know, my ministry established the residential condominium study group to review the entire area of condominium legislation. I’m sure that the members opposite also know that the government plans to revise the Condominium Act after we have had a chance to analyse the results of that study which I can now assure the House I will be able to table before the House rises for the Christmas break.

Mr. Breaugh: That will be nice.

Mr. Warner: That’s speedy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t like piecemeal legislation and would have preferred to introduce a new Act in its entirety at this time but the import of this particular issue is so critical that we felt that we had to move immediately to protect those members of the public living in or contemplating the purchase of a condominium.

Mr. Foulds: What about those who have already been hoodwinked?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This amendment is designed to relieve the difficulties which result to a residential condominium corporation when an individual unit owner is in default of his common expense payments. Under the present Act, liens for unpaid common expenses are subsequent to all other encumbrances, including mortgages. Therefore, unpaid expenses can be collected only after a sale or foreclosure and only after the payment of the outstanding mortgages.

In practice, the condominium corporation is rarely able to collect unpaid expenses. Because of the low equity in many of these units and because of falling property values, there is often little money left over to cover common expenses once the mortgages have been paid. This deficit must be made up by the remaining unit owners.

The condominium corporation should have a speedy means of recovering common expenses owing it. Therefore, this amendment will give liens for common expenses priority over all registered encumbrances with the exception of land taxes and a few other statutory liens. The effect of this will be that the condominium corporation will likely obtain payment of the arrears from the mortgagee. The mortgagee will then be able to add the amount paid for arrears to the outstanding principal due.

To prevent the accumulation of unpaid expenses over long periods of time, this amendment provides the corporation must register its lien within three months and at the same time notify the mortgagees of the default of payment of the common expenses.

This amendment applies to all mortgages on residential condominiums only and it will affect unpaid common expenses occurring after January 1, 1978, or such other date as may be named. This amendment will have a number of consequences. It will not only permit a condominium corporation to recover arrears quickly but discourage default of common expenses. Mortgagees will likely collect the common expenses of a unit owner and contribute them to the condominium corporation on behalf of the unit owner. We have included a provision for this in the amendment.

Mortgage lenders will likely take more stringent measures to protect their security. They may require larger equity participation by purchasers.

We also expect that they will consider common expense payments when evaluating whether a consumer can afford to purchase a unit. This may result in fewer individuals being able to qualify for mortgage finances. However, we expect that condominium buyers in the future will be much better informed as to the true cost of owning a unit.

We also anticipate that mortgage lenders will play a more active role in the management of the condominium corporation. They may, for example, request reviews of the corporation’s books before paying common expenses. This should encourage condominium directors to maintain sound financial management.

This amendment will rectify an inherent weakness in the Condominium Act. The size of common expense payments was not foreseen when the Condominium Act was proclaimed some 10 years ago. Unfortunately, default of common expenses has grown into a serious financial problem for condominium corporations. Therefore, in order to protect the hundreds of thousands of condominium owners in this province, we are introducing this bill at this time. Although I have not yet received the report of the condominium study group, I have assurance that this step is consistent with the overall aims of the group’s recommendations.

Mr. Roy: You are not thanking Darwin Kealey for some input into that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wouldn’t do that, I’m not partisan.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOUNDARY PROPOSALS

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: I want to congratulate the Treasurer for putting to rest the boundary matter in the Toronto area but I want to ask him what he now sees as the future for York and for East York in view of the repeated claims which apparently were persuasive to Mr. Robarts -- that in the long run there’s a certain problem with their ratio of assessment, residential to commercial and industrial. What kind of solutions does he see for the long term viability of those two boroughs?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this of course would depend on the decision of my colleague, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and his ultimate recommendation with respect to the future of the Metropolitan Toronto school board. At the present moment something like 80 cents on the dollar of taxes is in fact spread over the whole of Metro between the Metropolitan levy and between the Metropolitan Toronto educational levy so that if there is an advantage or disadvantage, it is really confined depending on industrial or residential assessment ratios. It is really only one-fifth of the problem that it appears to be because it only affects the local levy.

The grants reform committee report, for example, recommended the strengthening of the resource equalization grant. That’s a decision of course which I have not yet taken, but I would anticipate that as future grants are developed there will be a greater emphasis in the equalization area -- that’s just a hunch that I have at the moment -- which of course would be to the benefit of York, East York and many other municipalities throughout the province.

The question, however, I think at the moment is premature. We are not completely satisfied with Mr. Robarts’ reasoning in this area and we will be developing figures of our own.

Mr. Warner: Is the Treasurer telling us that although Mr. Robarts identified a financial problem, particularly for the boroughs of York and East York, and put forward a suggestion to correct the problem by moving boundaries, the Treasurer has discarded his suggestion and has nothing concrete to put in its place?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I pointed out in the statement that even if Mr. Robarts’ suggestions were implemented, they would work out to a tax shift of about $15 or $20 per household, which is hardly earth-shattering either one way or another, either to those who would pay more by moving or those who inevitably would pay something less. With respect to those who have written and the campaign of some in some parts of Metropolitan Toronto, I don’t think the figures prove to be as earth-shattering as some would have us believe them to be.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary to the minister’s statement in relation to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Having rejected the Mayo report’s recommendations about certain parts of Ottawa going with Vanier and certain parts of Gloucester going with Vanier and with Rockcliffe now going with Ottawa; and then turning to page six of the minister’s statement where he says, “Some boundary changes would be in order,” would the minister advise the House and allay the fears of the citizens of Vanier that what he has in mind is to have the city of Vanier join with the city of Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I am not suggesting that.

Mr. Elgie: In view of the fact that the borough of East York has no area of land into which it can expand to improve its industrial-commercial tax base, and in view of the fact that it has the most rapidly rising mill rate of any municipality in Metropolitan Toronto, may we then assume that the minister is going to give serious consideration to means of assisting boroughs such as this with any financial problems they may well run into in the years ahead?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: When we have completed our examination of the Robarts report and are in a position to recommend changes to the Legislature, it could be that there may be specific financial recommendations, either in the municipal area or, for that matter, in the education area. Whether that is the ultimately chosen route or whether a strengthening, as I have said, of the resource equalization grant in the unconditional grants mechanism is the best route to follow, I simply don’t know at this moment.

However, I think the member can be assured that deciding to stay with the six borough arrangement more or less on the present boundary lines does not mean we are not aware that some boroughs have been perhaps more equal than others and some have been more advantaged than others. Certainly some mechanism will have to be considered, either generally or specifically, where possible, to adjust those inequities, if they are there and depending on how serious they may be.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask an additional supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No, not at this time. We have had the original question and three supplementaries.

POLICE ACCESS TO OHIP DATA

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Health: Is the minister now better informed, following conversations with the manager of OHIP, about police access to OHIP information? If so, can he give the House a detailed explanation of how the information is given out, what the procedure is, how the clerks who receive the calls know about it, how the calls are handled, what information is supplied and how often?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member would know, the investigation of this matter is being carried on. While my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and I have had several discussions about the subject, it is by no means yet complete.

This matter arose several weeks ago, at which time I did immediately call in the general manager of OHIP and discussed it with him. I determined that we are talking about basic biographical information or, as it is sometimes referred to, tombstone data.

[2:30]

I want to, if I may, while I’m responding to the member’s question, indicate that in one of the most recent editorials in the Toronto papers the impression has been left with the people that we’re talking about medical files here. That is not the case at all. I should explain that OHIP is organized into two sections, enrolment and claims. The claims

section is where one would find the files on services rendered and that information is not given out.

The numbers I don’t have yet. I would certainly be prepared, once my colleague has completed his aspect of this investigation and once we have been able to come together and finalize a review of it, to give a complete review of what we’ve looked at and what we propose to do. In the meantime, particularly in the light of a number of concerns raised with me, I have ordered that the inquiries from the police of whatever force not be answered pending the completion of this investigation and review.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Can the minister confirm that this policy of giving out so-called enrolment file data goes back to about 1960? Can he confirm that it’s given out about 10 to 12 times a year? Can he confirm that the enrolment file states the name, sex, marital status and OHIP number?

If he can confirm those points, will he tell the House two things: First of all, since the address doesn’t seem to be included in that enrolment file and since, because of the duplication of names, it’s frequently important to have the OHIP number to begin with to get the information, how does such information help in locating criminals?

Second, is this giving out of information not a violation of

section 44 of the Health Insurance Act in the minister’s opinion? If not, can he table some legal opinion to back that up?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To answer the last part first, I would have to be guided on that by my colleague, the Attorney General, particularly because of that concern which has arisen in recent days, that perhaps there is some doubt in some people’s minds, from what I’ve read in the press, about legality of that section, that I’ve ordered a suspension of the answering of any such inquiries.

I believe the practice goes back to 1959. As to the numbers, offhand I can’t answer that at this point, but certainly will attempt to do so when I respond at a later date once all of this is complete.

