Journal des débats 1986-nov-04 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

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

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

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

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRAVERY AWARDS

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

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

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

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

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

ADVOCACY GROUPS

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

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

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

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

BRAVERY AWARDS

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

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

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

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Davis: I would like to speak briefly on the subject of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto. As most members are aware, Metro Toronto council last month gave a qualified endorsement of the implementation of market value assessment for the region. The implementation of section 63 reassessment would result in lower taxes for 410,000 home owners, but at the same time, more than 305,000 home owners would face increases in their property taxes, some as high as 2,000 per cent.

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

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

APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR

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

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

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

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

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

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

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

ITALIAN MEMORIAL DAY

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

[Remarks in Italian]

13:44

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUTURES PROGRAM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This week in Toronto, there is a Futures conference where all the youth employment counselling services and the community colleges have assembled. They have enumerated significant problems with this program, if the minister would care to listen. There is a conflict between the youth employment counselling centres and the colleges. There is a conflict because they are fighting over students, they are fighting among employers and they are fighting for shrinking dollars. The minister knows of at least five groups we have identified, the Kettle Point, Ohsweken, St. Thomas, Collingwood and Burlington youth employment counselling services, that may or may not get funding for the balance of this year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14:10

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOMES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank my honourable friend for his little lecture, which I will take to heart. The point of his question is whether there is any risk that prosecution will be made more difficult because of the delay. If the member reads the report, he will see that the information that was used by the writer was received by the agents of Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities on a confidential basis. We are making inquiries as to whether Concerned Friends are in a position to waive that confidentiality so an investigation can be conducted. If they are, an investigation will be conducted. If they are not prepared to waive confidentiality, it follows that we will not be able to interview any of the people who gave Concerned Friends that information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

14:20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXTRA BILLING

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

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

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

"I am encouraged by the OMA's position that standby charges and excessive administrative fees are unacceptable. The government agrees with the OMA that these extra fees are obstacles to insured services and thus must be considered in contravention of the Health Care Accessibility Act. The government will fully reimburse patients for these extra charges and will take appropriate action against physicians who continue to bill in this manner."

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

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

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

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

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

Would the House leader for the government not understand that the only way we are going to be able to stop these ridiculous charges for uninsured services is to amend Bill 94 in order to make it clear that doctors cannot continue to impede accessibility to our health care system?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not prepared to agree with the honourable member that this is the only way that aim might be accomplished. The House is aware that negotiations with the OMA on a new fee schedule will have to be under way soon, since the previous agreement runs out in April 1987. It seems to me those are matters that could be discussed. It may well be that a professional agreement can be arrived at, and I am quite hopeful that this will occur.

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Martel: Try Sudbury.

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

14:30

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

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

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

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

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

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

14:40

NURSING HOMES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

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

Mr. Gregory: In this era of purported openness and accessibility we hear so much about, I find it difficult to comprehend that these reports are not readily made available to the ratepayers affected by them. As a matter of fact, the main difference was prompted by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), who asked me, "Why did you not do it?" I did not do it because we never had a request or a resolution passed by Metro council. We have now, and that is the difference.

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

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

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

14:50

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VISITOR

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

MINORITY-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

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

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

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

15:00

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

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

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

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

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

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

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

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

NURSING HOMES

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

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

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will do that.

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

AID TO DISABLED

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

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

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

15:10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

BARRISTERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 147, An Act to amend the Barristers Act.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

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

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 12, An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act;

Bill 70, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act;

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Legal Aid Act;

Bill 24, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act;

Bill 27, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act;

Bill 28, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act;

Bill 32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act;

Bill 130, An Act to repeal the Gold Clauses Act.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 131, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

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

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

This is going to be particularly difficult for farming co-operatives. Farming co-operatives now find they are going to be assessed on the common storage bins. This is counterproductive. The farming co-operatives are not making money; they run as nonprofit organizations. If they go bankrupt as a result of this additional taxation, they are going to have to build them on their own properties, on their own farm lands. Then, of course, they will be tax-exempt. This seems to be a little silly. It is a bit of the tinkering we were talking about a moment ago. Why do this at all when they have the option of having it on their own property and having it tax-exempt? From the standpoint of saving everybody money, it seems to me that to operate through a tax-exempt co-operative would be far more productive than doing what the minister is doing.

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

15:20

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

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

Mr. Dean: Just your intelligent remarks.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Gregory: No. I am talking about the section dealing with the removal of the exemption on amusement rides and the other section dealing with taking away the exemption from farm buildings. Is the minister with me?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Are there comments or questions?

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

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

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

Mr. Gregory: On the same point of order.

Mr. Breaugh: There is no point of order.

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

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

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

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

The other thing is that he felt this was tinkering. The changes in farm assessment are designed not to increase or decrease the assessment but to see that certain decisions of the courts are not going to reduce assessments that have always been accepted by the farm community in a way that will be seriously detrimental to the municipalities. I am talking about assessments on silos and certain farm buildings. We want to make it clear in this amendment that if a farm building is not directly associated with a manufacturing process, it should properly be assessed, but if it is associated with a manufacturing or farming process, it would be exempt. This matter has become more and more confused because the courts have found on actions both ways. The recommendation from the officials is that this amendment clarifies the matter.

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Got it now.

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

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

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

15:30

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Toronto Stock Exchange?

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

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

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

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

While I understand the intent of the Treasurer, I have some concerns that I want to raise with him. Perhaps another way of going at it would be to try to define better, or more clearly, what is a nonprofit organization serving the needs of a common group of people. I would argue that perhaps we should be looking at some future time, if this amendment goes through -- and I suspect it will -- at the possibility that there might be a differential business or commercial rate for such organizations as small credit unions. Although they would be eligible for assessment tax, it might not be legitimate to have them taxed at the same commercial rate as, say, a bank is, because they do not have the access to the same services provided by a bank and they therefore do not have access to the same kind of income that a bank has and the same kind of profit.

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

There is another one I want to deal with on second reading. I will deal with the more complicated section on silos and farming equipment in a few minutes. In sections 1 and 4, the Treasurer is removing an exemption. On the other hand, in sections 2 and 3, he provides for the exemption of amusement rides from property taxes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no difficulty whatsoever with section 5, which indicates that the assessment on pipelines will be reassessed with the general reassessment; it makes sense to me. Administrative efficiency and consistency there seem to be good arguments.

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

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

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

15:40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When we rise to speak on an amendment to the Assessment Act, it opens up an interesting area. There is no doubt that everything in this bill impacts on assessment here and there throughout the province. Thinking of it in that vein gives me a little opportunity to discuss some rather specific areas of assessment anomalies within the city of Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto area. There are places within this municipality that would be affected by section 1, the definition of business, by subsection 2(1) and so on. I think the latitude is here on second reading in that regard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting back to the contents of Bill 131 in a more specific way, we support the principle of what the bill is trying to accomplish. Frankly, I think the minister has done a very poor job on the bill, which is why we have insisted that it go to a standing committee, so that many legitimate concerns can be brought before him. Knowing some of the people within that section of the ministry, I hope and trust that by the time the committee hearings are begun, some reasonable amendments will have been put forth by the government to clarify the intent of the bill.