Mr. S. Smith: What about the address? Is the address part of the data?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The address I believe is on the card.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the address part of the enrolment data?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Of the enrolment data? I believe it is.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Can the minister explain to us why he is toying with this subject this way? Why is he not prepared to indicate to the Legislature now who releases the material to the police when it is requested? Why are we forever delayed in getting access to that kind of specific detail for which there is no need for an extensive or exhaustive police investigation? How does it go out regularly when

section 44 is so explicit that only the name can be given? How is it that OHIP is prepared to give material beyond that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that’s the problem. There is some disagreement among the legal types as to what

section 44 does actually mean. I must tell the member that even within my own legal branch I’m getting different opinions from different lawyers. That’s something we’ve got to sort out and that’s why I’ve suspended the answering of any inquiries.

Mr. Lewis: Who gives the information?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The thing is the member could go into the Toronto regional office of OHIP to confirm his enrolment, to check the status of his enrolment --

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- at 2195 Yonge Street. I couldn’t do it for the member. He’d have to do it or he would have to designate someone as being --

Mr. Reid: Have the RCMP do it for you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, that could be arranged, I think.

Mr. Roy: Obviously you have in the past.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t divert. What about the police? Who gives it to them?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The police would inquire of either the head office, the enrolment branch, or they could go --

Mr. Reid: Who authorizes it?

Mr. S. Smith: It is in the enrolment manual of OHIP.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- as has been the case, to the regional office, the local OHIP office.

Mr. Lewis: It’s great. It is like a sieve.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that the general manager of OHIP has today confirmed to us that the address is not part of the enrolment file? Under these circumstances, can the minister explain how such a file can be useful in locating possible criminals? Under these circumstances, is he satisfied that the OHIP number is not being utilized to gain access to some other medical document?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I believed it was. I will check that out.

Mr. McClellan: You are wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not in the business in this portfolio of apprehending criminals, so I would defer to people expert in that.

Mr. Foulds: You are not even in the business of finding out what is going on in your ministry.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could outline exactly what the procedure is for anyone, the police in particular, to be able to gain access to any information. I have been trying to get that now for almost two weeks. Surely there is a laid-down procedure which determines who is authorized to give out information to anyone under any circumstances.

Mr. S. Smith: It is in the enrolment manual.

Mrs. Campbell: Read it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Would the member like me to read the

section of the guideline on that? I know that there is a guideline on that.

Mr. Lewis: Read it yes, by all means.

Mr. Swart: Read it.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t flip through the papers in an engaging way, read it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll try to answer the question in an engaging way, then. I think the member’s earlier questions had to do with hospital records. As I indicated to the Speaker, I certainly have an answer on that, which I did try to give to the member last week, but time ran out and I wasn’t called to give it.

But with respect to how the system is organized, what I indicated earlier was that when the Attorney General’s aspect of the investigation is complete, when he and I have had a chance to talk about it --

Mr. Lewis: The minister is afraid to read it, isn’t he?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I am about to.

Mr. Lewis: Then read it, man, read it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will decide how I will answer the question, thanks very much.

Mr. Foulds: Why are you stonewalling?

Mr. Roy: Do you know what is going on or don’t you?

Mr. Wildman: In other words you don’t want to read it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Why doesn’t the member just tell me the answer he wants and I’ll decide whether I want to give it to him? That is the way it is sounding.

Mr. Lewis: I want to hear the section.

Mr. Speaker: Why doesn’t the hon. Minister of Health just answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Thank you, sir, I will.

Mr. Wildman: Redirect it to the Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor).

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member is going to break his neck, he is having to lean down to listen to this.

With respect to police matters, the manual says: “In situations involving police matters, the inquirer’s identity, rank and location must be established and confirmed before any information can be given concerning an OHIP subscriber.” The practice has been --

Mr. Foulds: But who does it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are losing control.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The staff in the enrolment branch. That is what I have been telling you.

Mr. Foulds: Anybody.

Mr. Warner: Everyone.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with a new question?

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to come back to this, sensing in the minister’s reticence something more than has been revealed. Could he perhaps read us the paragraph which prefaces what he just read, repeat what he just read, and the paragraph that follows? Could he do that, just as a decent sort?

Mr. Reid: Or table the whole bunch.

Mr. S. Smith: The clerk has instructions.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the earlier

section has to do with checking the correctness of OHIP numbers, which is for inquiries from subscribers. Just to read it again: “A subscriber’s OHIP records are to be treated as confidential and are not to be available to general inquiries. In situations involving police matters” -- as I indicated --

Mr. Lewis: Just slowly. More slowly.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- “wherever possible such police inquiries should be made in writing.” And that is the practice of the enrolment section.

Mr. Lewis: “Wherever possible.”

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, no. There is no log kept.

Mr. Lewis: Do you have any indication that the police inquiries have been made in writing? Do you have a file of written police inquiries about individual OHIP enrolments?

Mr. S. Smith: No log is kept.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is not available to me at this time.

Mr. Lewis: That is why you don’t read that stuff. It’s ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is nothing here to read.

Mr. Roy: You are stonewalling.

Mr. Reid: When the minister took over as Minister of Health, was he briefed by the senior officials in his ministry as to the fact that this practice in fact was going on? When did he first learn as minister that this information was being made available?

Mr. S. Smith: One week ago, Dennis. Why don’t you just say so?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This was not one of the areas that was highlighted at that time. I was not aware that it was a potential problem until recently, at which time I did --

Mr. Reid: Don’t you think you should have been?

Mr. Foulds: You really don’t have a grasp of that ministry, do you?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- bring in the staff to begin an internal investigation of what exactly is our procedure.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Does the minister remember two weeks ago in the beginning of estimates denying that the whole process took place?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the what?

Mr. Dukszta: Does the minister remember during the beginning of the Health estimates saying that this procedure did not take place and he had no knowledge of it and it could not possibly happen in the Ministry of Health?

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, with respect, Mr. Speaker -- and I could be corrected, we’ll check Hansard -- I believe that had to do with the medical records. Again, I point out we are talking about the activities relating to the enrolment

section which is dealing with basic biographical data, not with the claims branch which is dealing with medical records.

Mr. Lewis: Not good enough. You have nothing in writing. No laws.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: In view of the great public concern about this issue and the fact that it has been raised now for two weeks, and that the member for Don Mills is the Minister of Health, as I last recall, is he not in a position to tell us whether any of this information was furnished pursuant to any court order or to any process of the court pursuant to

section 44 of the Health Insurance Act?

Mr. Lewis:

Section 44(2)(e).

Mr. Roy: Can he not tell us whether any procedures at all that he is aware of were taken through the courts to get this information?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What we have been discussing here, Mr. Speaker, have been the -- if you will -- inquiries for the basic biographical data.

Mr. Roy: That might be required, if he has to go through this.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is exactly why I indicated earlier I have ordered a suspension of the answering of inquiries because certain legal minds have indicated that they have some doubt as to this situation.

Mr. Roy: The minister doesn’t know what is going on.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: So until that is cleared up and until the Attorney General and I have a chance to discuss this matter, once he has completed his part of the investigation those inquiries will not be answered.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with his final question.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it urgent?

Mr. McClellan: Yes. With respect to the minister’s answer of a few minutes ago I want to bring to your attention that on November 15 the minister said, in the estimates debate on page 655 of Hansard, as follows: “However, the information” --

Mr. Speaker: Whose privilege is being abrogated?

Mr. Lewis: Our privilege. It is misinformation.

Mr. McClellan: May I state the point and then you can decide?

Mr. Sargent: He can ask a point of privilege any time he wants to.

Mr. McClellan: With respect, I would like to state the point and then you can determine whether it is.

Mr. Speaker: I can’t hear the hon. member.

Mr. McClellan: “However, the information that I have had to date is that there is no record of any contact, certainly no authorization or any sort of thing between OHIP and the RCMP.” The minister said that on November 15.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I answered that.

Mr. Deans: Which means that someone has been misled.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I believe I answered that. I’m trying to find it; I’ve got the regular Hansard. I believe that what we were talking about was a medical record and certainly that was the overriding concern, that medical records not be released.

Mr. Lewis: Were you giving me a supplementary, a final supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No, I was giving you an opportunity to place your second question.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, sir. Well, I was trying.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF POLICE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Solicitor General, in the legislation which he will introduce today is there a provision pursuant to the Pitman task force on racism that the police should study the need for psychological testing of police recruits; that is to say, that a psychological testing apparatus be put in place for the hiring of police recruits?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: In the legislation that I intend to introduce today, sir?

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, there is nothing to do with that at all in that legislation. I’m speaking from memory but it deals with citizens’ complaint procedures.

Mr. Lewis: The second bill I meant.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, the second bill has no reference to that at all. The answer is no.

Mr. Lewis: All right. By way of supplementary, if it is not covered in existing legislation and since it is a specific and provincial initiative, which could be taken as a result of Pitman’s recommendations, is the minister prepared to act on it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have asked today for a copy of that report from Mr. Pitman which as you know went to the city council. I haven’t seen that report yet but certainly the very fact that I have asked for it shows we are interested in it. I’ll take whatever those recommendations he may make in regard to racism under advisement.

[2:45]

The second bill will, I hope, go to committee and since it deals with the police legislation there may be provision at the committee stage, both on our suggestion or on your suggestion, to introduce amendments at that time. But certainly we’ll take it under advisement, sir.

USE OF INFLUENCE

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Solicitor General. I’m wondering what would cause the RCMP to launch an investigation into “alleged municipal corruption in the city of Mississauga.” And what was the nature of the strain that existed between the RCMP and provincial authorities?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I know very little about that situation, except that some time ago there was an investigation going on in Mississauga. I understood that it had come to termination, from the OPP’s point of view, when it found that the RCMP was involved. From information they had, they considered it was purely a matter of provincial jurisdiction, I think, and as far as I know there was no matter of RCMP jurisdiction at all. So it’s a matter of the RCMP looking after their matters and the OPP looking after theirs.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of whether or not there is any investigation currently under way with regard to the possibility of arson in the fire at Judge Stortini’s personal residence?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t know of any, sir, but I’ll make inquiries.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Warner: To the Minister of Health: Since it’s now evident that the nursing homes inspection branch has been reluctant to prosecute nursing homes for violations of the Act, and that a lot of pressure has been put on the tough inspectors who’ve been in the ministry, will the minister now agree that we need a full inquiry with the inspection reports being released so that we can get to the source of the problem, correct it, and by so doing protect the dignity and well-being of the residents of the nursing homes in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think we’ve been through this very well and if I may, at the conclusion of this, read from Hansard for estimates where we were talking about medical records, because my answer stands there.

But with respect, I can only repeat what I said in estimates, and that is so far as I’m concerned -- and I can only answer for myself -- the inspectors in that branch have every authority from me to be as firm as necessary where they think it is warranted, to recommend prosecution or move to revoke licences; and they will be backed up in their firmness.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since Mr. Malcolm Walker, the director of the Ontario Nursing Home Association asserts that the ministry has been, and I quote his words, “a little soft in its treatment of cases where the nursing home has violated the Nursing Homes Act,” how many more horror stories must I and my colleagues raise in this assembly before the minister will admit that we need a full inquiry into the nursing homes in this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows we have 378 nursing homes in this province.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not very many.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I detailed to the committee, I guess it was last week, the thousands of inspections that are carried on every year, routine inspections and inspections in answer to complaints. I suppose, if the member wanted to take one complaint at a time, we could try every day to run through an individual complaint and try to make that an issue.

Mr. Laughren: Won’t wash.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m saying to the member that I’m satisfied first of all that my inspectors understand how firmly I feel on this. Secondly, I’m telling the member that we have reviewed the Act and the regulations, as he knows, and I’ve put forward certain recommendations; and we are certainly prepared to receive reactions to that and additional recommendations on how we might further bring the Act up to date.

Since 1972, when my predecessor Dr. Potter brought in the new Act, we have done a lot to clean up the nursing home situation. A total of 208 of the facilities which existed at that time have for one reason or another since been closed. I suggest to the member that the kind of expensive inquiry that he’s talking about would not do as much good as we are doing in trying to strengthen the Act and carry it out.

LIQUOR ADVERTISING

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of this Legislature’s concern with the minimum legal drinking age and the related question of liquor advertising, and in view of the fact that the latest edition of Maclean’s, our own unofficial national magazine, with a total of 80 pages, had an aggregate of no fewer than 21 pages on liquor advertising --

Mr. Lewis: That’s Maclean’s contribution to national unity.

Mr. Samis: Try Saturday Night.

Mr. Baetz: -- does the minister feel that it is within his mandate to ask Maclean’s at least to reduce its liquor advertising and thus practice one of its advertiser’s own exhortations that those who think of tomorrow practice moderation today?

Mr. Samis: What about free enterprise?

Mr. Lewis: Stay out of the private sector.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a matter of fact my ministry, in conjunction with the Liquor Licence Board --

Mr. Laughren: Leave free enterprise alone.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- is currently considering some changes which would affect the amount of advertising and put some restrictions in terms of the number of inches and the number of times in a particular issue of a magazine as to advertising to be permitted.

Mr. Makarchuk: Does the minister mean he is going to interfere with free enterprise?

Mr. Laughren: The minister wouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These things are under careful consideration. We may be bringing them forward in the near future. This is within the context of our plans to present a complete package in the spring. Either there will be something forthcoming in the near future --

Mr. Swart: Or there will not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- on this specific subject or it will be part of our spring package pursuant to the statement of the Premier (Mr. Davis) of November 10.

Mr. Conway: Can the minister give us at this point in time anything specific by way of proposals he might entertain to redress the concerns so properly put by the member for Ottawa West about the serious implications that this lifestyle advertising has for this matter of public concern?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Lifestyle?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, specifically I would entertain a lot of proposals. A lot of them would relate to the numbers, as I say, of column inches that can be used in a particular issue, and the number of different pages.

Mr. Wildman: That’s not very specific.

Mr. Lewis: Baloney. You’ll have 15 per cent instead of 25 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’d be happy to entertain any of those.

With regard to which ones we are entertaining, obviously the member will see what our final determination is on those things right now. It wouldn’t take a genius -- even the member for Renfrew North could figure it out -- to determine what the various alternatives are.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We could permit two in an issue or 10 or three or one in an issue. What I’ll finally decide to recommend remains to be seen.

An hon. member: Beer in the ball park.

Mr. Wildman: What does the minister carry over there -- a flask?

Mr. Makarchuk: Does this ministry or any agency of this ministry still examine each and every ad before it’s submitted to the magazines and newspapers or television?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I understand it, it examines the ads that go into these publications.

Mr. Makarchuk: So the minister is aware of it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I am aware of it, though not the numbers. The advertisements themselves must be approved at the Liquor Licence Board.

Mr. Warner: Expand the Liquor Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health has the answer to a question asked previously.

USE OF MEDICAL DATA

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On November 17, the hon. member for Wentworth asked under what conditions institutions and agencies of the Ministry of Health make available the personal or medical records of patients or of citizens of Ontario to the police authorities. He further requested that the authorizing directions or guidelines be placed before the House and he requested --

Mr. Lewis: Stop mumbling.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, what’s the use? We can’t hear a word.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, the Minister of Health deliberately mumbles through with rapidity when there’s something he doesn’t want us to hear. Speak up, young man.

Mr. Breaugh: And stand up straight.

Mr. Hodgson: The member for Scarborough West should sit down. Shame.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister see the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott) and get a better set of dentures?

Mr. Speaker: It might help if the members were a little quieter. Then they’d be in a better position to hear the answer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m tempted to suggest it’s not the rate at which the answer is read, but rather the rate at which it’s comprehended that’s the problem.

Mr. Lewis: That’s all right. But for the slow comprehenders, speak very slowly.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: For the member’s benefit, I will speak very slowly.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: But promptly.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, with all due dispatch.

On November 17, the hon. member for Wentworth asked under what conditions institutions and agencies of the Ministry of Health make available the personal or medical records of patients or of citizens of Ontario to the police authorities. Are members all right so far?

Mr. Lewis: That’s very well done. Very nicely done.

Mr. Sargent: I knew he could do it.

Mr. Makarchuk: We’ll give the minister a passing grade.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He further requested that the authorizing directions or guidelines be placed before the House and he requested a determination of whether or not it is or has been standard practice in institutions to allow police to remove patients’ records from the hospital.

The regulations regarding patient records are: For public hospitals,

article 48, regulation 729, the Public Hospitals Act; and for psychiatric hospitals,

section 3, regulation 578, the Mental Hospitals Act. In the public hospitals, the regulation is specific. It says the board shall not permit any person to remove, inspect or receive information from a medical record unless they have a court order, which must stipulate that it is to inspect, or to inspect and remove, a record.

Mr. Martel: The Mounties don’t need that information.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In our psychiatric hospitals, the only ways in which a patient’s records are made available to the police are through the consent of the patient, a search warrant or a subpoena.

There is no log kept of this type of request. However, a copy of the document authorizing release of information is kept on the patient’s file.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: In the case where the police removed the original file, how then could the record of the subpoena be kept in that file in the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m trying to remember. I asked that same question some time ago. I believe the answer I got from the staff in that area was that in such cases we give a copy of the file and keep the original.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: Will the minister order an investigation into all of the files removed from the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital during the year 1970-71, to determine whether or not there were, in fact, subpoenas presented that are now on file? Would he further investigate, with all of the staff who were then in the employ of the hospital how it could be that the original file of a patient could be removed from the premises and never returned? What became of the file?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member will give me the name which I take it he must have -- and I heard from a reporter last Friday he had a concern -- I’ll do that.

Mr. Lewis: There won’t be that many files removed, I hope.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll look into that.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have one final supplementary. The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: In view of his answer pertaining to the Public Hospitals Act and the Mental Health Act, can the minister advise whether there was any communication with the police and various hospitals in the province? Secondly, is he aware at all of any court authorizations or the disclosure of this information to the police?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Apparently there are court actions under way at all times, from people seeking to get the records out for one reason or another.