15:50

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

On the bill and its intent, which is to stop that erosion, that is fine. Unfortunately, we all know that within the policy manual -- and I was there when the policy manual that is currently used was put in place by the excellent staff in that half of the ministry, including the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Lettner. The minister and legal counsel will agree that if a case goes to court -- and there is no doubt that the implementation of this bill is not going to stop or reduce the number of cases that are going to go to the courts, whether it be the Assessment Review Board or a higher court -- it is going to be increased. I am sure that for those who are trying to use the law in their favour, the judge or the hearing officer is not going to be leaning towards what the policy manual is suggesting and guiding; he is going to go by what is in the legislation passed by this Legislature. That is an extremely important difference that will have to be thrashed out within the committee when it hears some legitimate concerns from businesses.

We have heard, as I know the minister has heard, from many significant businesses in this province. I am relating to subsection 2(1) of the bill as to what is going to be included in that all-encompassing "buildings and structures" et al. The problem is that in the interpretation and the legal advice many of these large firms are receiving, the "et al" could be everything. Again, I understand and accept that is not the intent and that is not what the policy manual says, but it is not clear enough within this legislation. We have heard from the Canadian Portland Cement Association, Nabisco Brands, Molson Breweries and Dofasco Inc., some of which have no particular axe to grind at this time and which have not been companies that have tried to get their assessments lowered and in effect to avoid taxation.

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

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

There is one other area, and I realize other speakers have spoken on this issue before; it is the new definition of "business" contained herein. The minister has the same problem here that he has in the buildings and structures section, subsection 2(1) of the bill. Once again, under the definition in here, everything that is perceived to be nonprofit but in competition, even the agencies of good to the community, will be deemed by anybody else wanting to use them as an example. That is the key. They are not going to appeal a nonassessment; I can appreciate and accept that, although there is no doubt from the wording of the bill that the assessment policy could change tomorrow. That is not the government's intent now, but it could be different tomorrow.

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member has made an extremely useful contribution. I appreciate his support, at least of the principle of the bill, which is what we are debating now. I have already indicated my own concern with the wording in the attempt to achieve that principle. Specifically, the alternative to the definition of "business" might have been to add a section saying, "Whatever the courts say or the lawyers argue, the following businesses are going to be assessable for business tax, and that is that." We may have to do that; it may be the only way to do it.

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

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

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

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

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

16:00

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

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

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

I note AMO has brought to the attention of the minister that it thinks there are some problems with that section of the act; so do I. One of the difficulties may simply be that in developing amusement parks around Ontario, they are often touted as being big revenue boosters and sources of jobs. The sad part is that, after the fact, we often find there are not a great many permanent jobs attached to them. Often the jobs are not much more than temporary jobs at the minimum wage. The assessment on these properties is not quite the same as on a new Suzuki plant or, better yet, a new General Motors plant. We are beginning to have some understanding that maybe these things are not quite the great boom they were initially thought to be.

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

Part of the problem is the process here. The process is that people in and around the Legislative Building and in the minister's office redraft definitions; they have an impact on our municipalities. Through their organization, the municipalities try to make a centralized position known to the minister, but there is not a lot of negotiating back and forth in a direct way. That perhaps is part of the problem that the minister ought to look at.

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

Although it sounds like a quid pro quo, whereby we will give a grant instead of getting taxes, I have some uneasiness about that technique. I have an uneasy awareness that often the level of the grant is set for one year and then forgotten about for several years before an adjustment is made. In its letter to the ministry, AMO reiterates that it would like some assurances that the municipalities affected will not lose actual cash. That is their concern. If the grant in lieu of taxes is designed to be a straight replacement of tax revenue, then surely it should not be difficult to see that this straight replacement is in actual dollars. In order that we do not start with this year's level of taxes that would have been charged and replace that with an equal dollar grant, can we do something that will provide next year's level as being accurate?

Most of these municipalities are aware that in dealings with the previous government -- not that this government would be so evil in its intentions subsequently -- there was a disturbing tendency in the first year of something such as this to be a little more generous and afterwards to simply forget about it. So what looked like a reasonable proposition in terms of assessing whether you won or lost revenue on something such as this, in the first year often looked better than it should have, but in the second, third, fourth and fifth years and thereafter it looked worse than it should have.

Municipalities are getting a little wiser than perhaps they once were in assessing very carefully what is meant by grants in lieu of taxes and whether there will be an annual adjustment to see that it actually does what it purports to do in the first instance; that is, to ensure that municipalities involved do not suffer at their tax base because of the initiatives of the government.

There are one or two other areas where they have brought problems to our attention. One is similar; it has to do with racetracks. Again, as with amusement parks, this is something that in many of our municipalities, particularly in rural areas, is generally seen to be good for the reason that somebody is doing something in the municipality; there is some form of development coming into the area. Generally, it is true that there are some jobs and some assessment associated with it. But again, after a year or so, people start to read the fine print and begin to make the analysis as to whether the taxation rates are fair and reasonable. In other words, why should someone who runs something such as a racetrack pay less or more in business tax than someone who runs any other kind of business?

That is an interesting question, and the bill attempts to resolve it. Those municipalities that are involved point out that perhaps it is not exactly fair; so the association drew these matters to the minister's attention. I think it is not unfair to categorize them as being generally supportive of what is going on. They understand there is some trading of one thing for another. On balance, by and large, they are prepared to accept that, with some amendment. We hope the public hearing process will offer an opportunity where those things can be done.

I want to reiterate that this whole vexing problem of assessment and taxation is perhaps a good deal more complicated than any of us really want it to be. What AMO points out in its letter is that it does have some very practical problems with it. The difficulty will probably come about in municipalities where even a slight change, such as the one being proposed in this bill, will have a rather dramatic impact on the tax base.

In short, if this were done in Metropolitan Toronto, without question there would be adjustments all over the place. There is a large tax base to draw from, and changes of this nature, even if they were unfair, could be handled in a much easier way than in many of our rural municipalities where the racetrack, the amusement park or the distillery storage tank is one of the major players in their tax base.

I caution the minister to be friendly to those amendments that are being proposed by AMO and others, when the bill does go to public hearings, and to be mindful that although it may appear to him to be a simple adjustment of the assessment base, for many of those municipalities it is more than that. This is a major problem for them.

In fairness, I know the minister is moving to provide grants for lost assessment here, which probably looks okay for now. But those municipalities directly impacted by this bill are asking, quite rightly, to see the exact numbers for this year and for the foreseeable future. They need to know that detail, because it is crucial for them in trying to plan their deliberations around assessment for other inhabitants in their municipalities and in trying to plan successfully for budgeting purposes.