I didn’t understand the first part of the member’s question, I’m sorry. What was it in connection with?

Mr. Roy: If I may rephrase the question. From reading the minister’s estimates, I’m confused where he said there was no contact between OHIP, or people in his ministry, and the RCMP. He said twice that there was no contact. In view of that answer, and the answer that the minister is giving here today, was there contact and if there was, is he aware of any court authorizations allowing his officials, whether in hospitals or in OHIP, to release this information to the police?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member likes, I could read what was talked about in estimates into the regular Hansard and for my own purposes I’d almost like to because it does confirm what I said earlier in response to the point of privilege from the member for Bellwoods. But here we’re talking about hospital records, and there we were talking about OHIP records.

Mr. Roy: I can read.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I didn’t understand the member’s supplementary because we were talking about hospital records.

Mr. McClellan: What you said is very clear.

Mr. Roy: I appreciate that.

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Van Horne: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Can the minister tell us if the policy on school capital financing enunciated by him on December 18, 1975, is to be changed for the fiscal year 1978-79?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If my friend means the criteria that we enunciated at that time, the criteria will remain in effect for the next year. The amount of money that is allotted may change.

Mr. Van Horne: A supplementary: The minister may not have this information available, but I would like to know the total number of projects submitted and what percentage the ministry was able to accommodate in this present fiscal year. Does he have that information?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can get that information for my friend and I’d be happy to, Mr. Speaker. I can tell him that of the total number that were submitted, nothing like the total number were able to be accommodated. The school boards of this province still do not seem to realize that enrolment is declining and capital is very short. Many, many projects are submitted and they’re not able to be supported.

Mr. Wildman: The enrolments are going up.

[3:00]

LICENCE FEES

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: With reference to passenger vehicle registration fees in northern Ontario, for very obvious reasons many people in the north use half-ton trucks and four-wheel-drive vehicles as a means of private passenger transportation. Yet they are precluded from --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Germa: -- registering their vehicle in the normal fee structure. Will the Ministry of Transportation and Communication not give consideration to allowing these types of vehicles to be registered fur the ordinary fee, rather than the $60 fee which presently is going to apply?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was announced a week ago, Bud.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where the hon. member has been for the last two weeks. I made a statement in this House about two weeks ago, and press releases and announcements have been made on this whole matter.

Mr. Conway: Next.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know where the hon. member has been.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I remember the statement well. I was going to ask about it that day. But in the statement the minister restricted it to vehicles of 5,000 pounds or under. Would the minister consider looking at it once again, as many half-tons used in northern Ontario are in the 6,000 to 8,000 pound range?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at this very carefully and I am quite confident that there is no vehicle in the 6,000 to 8,000 pound range that is necessarily in that range if it’s for personal transportation. If there is a vehicle in that range, it’s obviously a commercial vehicle used for commercial purposes.

LOT LEVIES

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Treasurer: Given the recent decisions of both the Ontario Municipal Board and divisional court to disallow lot levies in municipalities as they apply to zoning bylaw changes, proposed plans of subdivision, and lot severances, and given that there are serious problems that have developed in many of the municipalities to the extent that either they can cut off redevelopment in the municipalities or run the risk of losing many millions of dollars in lot levies, what is the Treasurer planning to do for these municipalities with respect to these court decisions?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, is this a recent decision?

Mr. Epp: Within the last few months, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sorry, I am not familiar with it. Perhaps the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) is more familiar with it than I am.

Mr. Epp: With respect, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will take the question as notice and get back to the member.

Mr. Epp: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this pertains to the Municipal Act and I understand that the Treasurer is responsible for the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: He will take it as notice.

ASSISTANCE TO PENSIONERS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services: Is it true that disabled persons who are on CPP and also on partial family benefits, either as permanently unemployable or as disabled, do not benefit from any cost of living increase in CPP payments and have their family benefit allowance reduced every time there is a cost of living increase? Is this correct?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. It is my understanding that under the Canada Assistance Plan once the levels of assistance to individuals have been agreed to, we are also required to incorporate into the calculation of the person’s income any increases which may result from increased allowances from the federal or other sources provincially or from private sources. We have no alternative in that situation but to include that in the calculation which usually results in a comparable reduction if the person is already at the maximum level of assistance under the plan.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does it not seem inequitable that people who are on GAINS as pensioners get increases in the cost of living from federal programs passed through to them, such as OAS and GIS increases, but people who are on disabled allowances get no increase in the federal cost of living increase? And has the minister made representations to the federal government that this inequity should be eliminated?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it is a little more complicated than that. There is also the very real possibility of other kinds of inequities that would creep in if the proposal that the hon. member makes was put into effect. I have had this under consideration and I am concerned about some of the other complications as well.

Take, for example, two individuals whose needs might be calculated at $400 per month, for the sake of argument. If the one individual had a source of assistance from say the Canada Pension Plan as well, or from some other source privately, that person would be receiving the $400 basic plus whatever over and above that the increases might be, while a person who is in equally needy circumstances but is without the eligibility for Canada Pension Plan or other private sources, would suffer as a result of that kind of proposal the member is making.

So there are inequities that would result from her suggestion, just as much as the inequities that exist under the present system. I am not sure what the answer is.

POLICE ACCESS TO OHIP DATA

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Health, again on the question of his OHIP records, which is turning out to be very interesting.

I take it from the various answers that the minister has attempted to give this afternoon that some of this so-called tombstone information which was given out pursuant to

section 44 of the Health Insurance Act was, in fact, given out without the requirement of a subpoena or a court order?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is the problem and is why I have suspended answering such inquiries, because the practice has been to answer without subpoenas and court orders, whatever, such inquiries for basic biographical information.

Mr. Roy: Aha! Your policy is against the law.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that’s clear. The reason I have suspended it is that there is some concern expressed by some of the lawyers advising me and the government that this may not, in fact, be legal. There are as many or more who say it is, but because there is any doubt at all --

Mr. Foulds: If you don’t know, why do you do it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- I have therefore suspended the answering of any such inquiries.

Mr. Bolan: Supplementary: That may be the case, but the fact still remains, does it not, that there was, in fact, tombstone information given out without the requirement of a subpoena or a court order?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have never denied that. I should say that at the time all this investigation started, and in the dealings between my colleague and the RCMP and so forth, there was no indication that it was in any way illegal. Since then other opinions have come to light among our respective staffs that indicate that it might just be. Because it just might be, therefore, it has been suspended.

Mr. Conway: No supplementaries allowed for that?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. McClellan: We have not had any supplementaries on this side of the House.

SAULT JAIL

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. In view of the statements last week by Dennis Lock, superintendent of the Sault district jail, that the facility there in the city was close to 50 per cent over-capacity, and in view of the minister’s statement during his visit to the Sault last weekend that although the jail wasn’t as crowded as he expected he was looking at ways to reduce demands for space, such as a reopening of the summer forestry camps, when does the minister expect to reply to my letter of last month requesting him to deal with overcrowding at the Sault jail, and will his solution involve the renovation and reopening of McCreight’s Camp?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I told the hon. member when I received the letter last month that I would reply to him after I visited the Sault jail. I am very pleased to reply to him today.

Mr. Bolan: What about the chain gangs?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is quite true that on the average the Sault Ste. Marie district jail is about 50 per cent over capacity. When I visited there last week the count was lower than usual. As a matter of fact, there was only one person who couldn’t be fitted into available accommodation.

The difficulty with reopening the specific work camp is that the facilities are somewhat outdated. I intend to open an equivalent operation in the area, whether it is on the road or whether it is back in the bush. I believe the type of work done in camp previously was much more beneficial than sitting around in a cell all day.

Mr. Bolan: Was that the chain gangs?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In all fairness, there are no chain gangs in North America. They’re precluded by court.

Mr. Kerrio: We’re getting there.

Hon. Mr. Drea: We have forestry gangs. I have a great many of them. I’m going to have road gangs.

Mr. Conway: Cool-Hand Frank.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Would the minister define the road gang or the bush gang? Will he define that for me, please?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You define that, Eddie. You have been on both of them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: A road gang, a forestry gang, a bush gang or a parks gang are a group that work outside of the institution under the direct supervision of a correctional officer.

Mr. Bolan: Chain gang.

Mr. Peterson: Tory gang.

Mr. Sargent: Cool-Hand Luke.

RESOURCE EQUALIZATION GRANTS

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Treasurer: Is the minister prepared to convene a meeting of the mayors of the cities adversely affected by the equalization factor used to calculate the resource equalization grant in municipalities such as St. Catharines, Burlington, Kingston and Sudbury, in order that they might present their cases for rectifying this inequity, thereby according these mayors the same opportunity as the mayors of Sarnia and Windsor?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Havrot: Brief and to the point.

Mr. S. Smith: Why not?