16:10

With those few cautions, we are prepared to let this bill go out for a brief period of public hearings, but it is a critical period. AMO has raised what I consider to be valid problems that have to be resolved. I do not think it will be impossible to resolve them, but it will require some sensitivity on the part of the minister. He is a very sensitive soul most days; so I hope he will go to the public hearings in good faith, recognizing that these are problems to be resolved within this bill and that they will be resolved.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In most cases, the municipalities that are going to have a decrease in assessment if these amendments become law will have part of the money made up through general legislative grants for educational purposes and annual resource equalization grants for some of the rest. There will be additional phasing-in grants, which will not last for ever but which will phase in the reduction in assessment.

We have heard from one or two townships, such as the township of Malden, which has within its precincts Bob-Lo amusement area in the Detroit River. The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) has raised this matter with me on a number of occasions. I am not sure he is fully satisfied, but he has raised the problem. We do not want to make more problems than we are trying to solve.

Mr. Breaugh: In his brief reply, the Minister of Revenue has put his finger on what causes so many problems out there in municipalities, where it looks as though there is a grant to offset a tax loss. Then the minister reads the fine print, which says a chunk of the grant comes over here and another chunk over there and part of it lasts one year and the rest of it drops off. That is what makes the municipalities nervous and gets them all excited.

What they would like is a little straight talk. If the minister is going to take away the assessment here, he should tell them where they will get their income for the foreseeable future. To be blunt about it, their problem does not go away a year from now; the problem remains. This has altered their assessment base not just for this year. If that were the case, a one-time grant would solve the problem.

The difficulty is that the minister has taken away their assessment base. It may not appear to be a large change to ministry staff here, but in the municipalities it is deemed to be the mother lode. Their tax base is being messed with. They get very unhappy, and rightly so, when they are given the kind of a response: "Here is a little bit here, here is a little bit there and here is the other part of it. It will last for one year. After that, you are on your own." That makes those municipalities very nervous.

What makes them even more nervous is that they have dealt with a government that for years now has pulled this same stunt on them. It has sweetened the pot in the first year and told them the bad news in year 5. It is no wonder that they are gun-shy, anxious and worried about that kind of approach. It is unfair.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, I want to follow up on the concern that was expressed by my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

Mr. Runciman: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Yes, I see the point of order. The member for Durham-York.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I was only going to take 30 seconds.

The Acting Speaker: You will have your chance afterwards.

Mr. Stevenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not sure where the rotation was. I will be very brief. I am quite pleased the Treasurer has agreed to let this bill go to standing committee. Very clearly, there is considerable confusion in the agriculture and food industry on exactly what this bill will do to various organizations in the industry.

The first contact I had with a group wanting considerable clarification was with some of the fruit and vegetable co-operatives, and quite rightly so. They have a considerable concern over the bill. We need a forum other than this one to discuss what the impact really is on those organizations.

Since those people contacted us, we have heard from other food processors, from the breweries and from various other companies involved in the agriculture and food business. It is important that we get clarification and make sure we understand what their concerns are and that we get the Treasurer's opinion and possibly legal opinion on where they stand as a result of this bill.

I bring to the attention of the Treasurer another tax situation that did get into a previous budget, through quite an honest oversight by the Treasurer of the time. It has caused some unfortunate circumstances in the agricultural industry, and it is all the more reason for bringing Bill 131 to a standing committee so that the same sort of thing does not happen with it.

I refer specifically to the corporation capital tax. I am sure the Treasurer has had this brought to his attention in the past. It is a tax on inventory. It is having a severe impact on some of the larger farm machinery dealerships across the province. Again, at the time it was brought in, I am sure there was no intention of it impacting on those agencies the way it has, and certainly at a time when farm machinery is particularly difficult to sell.

These companies are having a hard enough time as it is and now they are faced with an inventory tax, which is no indication of turnover, revenue, profit or ability to pay the tax. However, these farm machinery businesses are being hit by this tax, which is much out of line with car dealerships or any other business that is subject to the same tax. If those companies survive and continue to sell farm machinery, the farmers have to pay that tax indirectly.

Right now, the agricultural industry needs the revenue left in its pockets instead of sending it off to government. I can assure the Treasurer that the agricultural machinery companies and the farmers of Ontario most certainly are not having the economic windfall he and his government are having right now. Although it is slightly off topic here, I ask him to have a look at that tax and consider altering it in his next budget, if not before.

As I started out to say, when that tax was brought in, I am absolutely sure it was not intended to have the impact it is having. Therefore, I strongly support our demand that Bill 131 go to committee, and I thank the Treasurer for agreeing that it go to standing committee.

I hope the co-ops and various processors in the agriculture and food industry will have an opportunity to come in, air their concerns and get some clarification and suitable understanding of the impact of Bill 131. I hope their concerns can be minimized and any misunderstandings cleared up.

16:20

As I finish, I again ask that the Treasurer have a look at that corporation capital tax and try to get that rectified.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to acknowledge the comment the honourable member made about the corporation capital tax as it applies to farm machinery inventories and dealers.

We have had a look at it and decided not to make a change, but I am certainly continuing my review. I have had other indications from farm dealers whom I know personally, and they are deeply concerned about that. It seems there is some inequity.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any more questions or comments? Does the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) wish to comment further?

Mr. Stevenson: No. I thank the Treasurer for his comments and hope he will deal positively with that other issue.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will be very brief. I want to refer specifically to the problem in Malden township and to the exemption that is being granted by the Treasurer for amusement parks. This represents an entire mill of income for this township, without any real beneficial effects to the town of Amherstburg or the township of Malden from the existence of this amusement park facility.

People who access this park come to it along the Detroit River in a boat, so they do not travel through Essex county and spend their money; therefore, there is no economic benefit for the community. Any profits from the park itself go outside the country because the park is foreign-owned; therefore, there is no wealth that is redistributed in the community or in the region.

The response to this point from the Treasurer and from the local member has been less than adequate. The township is simply not satisfied that this lost revenue is going to be made up through grants. In fact, the Treasurer today confirmed the township's worst fears in that there will be some grant in lieu of this lost assessment, but some of it will be phased out as well. Thus, the tax loophole or exemption created by this government is going to mean more taxation is going to be put on the shoulders of a very small township. There will be no economic benefit whatsoever of having this amusement park located in Malden township.

I suggest to the Treasurer that rather than looking at amendments to legislation to benefit places such as Niagara -- we know this amendment was brought in specifically to deal with problems in the Niagara Peninsula -- there should be proper grants in lieu of this assessment being provided to guarantee there will be no loss whatsoever to communities such as Malden.

There is a unique circumstance in this case that has not been adequately addressed by the Treasurer or by the local member, who constantly tells the local politicians that everything is in hand.

The Treasurer wrote me a letter back, which I think I received yesterday, where he simply says they have examined the problem and that he feels a satisfactory solution has been arrived at. I want to inform the Treasurer that the community does not feel there has been an adequate solution arrived at.

The Treasurer had better get back to the books to see whether he can satisfy the concerns of this community. The taxpayers of this community are simply not going to be subsidizing a foreign-owned corporation with no economic benefit at all to the residents of Maiden township.

Ms. Bryden: As my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) said in his opening remarks, we support this bill because it appears to close some loopholes resulting from court decisions that have produced an erosion of municipal revenues from business tax, and this is an objective we agree with. However, we feel the legislation is not clearly enough worded to make sure that the definition of a nonprofit organization would differentiate between an organization that the courts have said is nonprofit, namely, the Ontario Jockey Club, and a credit union or a food co-op that was set up to engage in filling a gap in our social system and whose commercial activities are only a part of the operation.

As my colleague said, while we will support it on second reading, we would like to look at the possibility of clarifying the definitions of "business" and "nonprofit" to make clear that we are trying to tax organizations, whether they are described as nonprofit or not, that engage in commercial activities as their main purpose, and not organizations that were set up by groups of residents or citizens, co-ops, golf clubs and the like, and whose principal purpose is to fill a gap in services in the community.

While we commend the Treasurer for closing those loopholes, we think he should be very careful about what he is exempting. Of course, we also hope that when he has decided to exempt certain amusement rides, he will make up for the loss of revenue by suitable grants to the municipalities affected.

We realize that any exemption from the business tax is a cost not to the province but to municipal taxpayers. It is the municipality that has to make up the revenue from other taxpayers; therefore, we must be very cautious in permitting exemptions from business tax.

The Ontario Jockey Club succeeded under the present law in convincing the Supreme Court of Ontario that it was a nonprofit organization. This indicates the present law is very weak in this sense. I fail to see how anybody could consider a huge sports operation operating racing tracks in four municipalities as nonprofit. The legislation must be tight enough to make it clear that something called the Ontario Jockey Club is a business organization like any other corporation, and not a group of horse owners and racetrack operators who do it as a hobby. It should not be exempted from paying ordinary business taxes.

I fail to see how its nonprofit status is clarified by the recent decision of the Ontario Racing Commission, which has said it would approve Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track for the Ontario Jockey Club because it needs the revenue and because it needs to maintain its employees and to support the industry.

16:30

Why should a nonprofit organization need to expand at the expense of the community, which will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in the loss of its quality of life, the value of its property and the congestion on its streets? The municipal corporation will have additional costs too. The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto will have additional costs from Sunday racing and policing. The city of Toronto will have additional costs from Sunday racing in controlling traffic, providing additional garbage collection and things of that sort.

We must be very careful to see that the Ontario Jockey Club is not given any bonus through a weak definition in this bill that would permit it to be considered a nonprofit corporation and therefore free of business tax.

The decision of the Ontario Racing Commission will allow the Ontario Jockey Club to make another $200,000 just from Sunday racing at Greenwood. We should set this off against the losses to the residents and the community from the additional congestion on their streets and the additional services that must be supplied. I hope the Treasurer will see that is not allowed.

An agency of this government has so far approved this extra $200,000, and it approved it in the context that the Ontario Jockey Club was not subject to business tax. It is time we stopped adding one bonanza after another to a commercial organization. This government has allowed this situation to continue for more than a year since it came into power. It has maintained the previous Conservative government's subsidies to the Ontario Jockey Club. It has maintained a close relationship with the Ontario Jockey Club in allowing it to get away with being considered a nonprofit organization. I hope that this legislation will end that cosy relationship and that the law will be clarified enough so that no further subsidies will be given to the jockey club.

One of the earlier speakers mentioned that the present tax exemption, which was allowed through the court decision for the Ontario Jockey Club, amounts to a $3.1-million loss to municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto. Any continuation of the weak legislation we now have would add further to that tremendous loss. We will not get back that money we have lost in the past, which is another reason for making sure that, in the future, the Ontario Jockey Club is regarded for what it is: a strictly commercial-oriented activity.

Since the club is regulated by this province, it should take into account the impact of its commercial decisions on the residents and its cost to them. In the past, there has been a cost to them as taxpayers because of the court ruling. In the future, there will be a cost to them for allowing Sunday racing because of the increased activity on their arterial streets, in their neighbourhood and in their community.

I hope the government will also take responsibility for amending the Racing Commission Act to supplement this bill, to see that the rights and interests of the residents in the neighbourhood and in the community are also considered by legislation of this province.

Mr. Taylor: From what I have heard, there seems to be very little objection to the bill in principle, if I may be so bold as to express that view. It is a matter of trying to preserve a tax base for the local municipalities. In so far as one forecloses the exemptions, then one ensures a stronger tax base for local municipalities. Fundamentally, if one is going to ensure a strong system of local self-rule in this province, it is important to ensure a strong tax base. I think the Treasurer will agree with me on that. In so far as legislation fortifies and strengthens that tax base, that legislation is directionally appropriate and should be supported.

I take my mind back, as I am sure the Treasurer does, to the rule of Leslie Frost. He may remember the 1950s, when Ontario, under the Frost regime of the day, introduced for the first time a provincial sales tax of three per cent. They called it the Frost bite. Some members may remember that.

What prompted that tax was a need for municipalities to finance themselves further because of the growing urbanization. We had a lot of residential development, and single-family homes just did not pay their way. The reason they did not was that the cost of education was so high, and that impacted adversely on single-family homes. One had to get into a very high-priced single-family home before the assessment on that home translated into a tax that was adequate to carry the cost of that residence.

Therefore, what was introduced then was a grant to municipalities that was to be attributable only to the residential assessment, which was very interesting. Again the Treasurer may recall this. What really developed was a split mill rate; there was a mill rate for the residential assessment, which was assisted by this special grant given by the province to be attributed only to the residential assessment, and then we had the regular moneys that had to be raised through commercial and industrial assessment at whatever the rate had to be. We had a mill rate for residential and a mill rate for industrial and commercial. That unconditional grant assisted the residential.

We saw a distortion of that. I think that distortion has been increasing with the evolution of the authority in terms of assessment in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, you will recall very well when the local municipality was responsible for the assessment within the municipality. They had a pretty good idea of assessment. In those days, assessment was not at market value. The Assessment Act provided that a number of factors should be taken into consideration in determining assessment. As a matter of fact, there were five: present use, location, rental value, sale value and any other factor. Those were the five criteria used in determining what an appropriate assessment should be on a property.

Then the province, in its majesty, prompted the counties to assume the role of assessing the whole county. Again the Treasurer will remember that. We had a transfer of responsibility from the local municipality to the counties, and the province assisted the counties in terms of computerization and grants to encourage them to assess on a county basis. Of course, when assessment fell under the counties, it took very little for the province then to take over the role from the counties; so we ended up with provincial assessment. The responsibility for assessment rests with the government of Ontario.

16:40

In my view, it is important that the tax base of every municipality in this province be preserved and not chipped away by provincial government by legislating exemptions. In some municipalities, as the Treasurer knows, we have a lot of government land. In the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox, that veritable jewel nestled on the shores of Lake Ontario, we have a lot of park land. The Treasurer smiles. He is familiar with the majesty of that part of --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I knew you when you lived in Scarborough.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, and the Treasurer's wife's family too, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On farm land, all waiting to be developed.