Mr. Bradley: It’s unfortunate that this is not the case. May I ask the minister this then: Would the minister then undertake to provide to those municipalities affected, information from his ministry clearly indicating the short-fall of grants they’ve experienced over the last few years and the adverse financial position they may expect to be in until 1979, in order that they will be able to negotiate with the ministry to gain their fair share of provincial grants?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have not supplied that information to anyone, to my recollection. The information was deduced by Windsor and Sarnia, and I assume that other municipalities have done the same thing. There’s no information, to my knowledge, that is being requested of me; nor have I been requested to either arrange a meeting or convene a meeting by the municipalities, as the member mentioned. It isn’t a question of courtesy; I have only heard from Windsor and Sarnia at this moment, to the best of my knowledge.

FACILITIES FOR RETARDED

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: May I ask the minister whether he’s prepared now to report the alternate proposal of the Metro Association for the Mentally Retarded for a number of small residential facilities located throughout the whole Metropolitan area, as a specific, realistic and achievable alternative to the 150-bed mini-institution for the mentally retarded proposed for Rexdale, or to some variation thereof; in effect a mini-institution in an industrial setting?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The report of the task force I established during the summer has now been dealt with by the district working group and has been received by the ministry. In fact it’s my understanding that sometime this afternoon there is a meeting of the resource planning committee of the responsible division of the ministry. I expect that I myself -- and I assure you for the first time -- will be receiving that report accompanied by the comments of the district working group and the comments of the planning group within my own ministry, either late today or tomorrow.

I would hope that within a matter of a few days, after I’ve had an opportunity to review that material and give it some careful consideration, I will be in a position to announce what my intentions are.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Is the minister saying at this point he doesn’t have the slightest idea what the status of this mini-institution is?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have not seen the recommendations of the task force yet. They have been received by the ministry, they have not been received by me. I will be receiving them, along with the recommendations and the responses from all of the participants in the planning process. The recommendations, once received by me, will receive immediate consideration.

Mr. McClellan: In other words, you don’t know.

[3:15]

GLENDALE TRAINING CENTRE

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services: I was wondering if there is any truth in the rumour that the Glendale Training School in Simcoe might be closing?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of institutions being looked at. I haven’t come to a definitive conclusion on any of them, other than the Don which will close December 31, period.

Mr. G. I. Miller: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the staff going to be consulted on this matter or is there any warning going to be given to them?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the member is almost taking it as a fait accompli. Is he talking about that particular institution or is he talking about all the institutions? If he is talking about any institutions I plan to close, just as in the case of the Don Jail the union is fully consulted in advance.

FACILITIES FOR DISTURBED CHILDREN

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: I wonder if the minister could tell me what he is going to do to establish adequate facilities in Thunder Bay for disturbed adolescents, especially in view of the statement by Malcolm Shookner, a program analyst --

Mr. S. Smith: Disturbed adults get elected there.

Mr. Foulds: -- with the children’s services bureau in Thunder Bay? He made the statement in Thunder Bay at the end of September, “Things we take for granted in the south don’t exist here.” Especially, what steps is the minister going to take to establish a safe and adequate holding place for adolescents who opt out? There is no facility in Thunder Bay except the Donald Street lockup; or an ex-lockup in the basement of Cameron Street, which is used for the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital adult wards.

Mr. Laughren: What a dismal record the ministry has.

Mr. Lewis: Dreadful.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I caught all of the quotation that was read into the record from the gentleman in Thunder Bay --

Mrs. Campbell: Don’t ask him to repeat it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- but I would indicate, as I have before in the House, that there are two areas of particular priority in the establishment of improved services for children. One of those serves the children in the north, with particular focus as well on francophone and native children. I hope to be in a position to make some concrete announcements about that as soon as we are moving into our next year. I expect we will be able to move ahead with those within the next fiscal year.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, for clarification: Is the minister then telling me that the current situation that exists in Thunder Bay at the present time for disturbed adolescents, referring them to the Donald Street lockup and so on, will continue at least for the next 18 months?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not saying that. I will look into the situation that the member refers to and try to respond to him more fully as soon as I have had a chance to do that.

EDWARDSBURGH LAND ASSEMBLY

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Resources Development secretary. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not he is in possession of any consultant’s report vis-à-vis the disposition of the Edwardsburgh land assembly? If he has those consultant’s studies, is he prepared at this time to table them in this House? If not, why not? If he is about to do so, can he tell us when he might be at liberty to release that information?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that report has been made available to the local municipal authorities. I could be corrected on that. I think it is a report which will certainly be made public in due course.

Mr. Conway: In due course, Mr. Speaker, would mean roughly at what point in time?

Mr. Breithaupt: In the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would think within the next few weeks.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Samis: I have a question of the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker: In view of pressure by certain Yonge Street merchants to evade the retail store hour legislation on Boxing Day this year, can the minister assure the House that the laws passed by this House will be properly respected and enforced in the city of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have a news release going out probably tomorrow or the day after tomorrow explaining to the merchants the law as it stands for Boxing Day. I expect the police of the province will enforce it as we expect them to enforce all the laws.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Will that news release also clarify the matters with respect to January 2 which might be taken as the New Year’s Day holiday so that this whole matter about which a number of us have received letters of inquiry can be clarified?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes.

MANAGEMENT STUDY

Mrs. Campbell: My question is of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister at this time prepared to table in the House the management study of his ministry? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, because I have not yet received it from the consultants.

Mr. Lewis: Any other minister would have had it by now.

An hon. member: That’s right. You should resign.

Mr. Foulds: You and Timbrell.

INCO EMISSIONS

Mr. Laughren: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Would the minister bring us up to date on the state of negotiations between his ministry and Inco concerning the emissions from the super stack at Copper Cliff?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is still some consideration regarding the final year of the criteria for emissions from that stack. We still haven’t decided on a new level. We have decided that a new level is necessary. As the hon. member probably knows, the requirement I believe is 750 as of January 1, 1979, so we still have some time. But I expect that that will be settled early in the new year. And as the hon. member would realize, in the light of current events, it probably won’t be as hard to reach those criteria.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister assure us that the economic and unemployment problems now facing the Sudbury district will not be used as a club by the company so they do not have to enforce reasonable standards of emission?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be assured of that.

Hon. W. Newman: Boy, do you change your attitudes over there.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

The hon. member for Renfrew North has a point of privilege.

POLICE ACCESS TO OHIP DATA

Mr. Conway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel deeply concerned about a matter that relates to some of the exchange earlier in the question period. I would ask your guidance in this matter because I do feel that it relates directly to the privileges of certain members of this House, particularly those members who were involved in the Ministry of Health estimates about two weeks ago yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, at that time, and in direct reference to questions put by me to the Minister of Health, with many of his OHIP officials present, the minister responded to inquiries about possible contact between OHIP and the RCMP in the following way, and I want to read very briefly part of that record and then what appears to be a very sharp contradiction reported in this morning’s Globe and Mail -- and, quite frankly, this afternoon as well.

I shall read from the Hansard report of Ministry of Health estimates for November 15, 1977 regarding OHIP and contact with the RCMP.

“Hon. Mr. Timbrell: However, the information I have had to date is that there is no record of any contact, certainly no authorization or sort of thing between OHIP and the RCMP. I think that is correct.”

Mr. McClellan: That’s what I read.

Mr. Conway: That’s right, that was read earlier this afternoon. Then subsequently he says:

“ Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, seeking information. Of course, the Act requires the general manager, who is here,” -- meaning here today in these estimates discussions -- “to keep that confidential anyway, but I am advised that he has never been contacted to seek the kind of information referred to in the recent media reports.”

In this morning’s Globe and Mail, there was the following report attributed to Mr. Lawrence Martin, and it reads -- and I will read only the first paragraph: “The general manager of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan said yesterday that the providing of enrolment data from OHIP and other medical plans to the police is a policy that originated at the political level and presumably has been known to Health ministers and Attorneys General since 1959”.

Mr. Speaker, I see in those two reports a clear and sharp contradiction, I want it cleared up at the earliest possible opportunity because of the information that was presented to us, particularly in the estimates debate about two weeks and one day ago.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be some misunderstanding among a good many members not only to what constitutes a point of privilege, but once a prima facie case has been established whose responsibility it is to clear it up. It’s certainly not the responsibility of the Speaker. It is the responsibility of the member who feels that his privileges are aggrieved to take the necessary action, it’s not the responsibility of the presiding officer; and I just wish that you’d reflect upon that.

It’s not incumbent upon the presiding officer to defend you, except to the extent that I say you have a prima facie case of privilege, and that’s the end of it as far as the presiding officer is concerned. The ball is in the court of the member who feels aggrieved.

Mr. Havrot: He is just grandstanding.

REDRESS ON POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, might I perhaps ask your advice along these lines: The hon. member felt that his privileges were aggrieved, and frankly I agree with him. What can he do but bring it to the attention of the House, through you, sir? It may be that you cannot order the minister into the tower but at least you are the vehicle through which the aggrieved member can put his case to the House, and surely nothing other than that is expected?

Mr. Speaker: That’s right; as I say, I got the impression from the hon. member for Renfrew North that he expected some action from me, and there’s no action I can take.

Mr. Conway: Subsequent to that, Mr. Speaker, I think I prefaced my remarks simply by saying I draw to your attention. I share entirely the comments of the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk about the degree to which we are hampered in carrying forward that kind of grievance. I simply, on that point, drew it to the attention of yourself and other members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: You’ve already done so; but I just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding in the minds of members that it was incumbent upon the presiding officer to do something. I’m sure that the Minister of Health will take notice of what you have said and perhaps he can reply to it at a later time.

INTERPRETATION OF SESSIONAL ORDER

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask for your judgement on the new sessional order 4, found on page 19 of the standing orders, where if a member is dissatisfied with an answer given to his question he should raise it at the end of question period: do you deem the end of question period is the expiration of oral questions and before the presentation of petitions or motions; is that a proper

interpretation of the term “question period”?

Mr. Speaker: All that’s required is that you indicate you are dissatisfied with an answer given by a minister. You’ve already done that and it can be handled under standing order 28(a), this evening at 10:30.

REDRESS ON POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of view, which I’d like to put to you sir.

Mr. Nixon: You are getting relaxed these days.

Mr. Lewis: I’m very relaxed; yes, I’m almost soporific.

Mr. Speaker: If you want to correct the record; if you have a point of privilege or a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: I seek your wisdom, guidance and general infallibility, sir; I thought that would engender your support. I do want to ask if a member of the Legislature rises on a point of privilege to make a point akin to that of my colleague from Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) or the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), is it beyond the Speaker’s prerogative to suggest to the Minister of Health that a statement of clarification or response to the point privilege might help in the Legislature? Is that going beyond your role as Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It’s not the prerogative of the Speaker to ask any minister to answer any question; a minister can simply decline. It’s up to the minister whose actions or whose words have been called into question to defend those words or actions, and there’s nothing that the Speaker can demand or require him to do. I just want to call that to the attention of members; that’s why I rose after the point of privilege raised by the member for Renfrew North. It’s not incumbent upon the Speaker to do anything.

[3:30]

Mr. Nixon: Since the matter has been raised, Mr. Speaker, and we’ve been discussing it here, I must say on the point of order that I support your position entirely; but it isn’t the first time, nor are you the first Speaker to arise to tell the members that there is nothing you can do. Surely the fact that it has been raised in the House and brought to the attention of the Speaker and every member here means that the minister would feel the pressure of the democratic system to make some kind of a comment in reply; surely that’s all we would expect.

Mr. Foulds: Don’t count on it.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t hold your breath.

PETITION

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I should like to direct to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough). It is signed by 259 employees of the government of Ontario in the Sudbury district.

Mr. Nixon: It has to do with licences of trucks.

Mr. Germa: They petition, amongst other things, and I quote, “to bring an end to the senseless butchery of services and jobs,” and call for the adoption of a full employment strategy.

Mr. Eaton: I got that form letter too.

Mr. Lewis: Butchery; that means layoffs.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing social development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Health be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Ministry of Health

Ministry administration and health insurance program … $1,072,532,800

Institutional health services program … 2,579,582,900

Community health services program … 118,948,500

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Havrot from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolutions.

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978.

Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Ministry administration program … $4,599,000

Agricultural production program … 104,317,000

Rural development program … 21,995,000

Agricultural marketing program … 10,670,000

Agricultural education and research program … 23,809,000

MOTION

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that supplementary estimates for the Ombudsman be referred to the standing general government committee for consideration within the time already allotted to the committee for the consideration of the estimates of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moved first reading of Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make it an offence to drive on a highway a motor vehicle that is equipped with or that carries or contains a radar warning device.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moved first reading of Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Police Act.

Motion agreed to.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moved first reading of Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Police Act.

Motion agreed to.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved first reading of Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Conway: If you reversed the order, you’d have the right minister in the right job.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved first reading of Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Election Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the amendments which I propose in this bill are in four particular areas.

First the words, “or other British subjects” are removed for qualification as a voter or candidate in a provincial election, so that all voters and candidates must now be Canadian citizens. This follows the amendments proposed by the Liberal critic for municipal affairs, my colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) for the Municipal Elections Act which is now before the House.

Second, standards for access to polling places for physically handicapped persons are to be set; as well, certain provisions applying now to blind persons are changed.

Third, the political affiliation of candidates is to appear on the ballot.

Fourth, vouching for persons omitted in error from the voters’ list is extended in urban polls in the same way as it is now available in rural polls.

This bill will be brought forward for debate in private members’ business segment on December 15 next.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(a), the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) having given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health earlier today concerning nursing home conditions, this matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the interim answer to question 42 standing on the notice paper. As well, I wish to table the answers to questions 38, 43 and 44 standing on the notice paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SANDWICH, WINDSOR AND AMHERSTBURG RAILWAY ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough moved second reading of Bill 97,

An Act respecting the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I just have a very brief comment on this, to the effect that this is a very reasonable name change. Anyone coming across the name Windsor, Sandwich and Amherstburg railway would expect to ride on a train; however, for quite some years now, it’s been the name of the Windsor-only bus system.

So although there is some dismay on the part of some of the historically-minded people in the area over the disappearance, finally, of this grand name, which indicated first a railroad and then a partial street railroad system, this is certainly a more apt description of what the entity is involved in these days. In addition anyone new coming into the area doesn’t expect to look for the busline system under the name of the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway, so this name change is welcomed.

I might say that coincident with the use of this name, which started about four weeks ago, was a revision of the bus system and the provision of increased services in Windsor, particularly in the outlying suburban areas. This is of great interest for those who support public transportation, as I do; it is a good step forward in the provision of this service. It’s hoped that the new name and the new bus lines will bring to Windsor increased use of the bus system and increased awareness of the need and worth of public transit and a resultant saving in energy will no doubt occur.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate in this debate? If not, the member for Durham West.

Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member who represents that area has really said it. It is just a name change that has been agreed to by all.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener moved second reading of Bill 91,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I noted when I introduced it at first reading, this bill provides for the continuation of the freeze on assessed values at their present level in Ontario for one more year. This move is necessitated by the complexity of the recommendations made by the Blair commission on the proposals to reform municipal taxation.

The commission’s report sets out in detail a whole series of guidelines which, when implemented, establish an expanded tax base for municipalities, revised methods of apportioning shared costs, a new foundation for provincial grants and a system of reducing the regressiveness of the property tax itself. The report constitutes a rational tax reform package in which each recommendation complements the other.

It is necessary however to study all the recommendations in complete detail in order to measure the impact upon each municipality, groups of municipalities and upon particular classes of property owners. I insist that the review be objective and complete before any or all of the recommendations are put in place. I believe this is the common sense approach, since our objective must be to achieve fair and equitable municipal taxation without imposing a hardship on particular groups of property owners or on businesses.

The bill before us also makes it clear that new buildings which are completed and ready for occupancy will be assessed on the 1977 assessment rolls and subject to a full year’s taxes in 1978. New construction can be taxed for a portion of the current tax year only if occupied. The courts are extending the exemption from taxes to the next tax year if these new buildings remain vacant. The amendment proposed to

section 86 will close this loophole and appease the large number of municipalities which have objected to a potential loss of tax revenue.

I am also proposing that

section 97 of the Assessment Act remain operative during 1978. This

section allows the Minister of Revenue to order the return of market value assessment in any municipality experiencing problems with the equity of its assessment base.

I am confident that these amendments are the proper course of action at this time. When I became the Minister of Revenue, I stated emphatically that I would proceed with the market value assessment program only when I could be assured by a complete review of all the implications that individual groups of property owners would not be hurt. Postponing the program for one year will provide me sufficient time to fulfil that promise. I urge all members to support this bill.

[3:45]

Mr. Haggerty: I wanted to add a few comments on Bill 91,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

We will support the minister’s amendment, as it is here today, although perhaps with some reservations. We feel that it has been seven or eight years since the municipalities have been promised market value assessment. I guess it is the past record of the government that after almost every election we have seen this particular legislation put into mothballs. Hopefully, the minister is not going to put it in mothballs again and we will have the dialogue that she suggested in her opening comments today.

More information is required relating to the market value of assessment, more information is required as it relates to the tax reform proposals that the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has so often suggested to municipalities over the years. We are also concerned, on this side, about the Edmonton commitment.

Under those three items I have suggested to the minister we are deeply concerned about the implementation of market value assessment in Ontario. We have noticed in the past that there hasn’t been too much dialogue, particularly with municipalities, to which this matter is so vital because municipal taxes of course relate to market value assessment or any property assessment. We have information from some municipalities that there will be a shift in assessment, particularly from industrial assessment to residential assessment. Industrial assessment will be lowered while residential property will be much higher.

No doubt this will have a greater impact on persons who can least afford to pay the high taxes that are already there, based upon municipal tax policies today.

For example, here is a brief submitted to the property tax reform commission as it relates to additional hospital assessments under the proposed market value assessment. Just to sum it up, it says: “The Ministry of Revenue has now provided information on current assessment values and municipal commercial tax rates for seven sample hospitals of similar size and type across Ontario. They inform us that the resultant tax calculation is approximately the same as any new tax formula budget paper E would produce.”