Mr. Taylor: That is right; all it needed was development. I am not going to be distracted by the Treasurer, because I know he does not show on television and the viewers will wonder what is happening here in the repartee.

What I am pointing out is that it is important when you have land in local municipalities, especially provincial land, that this land generate taxes. All land in the province is assessed. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to point out to you that all land is assessed. Whether or not it is exempt from taxation, all land has to be assessed so that a value is attributed to that land. The rub comes when the land then has to be taxed and we have legislation that exempts it from taxation so that no mill rate is applied to the assessment that determines what the taxes will be from that parcel of land.

We have hundreds or thousands of acres of parks in certain ridings in this province. Of course, the municipalities within which those lands are situated suffer because they are not generating a fair revenue from those lands. We have heard about the Ontario Jockey Club; we have heard about farmers' co-ops and so on. In my view, all land should be liable not only for assessment but also for taxation. if the local municipality wants to exempt that land from taxation, let it give a grant equivalent to what the tax would be. If it is provincial land, let the province give a grant. If the province says, "This property should be exempt," let the province give a grant to cover the amount that the land should raise in revenue for the local municipality.

Again, I am not particularly happy with the way the system of assessment has evolved from the municipality to the county and now to the province. A lot of inequities have developed. The change in the method of assessment from the definition I related earlier to the present one of market value has caused many problems, and we see the distortion with market value.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to explain to you that once we exempt a commerce or an industry from taxation, then the load has to be transferred to the residential, so that we have a transfer of financial burden from one class of property to another once we start playing with the exemptions. That is why I feel we should be very careful in legislating exemptions. This legislation attempts to foreclose some of those exemptions that have been developed. In so far as it does that, it is good. All parties should support legislation that does that. I do not see very much wrong with the legislation.

Mr. Hayes: I speak in favour of the bill, except we do have a couple of reservations. I was glad to hear the Treasurer allude to the problem in Malden township. I too have received correspondence on that. As my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside has mentioned, there is a serious problem there.

It should be put on the record that Malden township is a small rural municipality with a nil growth factor, since 30 per cent of its assessment and 40 per cent of its population were annexed by the town of Amherstburg on January 1, 1981.

I see the local member coming in now. I hope he will get up and support that township in his riding, but this is a very serious concern, regardless of the riding it affects. I am sure there are other areas that would be affected in the same way.

My understanding is that in talking about amusement rides, this bill was really addressing the Niagara Falls region. This might help Niagara Falls, but it will have an adverse effect on Malden township. As my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside mentioned, even the profit that is made on Bob-Lo Island goes to the United States; not even the profit is left in the township.

I will not go on for very long on this issue. As my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) mentioned, there is a large concern in many of the municipalities and in the Association of Municipalities of Ontario about the grants to make up the difference in the loss of assessment. I hope this issue can be dealt with in committee to allow municipalities such as the township of Malden to have some input. I hope the Treasurer will take note of this and make sure that after three years these people are not left out to dry without any compensation.

I also have a concern about the Tilbury Golf and Curling Club in the riding of Essex North. It is a nonprofit membership club that serves a population of approximately 10,000. The club's concern is that instead of being nonprofit, it will have to pay a business tax. Its assessment will be changed to commercial, and it will be subject to a 30 per cent business tax. The effect will be to increase its taxes by 60 per cent, or by about $6,000. Right now it is paying approximately $12,000. Because this is a nonprofit operation and a service to the community, I feel this is unfair and should be looked at. Bill 131 will have a detrimental effect on this golf and curling club and on many similar operations across Ontario.

I repeat, we agree with the principle of this bill, but I hope that those concerns are dealt with and that municipalities will know exactly what they can expect from the government as a result of their loss of assessment.

16:50

Mr. Sterling: I would like the Treasurer to answer a number of questions in the time given to him for reply. It is necessary to have a few basic questions answered so that when the bill goes into committee -- and I understand the standing committee on general government will deal with this bill after Bill 71, the Non-Smokers' Protection Act -- the committee will deal with it most expeditiously.

How does the bill affect agricultural fairs in Ontario? Does it increase their costs for property tax? In terms of agricultural fairs and small co-operatives, such as the Forfar cheese factory in my colleague's riding of Leeds, is there any transition program or any kind of program the government might undertake to assist very small co-operatives which will be dramatically affected by the assessment changes proposed under this act?

Has a municipality the right to forgive taxes if it deems it in the best interests of the municipality to do so? My understanding is that a municipality does not have the right to forgive taxes unless it is to a nonprofit corporation as defined under the Charitable Institutions Act.

Last year I had to bring forward a private bill to allow the township of Osgoode to forgive the municipal taxes of Osgoode Care Centre, a nonprofit corporation, which it chose to do. Under this act or under any other legislation, will a municipality have that option? As a corollary to that question, can a municipality, if it cannot forgive the tax, grant to a nonprofit corporation a sum of money equal to the municipal tax it would normally pay?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member knows, I am sure, because it has been referred to a number of times, that the bill will be going to committee when questions are in order and answers from either the minister, if he knows, or from officials, if the minister does not know, can be readily available. We normally do not have a question-and-answer deal on second reading.

However, I can tell the member that agricultural fairs are not affected in any way by the legislation. Small co-ops like the Forfar cheese factory, which is famous for making some of the best cheese in Ontario, will continue to pay realty tax but will have no business tax and will be unaffected by the legislation.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased Bill 131 is being referred to committee. I want to make a couple of comments with respect to the bill as it is before us.

The referral to committee is essential because of several major changes that have been introduced, the most important of which is the elimination of the exemption from business tax for nonprofit corporations engaging in commercial activities in competition with business corporations or such corporations that promote the interest and profits of their members.

There are sections of the bill that will affect credit unions and caisses populaires in particular. In the Niagara area, Niagara-on-the-Lake in particular, there are many credit unions, three big ones in particular. The concern of the credit unions is that they are being placed on the same footing as banks and trust companies, particularly under clause 4(1)(b), where the business assessment would be the same 75 per cent as that of banks.

I know from talking to representatives of credit unions that they accept that they should pay their fair share of taxes. However, I would point out that in the Niagara area we have a range of credit unions. Perhaps the earliest is the Niagara Credit Union Ltd., which was founded in 1944 by Abraham Regier, a grandfather of my wife. It is now the third-largest credit union in Ontario and the ninth largest in Canada, having 66,000 members in the Niagara region, 11 branches and assets of $360 million. This is probably the largest and most business-oriented credit union in the Niagara area and it was founded in the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake many years ago, in 1944, to assist farmers who were having trouble obtaining credit from the then traditional institutions and who banded together to help each other.

We then have a credit union, the Family Savings and Credit Union (Niagara) Ltd., formerly the United Auto Workers Credit Union, which performs a very important service to the financial needs of the people of the greater St. Catharines area. That credit union, although active in the financial field, is probably somewhat less active than the Niagara Credit Union and certainly less so than the chartered banks and trust companies.