It goes on to list the figures that are given, and says there would be substantial increases in hospitals in St. Thomas, Elgin, McKellar/Thunder Bay, Sudbury General, Peterborough Civic, St. Mary’s/Kitchener, Chatham Public General and Queensway/Toronto.

Summing it up it says, “Assuming from this rough average of 2.5 per cent of budget values for all public hospitals in Ontario, this would mean total taxes of approximately $54.1 million, compared to the $2.4 million paid at present -- on the basis of the $50 per rated bed.”

That means there will be quite a tax increase to hospitals in the province. We have already got an impact from the Ministry of Health in the cut-back of grants to local hospitals. With the impact from this, you might as well close up all hospitals in the province if we were to accept market value assessment under these terms.

I know of other instances where the proposal is that we will be paying taxes on school property. No doubt this will have a serious impact on the separate schools which include up to grade 13; this will be an additional cost to the taxpayers in that school sector. The proposals tell us we’ll be paying taxes on public libraries. We’ll be paying taxes on fire halls. We’ll be paying taxes on municipal recreation centres and facilities of that nature and all parks. Hopefully the Treasurer is not suggesting revenue can be collected from a municipality at that level?

I’ll tell you if this is the course the government is going to take, I’m sure it’s going to defeat the government when they bring in market value assessment.

As I said before, we agree there have to be some changes made in the assessment practices in the province of Ontario. There are inequities in certain municipalities. The fault lies with the Treasurer of the province of Ontario, who for a number of years had some control over municipalities related to assessment but did little to improve the quality of assessors and the quality of assessment practices throughout Ontario.

It’s not good enough to say we’re going to criticize this particular group of employees. They are good, they are conscientious personnel who want to do a good job and we ought to be thankful this particular group has provided measures to improve the quality of assessment practices themselves, with little help from the government of Ontario.

Perhaps this is an area in which the government has fallen or lagged behind in bringing equity and equality in assessment to the province of Ontario. This responsibility rests directly with the ministry, particularly the Treasurer.

He has not moved in a direction to see that all municipalities follow the same assessment manual. That’s all that’s required if we want market value assessment; each assessor, each municipality or region, must use the same assessment manual, which will apply some uniformity across the province of Ontario. If I were to stand here today, Mr. Speaker, and say I was all for market value assessment in 1978, I’m afraid there wouldn’t be many taxpayers in my area who would be too happy with my performance here in the Legislature.

As example of the only information I’ve been able to obtain from the Treasurer and his assessment report relates to present assessed values and market value assessment for the town of Fort Erie. It says residential, based on residential public, is about $20 million now in the town of Fort Erie. Under market value assessment this would mean $147 million in separate schools. The present assessment is about $5.5 million, and under the new assessment practice it would be $42 million. You can see a substantial increase there.

What bothers me most is when we come to the area of recreational dwellings. Under the present assessment at which all property is being assessed, it amounts to about $5.5 million. It will increase, under market value, if I can follow the line, to $36.5 million; a substantial increase. Recreational land is presently being assessed at about $589,000. Under market value assessment, it will move up to $7.3 million. The provincial government will have some increase there. It will increase about twice, I guess, or 200 per cent.

When we come back and look at the conservation authority, and then education; under the present public school system the assessment is $2.1 million. Under market value this will go up to $4.5 million.

It just goes to show you the shift in taxation that will occur if we accept the implementation of market value under these terms before we bring in tax reform policies. While I strongly object to the method of market value assessment, it is rather difficult under today’s terms to actually come to a firm conclusion on the effect of market value assessment. It is hard to define it under the present terms. I know the old assessment practice was based upon a willing buyer. You can look at about three areas you want to discuss when a piece of property is put on the market for sale.

You can look at the market data, or sales approach; and this is what they are using now. Of course if you have a shortage of housing in the province of Ontario, as exists today, and there is a big demand for it, then certainly that is going to put up the price of housing.

You have the income approach, which relates to the rental factor. Again, if you have a shortage of housing in the province of Ontario, particularly in relation to rental units, that is going to increase the price of market value.

Finally, there is the cost approach. I don’t have to tell you about the cost approach today because that is also high. One of the reasons is there is a demand for housing.

There is no consideration, I think, from the information I have, of the inflationary costs of market value assessment. That is an area I hope your group of persons knowledgeable in assessment will take into consideration when they do bring in market value of assessment.

Again, I can relate it to the cost of serviced lots. I can relate to an instance in the town of Fort Erie where a housing development was going to take place. The prices of the lots after it was subdivided were going to be about $10,000 for a 50-foot lot.

The developer would get about four and a half lots per acre, which would no doubt bring him a good source of income; but they were going to go into partnership with the Ontario Housing Corporation, and the minute they made their agreement with the Ontario Housing Corporation the land values increased; and the cost increased, to the person buying that land, by $3,300. I can tell you this, the assessors were in that area already reassessing all the property in that community because of the involvement of the government. They thought they could make another $3,300 on property too.

So, again, I look at the matter of market value assessment. I think we need to have a close look at it. We need to have the involvement of concerned citizens. They are going to be affected more by this type of legislation than anybody. Above all, municipalities should be well informed. Perhaps all the information they are going to get is just what I’ve read into the records here; block information, I guess the minister would call it, from one municipality to another.

But in reviewing the three assessments for the different municipalities, the town of Fort Erie, the township of Wainfleet and the city of Port Colborne, I find the average assessment will increase from the present assessment about eight and a half to 10 times what it was under the old rate of assessment. I suppose, when I look at it again, you say under the present suggestions the property tax market value assessment will be based at 50 per cent of the market value. That already gives about a 15 per cent increase over the previous assessment. Under the old assessment practices it was assessed at about one-third of the actual value of the selling price of the property back in 1969 or 1970.

[4:00]

It was always a good practice to use that principle; about 33⅓ per cent. It always gave guidelines, for a person who wanted to buy property, to relate to the assessment and multiply three or four times. That way you could pretty well come to what the value of the property was. But under these terms, when you say “a willing buyer,” there are about three areas you can relate it to. You can have a buyer; or you can have a person who wants to sell a piece of property, at his price.

You can also have a property owner who says he’ll sell because he wants to move out because he has lost his job, he’ll sell it wherever he can get the best deal. Then you get another person who has to sell; he has no other choice, either he sells or he loses his investment. All these things should be taken into consideration.

I know from my own personal property what the replacement cost would be and it’s way out of proportion. That forces one to carry fire insurance for that risk, because I don’t know what the market value of lumber will be from one year to another.

Again, we relate our price of lumber to what it’s worth on the American market. Everything we seem to do here in Ontario is related to what a product will sell for in the United States. For some unknown reason, when it comes to buying a piece of property in Buffalo, you can buy property over there for less than you can in the province of Ontario. Whether that has any bearing on market assessment here or not, it does for replacement cost. Our products bought for homes is based upon what Americans will pay. Why the cost should be much higher in Ontario I don’t know. That is something the assessing department should perhaps be looking into.

Mr. Laughren: The Tories all speculate on land.

Mr. Haggerty: I think I covered where the provincial government was in the matter of land speculation. Again, I don’t want to get into that. We discussed that during the minister’s estimates.

But I can’t stand up in the House, and I don’t think my party would either, to support the implementation of market value assessment under these present terms unless we have a clear understanding what tax reform proposals are coming from the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs for the province of Ontario.

I think we have to take into consideration what the Edmonton commitment is going to be. You can rest assured if we were to accept market value assessment today, I don’t think there would be a property owner in Ontario who could afford to pay the taxes; it would be more than a regressive form of taxation.

I have an amendment from the NDP -- I don’t know if the member is going to put that forward today or not.

Mr. Swart: If we get into committee.

Mr. Haggerty: If it gets into committee. If the hon. member for Welland-Thorold moves that amendment we will not be supporting that amendment.

Mr. Warner: Too progressive.

Mr. Haggerty: I don’t have to tell the minister why but --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I remind the hon. member that the amendment is not before the House.

Mr. Laughren: Talk about your own alternative, Ray.

Mr. Haggerty: Well, I don’t know if it is coming forward or not, I don’t know that; but I was interested in the comments of the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk), I believe it is, the revenue critic for the NDP, I was interested in what he had to say about market value assessment. The member for London South (Mr. Walker) asked him: “Do you support market value assessment now”? The member for Brantford said, “Yes I do, as a matter of fact, but not as organized right now”.

I don’t know what he meant by that comment, but he goes on to tell about the discrepancies that will take place in a municipality if market value assessment is implemented in 1978. He goes on to say there will be a shift and people with less income will be paying higher taxes because industry and corporations will begin getting a break.

So if they bring forth that amendment, I can’t see why they would ever bring an amendment in like that when from their comments it is pretty well on record that they feel it is not the time, actually, to bring in market value assessment based upon all the problems there are under the existing proposals.

Even the member for Welland-Thorold suggested that last year in one of the debates. He is all in favour of market value assessment but not under the present terms. I leave the thought with the minister that they have some strong reservations about it. They give it to you in detail, and it can be found on page G-370 of the minister’s estimates debates on November 9.