The St. Catharines Civic Employees Credit Union is another very large credit union in the area, albeit much less active in the community than both the Niagara Credit Union and the Family Savings and Credit Union. The civic employees credit union is mainly involved in lending money by way of mortgages to its members and receiving deposits from the members. Representatives of that credit union, I am sure, will be telling the committee that they too deserve to be treated differently from the banks and trust companies and should probably be given treatment different from that given the larger, more business-oriented credit unions.

I am pleased this matter will be going to committee so that the credit union movement can make its representations. I know the Treasurer has written to Credit Union Central of Ontario indicating that not all credit unions would be liable for tax and that guidelines would be sent out to regional assessment offices to determine credit unions that might be liable. I assume -- to some degree I am sure -- that further information will be afforded the committee so that the proper determination of what is fair and what is equitable will be obtained.

Perhaps in passing, I could also note comments in a letter from Tom Kline, who represents various farm co-operatives, indicating that farming co-operatives will be hit hard by this act and urging his clients to make representations to a committee. Mr. Kline also pointed out in his letter that as he read the legislation, for example, if a service club operated a nonprofit corporation to provide housing for senior citizens, it now would be subject to business tax. This is another issue on which perhaps the public hearing will clarify, explain and satisfy everyone's concerns.

Those are my submissions.

17:00

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the contributions made by a number of members to a rather interesting piece of legislation. Many members have indicated their desire that the bill go to committee and outside the House so that representations can be made.

I rather fear some incomplete information has circulated about the bill indicating that it is some sort of a tax grab on behalf of the municipalities and changes in the assessment are for that purpose. I can assure members and anyone else who is interested that is not the case. It is designed to remove inequities from assessment for realty purposes and for business tax, which have come into the general law, largely by way of court decision. We all believe in the rule of law, and courts have an important role to play in this connection and will continue to do so even when this piece of legislation is placed on the books in whatever form it finally achieves.

It is designed to correct some situations which were extremely detrimental to municipalities and the taxpayers within them. The inequities that were based on certain court decisions that might have appeared proper, and did appear proper in their own instances, have been expanded through various appeals until exemptions are being granted that provide serious inroads into the assessment base of the municipalities.

We hope the House will give this earnest consideration, as I know it will. I have said a number of times I have no proprietary, defensive attitude towards the wording in the various sections. We have reviewed alternatives, and these are the ones represented by the people who are knowledgeable in the field and who are accustomed to utilizing the assessment procedures, regulations and statutes in a fair and equitable way.

I appreciate that the House is supporting the bill in principle and I look forward to discussions in committee, which I hope will also be productive. I hope the bill will go forward to second reading and that it will then be referred to the standing committee on general government. The member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) is the chairman. He has expressed not only willingness but also eagerness to deal with this matter.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of second reading of the bill will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on general government.

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the 13th report of the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In consultation with the House leaders of the other two parties and others, it has been decided that only a segment of this report should be debated, that being part IV(i). The clerks have advised me the most convenient way to do this would be for the report to be ordered by the House into committee of the whole, where that section could be reviewed and reported back to you, Mr. Speaker. That being the case, I ask everybody's full understanding and support.

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the 13th report of the standing committee on the Ombudsman be referred to committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I suggest to the House that we consider part IV(i) of the recommendation.

Mr. Shymko: I would like to ask the House leader why he would pick only one recommendation of a number of recommendations listed, to the prejudice of other very important cases in the report. Why has this decision been made?

Is the House leader aware that he is setting a precedent whereby reports, instead of being debated in their entirety, are now being picked at random to be discussed on the whim of I do not know whom?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If I may respond, the honourable member would know that the section referred to deals with the famous or infamous Rembrandt home construction difficulties that go back 14 years, that the Ombudsman has made specific recommendations for compensation for the original owners and that there was some thought that it was not fair to delay the specific debate and the possible repayment, if the House so decides.

There are a number of other matters in the report that have not been brought to the attention of the ministers of the crown responsible. However, this one has been, and it has been recommended to the three House leaders that it proceed without further delay. It is my understanding, among the three House leaders, that the report should be reviewed as it pertains to the Rembrandt matter.

My colleagues in the Ministry of Labour and other ministries dealing with some of the sections are not present, but the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) is, and we would like to deal with that, with the permission of the House.

Mr. Shymko: I understand that this does not preclude continued debate on the other recommendations of the entire report at some later stage. I would like to have the House leader note the following, and this is the concern that has been expressed by all the members of the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

As a member of that committee, I believe these views are shared by all of us, namely, that in the presentation and the tabling of this report, the very first statement made by the entire committee is the following, and this report was tabled in the Legislature in December 1984, two years ago: "Regrettably, it has not been debated. Presently, it is not even being debated. Early reports of the select committee were not debated or adopted by the House. The omission prompted some governmental organizations to challenge the authority of the committee's recommendation.

"As the select committee," now the standing committee, "has observed in a number of its reports, failure by the Legislature to debate and, where appropriate, adopt such recommendations can only serve to undermine the effectiveness of the Ombudsman." This is what we are doing today.

"The work and effectiveness of the Ombudsman and the committee, particularly with respect to recommendation-denied cases" -- and there are some very important recommendation-denied cases affecting injured workers -- "would be greatly diminished if organizations knew or believed that the committee reports would not be debated and/or adopted," as they are not fully debated today.

This is the first resolution and demand that this committee made of the government House leader and of all the House leaders and members of this Legislature: "That, accordingly, the committee recommends that the 12th report of the select committee on the Ombudsman, as well as the special report of the committee tabled on January 30, 1986, be debated and adopted by the Legislature at the earliest possible date."

Although we are now, through the agreement of all the House leaders, debating just one isolated recommendation, notwithstanding its importance, what we are doing today is perpetuating what the standing committee has begged him not to do, and that is to remain silent on other very important, equally important recommendations of this committee.

As far as I can read, item 56 in Orders and Notices says, "Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the 13th report of the standing committee on the Ombudsman." When this was printed, I believe the intention was to debate at some stage the entire report. My request, on behalf of all the committee, is not to delay any further the full debate on the entire report, that we allocate some time as early as possible to discuss the other recommendations. That is my concern.

17:10

I and other members of the committee are being prevented today from discussing other very pertinent and important issues affecting injured workers and people who have been denied a resolution. In one case, a person has waited for a resolution for seven years. For seven years, this injured worker has wanted this matter to be debated and his problem to be resolved, and we are pushing this aside, once again, because of giving priority to another concern. Discrimination against one victim is discrimination against all victims.

Mr. Philip: I have heard a lot of silly things in this House, but the arguments by the member who has been a member of the standing committee on the Ombudsman for some time is about the silliest I have heard. It is quite normal to go into committee of the whole House and to deal with one item after another in a report of the Ombudsman's committee. The time happens to be 5:11 p.m., and it is fairly obvious that we are not going to get around to all the items in this report. All the member's House leader and the other two House leaders agreed to is that --

Mr. Shymko: And yours.

Mr. Philip: I said the other two House leaders, if the member would be polite enough to listen to me. I listened to him. All his House leader agreed to is that there were certain home owners out there who wanted to be reimbursed. They have been waiting for a long time, thanks to the intransigence of the previous government in not keeping the promise of the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. They want to be reimbursed, and we can deal with that this afternoon.

As for not dealing with other parts of the report, one of the areas for which we have been pushing for some time that is contained in this report and that will not be dealt with today, but I hope will be dealt with soon, is the special report that was on the motion of the late Jim Renwick. His motion dealt with the right and the obligation of the Ombudsman's committee to deal with certain civil rights, certain infringements of human rights by certain countries.

It was the member's party that refused to have that come forward and be debated in the House. When the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) stands up here and is so self-righteous and attacks his own House leader and the other two House leaders because we want to do something for a few home owners, I find that kind of self-righteousness to be not only ill-informed but in bad taste. I suggest we get on now with the debate on the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association matter.

Mr. Shymko: When statements of silliness are levelled against a member, that may be parliamentary language, but I am really disturbed at it in a committee which since its creation as a select committee and at present as a standing committee has always worked in a nonpartisan fashion. We have never had any partisan type of eloquence, if I can refer to the remarks of my honourable colleague. It is insulting for someone to imply that because a special report on human rights failed to be debated in the last session of this Legislature, that was in some way a reflection on the member for High Park-Swansea, when the member knows very well how hard all members, including myself, worked to have that debate. He knows my position very well. I criticized the reason why it was not debated, even in public. I can quote the Globe and Mail.

For the member to insinuate some form of collusion over the fact that the special report was not debated is insulting to my integrity as a member of this Legislature. It is unfortunate that we have to lower ourselves to the degree of insinuation which was made by my colleague, who knows very well my position on that special report on human rights and how hard I fought the then House leader --

Mr. Breaugh: Of your own party.

Mr. Shymko: --of my own party to have that special report debated. I do not have to listen to insulting remarks from the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip).

Furthermore, the member pretends to be concerned about the workers of Ontario, yet makes insinuations when I raise the recommendation-denied workers' compensation cases. I refer to one that has been around for seven years. This injured worker is suffering from a liver disease because of poisoning from a number of chemicals. If the member does not feel this is as important an issue as the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada and some other recommendations, I challenge him on that. I challenge him on another recommendation-denied case of the Workers' Compensation Board related to compensation on the basis of aggravation of pre-existing degenerative problems.

I refer to many important issues here. If he insinuates that one is silly because one raises the problem of the importance of debating the entire report as urgently and early as possible, I do not know what silliness is.

Mr. Philip: I do not want to prolong the debate on this because it would simply give credibility to the nonsense the member for High Park-Swansea implies.

The fact is, it was the Conservative House leader who did not want the human rights issue to come forward because he could not control it. He wanted it to come forward only if it were the government that was referring a matter to the committee. That was the problem and that is why we have not dealt before with the major part of this report. The member for High Park-Swansea can say he had other views. I am sorry he has so little influence on his party and his caucus that he could not persuade his party otherwise when it was the government.

He suggests that somehow I do not care about workers. There are workers in these homes who were ripped off by the Conservative government. That is what we want to deal with. Let us reimburse them.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If I may intrude in this, I regret to inform the committee that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been called to another meeting. However, our colleague the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) is prepared to speak for him in the matter of Rembrandt homes. With the permission of all members of the House, I would like to proceed with that segment.

I would also like to tell the honourable members that we have requested the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor to attend at 5:50 p.m. to give royal assent to a number of bills that have had third reading and perhaps to two or three others that may have third reading between 5:45 p.m. and 5:50 p.m. , if members get my meaning.

The Deputy Chairman: The Treasurer has suggested that at this time the committee consider only part IV(i). Is there consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: If that is the agreement, then I guess I have no choice but to follow that. Nevertheless, I want to reiterate the concern I have expressed that at some future date we debate the report. I think I have made my point and I will now refer to one of the recommendations.

The recommendation referred for debate today goes back a number of years, as all honourable members are aware. It started in 1971 and 1973 when these homes were being built by a particular builder and purchased as a subdivision in Metropolitan Toronto.

To be brief, so that I may allow my colleague from Etobicoke the opportunity to address this issue, I will simply focus on the recommendations made by the Ombudsman.

Having seriously looked at the issue and at the statements that were made publicly by the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Frank Drea, the Ombudsman was impressed by one fundamental problem. There was an unequivocal promise of assistance to these home owners whose homes were faulty to the degree that some had to pay as much as almost half the cost of the homes to repair roofs and basements. The ministry representatives apparently misunderstood the nature of HUDAC's commitment for assistance, and HUDAC itself apparently misunderstood the minister's expectations. There was a lot of complicated misunderstanding.

17:20

Notwithstanding this, an offer to rectify certain matters was apparently made at some stage by the builder, but the home owners were never made aware of the offer. The offer was simply discussed by the minister in discussions with the builder and was never made available to the home owners. A further complication is that HUDAC did not exist at the time and the minister never communicated the builder's offer.

The facts and the chronology in this issue are very complex, and I do not think any us will venture into the complexity of the issue. The core of the issue is that, as a result of discussions he had with HUDAC, the minister concluded that, with the assistance, he and his ministry could provide the relief these injured home owners had been seeking for a number of years. He publicly said so in no uncertain terms on numerous occasions. Therefore, the Ombudsman has criticized the handling of this issue by the ministry. The criticisms that were labelled, notwithstanding the gesture of the then minister to assist, were the following --

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I wonder whether there is any sense in carrying on this debate since not one minister of the crown is in the Legislature at this time. If they are not interested in the Ombudsman's report, why refer it to us? Why waste the time of the Legislature? It is insulting to the member for High Park-Swansea that there is no minister here to hear the comments of the members of the Legislature.

The Deputy Chairman: The parliamentary assistant is here.

Mr. Shymko: The remark is very appropriate. I do not know the reason the minister is not present. It could be an emergency situation. I do not want to jump to any conclusions. It could be a serious matter. I hope it is a very serious matter that has caused him to leave the House. Notwithstanding the respect I have for the parliamentary assistant, who is present for the minister, I think the point has been made that it is insulting to my colleagues that the minister is not present if the reason for his absence is not serious and is not a matter of emergency.

I want to return to my remarks. Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will hear partisan remarks as we debate this issue. As they say, it is the nature of the beast. There will be a lot of partisan remarks. I will try not to be partisan. I may quote the press and statements made by the president of the home owners' association once in a while, which may be interpreted as partisan, but they will not be.

The former minister sincerely tried to help the home owners. One may criticize the way Frank Drea handled things. He would often shoot from the hip, as the expression goes, and make commitments that later he had to backtrack on and see that the answers, commitments and solutions were not as simple as he thought they were, but his intention was sincerely to help these home owners. Nevertheless, some criticism is to be levelled and has been levelled by the Ombudsman.