Mr. Warner: You read it but don’t understand it.

Mr. Haggerty: We perfectly well understand it. We know what’s going on. You’re playing games with it, that’s what you’re doing; and political games at that.

Mr. Makarchuk: I am gratified to hear that you read my preface.

Mr. Haggerty: I’m afraid that if the member for Welland-Thorold had to go back into the Peninsula and tell the people, “I’m all for market value assessment and we want to implement it next year,” and then went on to say, “but we don’t agree with all these things here,” he would think twice about that amendment that he’s putting forward.

Mr. Laughren: Imagine being political in here.

Mr. Haggerty: I suppose I can when I get cross questioning from the members to my left.

If I can go back to the brief they submitted to the Blair commission and its sixth proposal dealing with taxation on public property: “Public property is to be subject to fair taxation. A good principle. We agree with the Treasurer when he asserts that ‘inclusion of all local property on the property tax base, means that local governments will be taxing their own facilities, such as schools and parks; but since the property tax is levied for upper tier and school board purposes as well as local municipal purposes, this broadened tax base will permit a fairer distribution of cost of revenues among local government units.’”

Well it’s pretty hard to go back and tell a municipality like Wainfleet, or some other rural municipality that had to close up its schools, for example, because some of them have moved into larger school areas, such as the cities or larger urban areas, and say, “We’re going to be taxing you for educating your children in that school.” That’s what he’s suggesting.

Mr. Laughren: Did Alf Stong write that speech?

Mr. Haggerty: I don’t think it is the proper area for taxation on municipal property at all, as it relates to municipal property. There are other areas that should be opened up for tax reform, and I think the municipalities should have a broader tax reform. Perhaps they should be looking for more levels of support through transitional grants from the provincial government, and in fact from the federal government when we relate to our comments to the Edmonton commitment.

Mr. Laughren: When are we getting the Liberal alternative?

Mr. Makarchuk: What’s your answer for it, Ray? What’s your solution?

Mr. Haggerty: You read my remarks in the minister’s estimates, it’s all there.

Mr. Makarchuk: All you talked about is some girl who couldn’t tell the difference between a nail or a screw or something.

Mr. Haggerty: No, it was a common nail and a finishing nail.

Mr. Makarchuk: I stand to be corrected.

Mr. Haggerty: I said the assessors have come very well forward today with good forms and a good quality of assessor for assessing property. I suggest to the minister that we do support the amendment and will look forward to market value assessment with full consultation and after a full dialogue with local municipalities and concerned citizens. I think that’s the most important thing. They’re not aware of what’s taking place and it would be an injustice to bring in market value assessment in 1978 under the existing proposals and with little knowledge of the actual tax reform policies the government wants to pass on to communities. That’s all the comments that I have, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Swart: Until the member for Erie spoke, I had thought this bill was a rather simple and straightforward, and that my amendment fitted into that category; but I guess he has misunderstood the intent of what we are intending to do with this bill.

Mr. Laughren: You ask him what time it is, he tells you how to make a watch.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, of course the purpose of this bill, as the minister has correctly interpreted, is to freeze the present assessment system for another year; with one exception, and that of course is the change to provide that buildings which are built and not occupied will be eligible for assessment if they are over the $2,500 limit. I understand that the $2,500 applies to market value, not to the relatively low assessment under the present Assessment Act. I had hoped, perhaps, that the minister would assure us of that when she rose to speak on the bill.

There is no doubt, I’m sure, that the presentation of this bill is a very real embarrassment for the minister. It’s just another step in the commitment-postponement cycle. The Assessment Act clearly shows this. If we turn to

section 86, we will see there the year-by-year postponement. The first is under

section 86(a), where in 1974 the assessment was to be for real property as set forth in the assessment roll return for the year 1970. That wasn’t

section 86(

a) at that time, that was just all of

section 86. Then they decided to postpone it again, and

section 86(

b) was put into the Act. Then they decided again to postpone it, so

section 86(

c) was put in the Act. Now we have

section 86(

d) proposed here in Bill 91. I suggest there’s a real possibility we may run out of the alphabet before we ever get to implementing a new form and a fairer form of assessment.

I say that that

section of the Act,

section 86, is a visual, chronological testimonial to the ineptness, the indecision and the waffling of this government.

Mr. Makarchuk: A bunch of wafflers.

Mr. Swart: Plus, I have to say that it’s not the minister’s fault. I realize that it is the Treasurer who makes these decisions, not this minister. In fact, I guess he makes the decisions pretty well for all the ministers on that side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: There is little doubt that these postponements have been at least partly, perhaps mainly, for political reasons. The first postponement was actually decided upon back in 1974. The minister at that time, who was the father of the present Consumer and Commercial Relations minister, said on October 18, 1973, in the House: “We anticipated completion of the valuation work by early 1973 for tax study purposes. The assessors would then update their assessment for introduction in the fall of 1974.

It was estimated that up to 18 months would be required to study, develop and seek the approval of this House on meaningful property tax reform -- before local authorities set 1975 mill rates based upon the new 1974 assessments.”

I’m sure everyone in this House knows, not least of all the government, that when you bring in a new assessment program there are many changes. Many people pay more; some may pay less in their property taxes. But the government certainly decided at that time, with an election due in 1975, that it shouldn’t proceed with those changes. So they were postponed, actually until 1976. That was supposed to be a year after the government got its majority. Well of course it didn’t get re-elected with a majority, so in 1976 it brought in another postponement. In 1977 it is also bringing in another postponement. We certainly won’t have any change in the assessment system before 1978.

Mr. Makarchuk: Not before the next election, anyway.

[4:15]

Mr. Swart: Yes, there won’t be one then, you’re absolutely right. There will not be any change, I’m going to be mentioning that in just a moment or two.

First of all, though, I want to point out this delay makes a mockery of the restraint program. Back in 1969, the present Treasurer, and I’m right on this one, made the comment, when the province was taking over the assessment system, that the number of assessors would be increased by 50 per cent to bring assessment to what we consider the proper level, and would be maintained.

Municipalities, at that time, were spending $15 million on assessment and by some rather simple computations we can determine that the actual cost of reassessment up to this date has been somewhere up to $50 million and $100 million; in fact it may be $100 million. I would ask the minister, in her comments, to tell us what the reassessment program has cost in the eight years since that time?

The Blair commission also made reference to the cost and the waste if there was further postponement when they said, and I’m quoting from the Blair report: “Market value data as of 1975 on every property in the province will be available for use in 1977 assessment rolls and therefore for tax application in 1978. A further postponement would obviously render the 1975 data of little value and much of the effort expended would have been in vain, a waste of the taxpayers’ money, by this postponement.”

The second point I want to make is the postponements, year after year, have damaged morale among the assessment commissioners and the assessors. I suggest in this House that if anybody has a doubt about this they should talk to the assessment commissioners throughout this province. The first thing they’d say when you ask them what they thought of a further postponement of the assessment would be, “Oh my God, another one.” Their morale has been very substantially lowered by this continual postponement of bringing in a new assessment system. Even Blair, in his report, commented on that. I would like to quote:

“These postponements must, we believe, have a seriously detrimental effect on the morale of the assessors. As was stated in our remarks on assessment, the professional competency he brings to bear, a dispassionate approach to his task, is all-important to the proper operation of a property tax system. It must be realized that the government must now keep assessment values up to date simultaneously for two assessment systems; the current one and market value. When seen in the light of some 3.5 million assessable properties, this is a mammoth task indeed.”

So we have Blair making the comment the morale of the assessors is being damaged by these continual postponements of something the government had assured them was very good, and perhaps almost perfect.

There is no doubt, too, the postponements continue inequities, first of all between properties in municipalities. I think my colleague from Waterloo will be giving information on his area which shows there is at least a 25 per cent differential on the taxes paid by property owners with identical homes, within one municipality now but which of course was amalgamated from four or five others.

Mr. Meen stated when he gave a speech to the Golden Mile Kiwanis Club back on October 20, 1976, on the subject of why we need market value assessment: “Of course, with the introduction of market value assessment all the inequities will be ironed out.”

Well that’s nonsense, of course. Sometimes we have some doubts as to whether there will be any fewer inequities under the system being proposed by this government than there are under the present system. Surely no one, Mr. Speaker, who had any knowledge at all of what is taking place would state all inequities would be ironed out.

The second continuation of inequities is between municipalities, because the government has frozen the system for eight years. We have had statements in this House to show at least one municipality is losing in the neighborhood of $8.5 million in grants because of the unequal assessment, or the unfair assessment, in their area and the refusal of this government to make a change in that assessment. I am going to go into what we propose in this bill in just a little more detail.

We will support this bill on second reading, because quite frankly there is no alternative. The policies and the machinery are not in place to make any changes. If we brought in market value, per se, without any percentages of assessments on residential properties, particularly single-family dwelling units, the inequities would be many times greater than they are at the present time. Because the government hasn’t done the job, there is no alternative but to postpone. In fact, the assessment roll has to be turned in, I th