First, the ministry omitted to document its commitment from HUDAC, to confirm the commitment with HUDAC in writing. We did not have anything. Second, the ministry was unreasonable, as far as the Ombudsman can see, in omitting to provide HUDAC administrators with a statement of the minister's expectations. It did not do this. Furthermore, the Ombudsman notes that the ministry unreasonably omitted to notify the home owners of the results of HUDAC's inspections as well as written notices of its final disposition of this matter.

These criticisms are fair and just. As members of the committee, notwithstanding our party affiliations, we support the recommendations of the Ombudsman 100 per cent: first, that the minister should reopen the file and review these cases; second, that they should repair the homes that suffered damage and that this should be at no cost to the home owners; third, those who have paid for their own repairs should be compensated; and, finally, the ministry should send some report letters to the home owners as defined, indicating that should they wish to be compensated, they should pursue this with the ministry.

These recommendations are reasonable. They are backed by the committee, and I urge members to support the committee's recommendations in support of the Ombudsman.

Members may interpret this as being partisan, but in concluding my remarks, I would like to use the words of the president of the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association, Mr. Bhatacharya, as quoted in the September 3 issue of the Toronto Star:

"The Liberals, back to former leader Stuart Smith in the mid-1970s, had supported them" -- the home owners -- "in their battle. Now they are in power, they are not prepared to do what they were asking the government of the day to do when they were in opposition."

As the French saying goes, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The surprise of the home owners is that now that a new government has come in, for some reason the same reticence to compensate is evident in the present minister, although the previous minister apparently was willing to alleviate and resolve this matter and publicly said so. I appeal to the minister, who is absent for some unknown reason, and I hope it is for genuine reasons that he is not present, because it is insulting when a minister is not here at such an important stage of a debate on such an important topic. Notwithstanding, I urge the minister to be reasonable in following and accepting these recommendation-denied cases, and this one in particular, as reported by the committee in its 13th report.

Mr. Philip: I am sure that Joe Stalin would have been very appreciative of the talents of the previous member for rewriting history.

Mr. Shymko: I demand an immediate retraction of this remark comparing me to Joseph Stalin.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Will the member for Etobicoke withdraw his remark.

Mr. Philip: I withdraw the remark. I am simply saying the previous member has a strange interpretation of the history of this and a strange interpretation in attacking the present minister and in quoting the president of the home owners' association. I notice he did not quote the earlier statement about the previous minister, who he says was so willing and active in his attempts on the part of the home owners.

The home owners in the subdivision -- and this is from another newspaper, the Globe and Mail, February 16, 1981 -- "thought they had the backing of Frank Drea, Ontario Consumer and Commercial Relations minister, who pledged on a number of occasions that his department would ensure that the repairs were completed. But the home owners fear that he has reneged on his promises." That is how the previous Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations kept his promises.

There are essentially three factors that we see going through this. The first is the essential principle in the debate. A minister must be accountable for his public statements, and his ministry and ministries and governments that follow have to be accountable to the public for those promises and those commitments.

In October 1979, the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations clearly promised the Rembrandt home owners that they would be compensated for their homes and that the problems would be repaired. He did so after consulting with the HUDAC home warranty people at some length.

17:30

The second fact we have to look at is that this government and the previous government have abandoned the responsibility of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations by setting up tribunals controlled by industry which clearly are not in the best interests of the consumers of this province. The HUDAC home warranty program is the worst example, but there have been other examples. The present minister, instead of introducing lemon-aid legislation, as has happened in other jurisdictions to protect car buyers, has set up a similar kind of industry-controlled and manipulated so-called tribunal.

The third fact is that the HUDAC home warranty program simply has not worked. If there is a lesson for the present government, it is that. Yet I see in private members' hour how the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in a very fuzzy and ill-conceived motion, wants somehow to expand the authority of the HUDAC home warranty program.

The problem with the HUDAC home warranty program is not that it should be expanded; it is that it should be abandoned. It has never worked and it has been a bureaucratic nightmare for anybody who has appeared before it. It has been a coercive force against legitimate home owners and legitimate builders who had to deal with it. This is merely another example of how it has failed to operate.

The Ombudsman has recommended that these people be adequately compensated because the minister made a public commitment to them. For the present government to argue, as it has, that the minister was simply acting as the honest broker is a cop-out. This is the same cop-out that this same ministry has been using in talking about the problems drivers have in dealing with the automobile insurance companies, those foreign-dominated companies that charge so much more for automobile insurance in this province.

It is the same kind of system, the same kind of cop-out that it deals out under the consumer protection branch of the ministry when it tells a consumer, "You may be right, but we act as an honest broker and if we do not succeed, then you will have to go to court at your own expense." It is the same kind of cop-out we have seen in the new program that the government is setting up to dealing with the problems of new automobiles.

That simply will not work. At some point, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has to stop being the minister of purely commercial relations and start protecting the consumer. Other provinces have done it and other jurisdictions have done it. It is about time this minister did it. Unfortunately, we have in the presence of this minister someone who is to the right of Sidney Handleman, the most right-wing, conservative Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations we have ever had in this province.

That minister took pride in the fact that he did not do anything, that he held the fort, that nothing moved under his ministry. The home owners of this province, in this instance the Rembrandt home owners, have been waiting far too long for reimbursement, as the previous speaker said. I am pleased this matter has come before us and I am pleased the Ombudsman will have an opportunity to have his recommendation accepted by the House.

There is a point that has to be made because we will be dealing with this in the House at some time in the not-too-distant future. The interesting thing is that if HUDAC had made the promise directly and reneged, we probably would not have had an opportunity to debate it because there is a problem as to the authority the Ombudsman would like to have over the home warranty program and the fact that he does not now have that authority. In this case, luckily, it was the minister, Mr. Drea, who went public with the promise and not the home warranty program, or we would have not been able to deal with it.

I urge the members to vote for this section of the report. It is quite common for us to deal with a report in parts and vote on each individual section. Delaying this section so we can debate the whole report means that working people who have been ripped off, who have paid good money for homes and have not had those homes delivered, will lose the money that is owing to them. I urge the members of the House to vote in favour of this recommendation of the Ombudsman. It is a good recommendation. It has been before our committee far too long. It is about time it was passed by the House.

Mr. Offer: As has been indicated, the facts with respect to this matter and which gave rise to this matter are well known. Previous ministers' positions are well known to all members of this House and the resolution we are dealing with is well known to all and has been indicated to us clearly. In this matter, we have to adjust ourselves to certain issues such as these questions: Should there be payment and, if so, who and what is to be covered? How is it to be handled? Should there be a contribution from the Ontario new home warranty plan?

There was no provincial regulatory responsibility for the Rembrandt homes, all of which received appropriate municipal and other inspections at the time of construction. The Ontario Building Code and the Ontario new home warranty plan were not passed until several years later. The homes in question are selling at current market value, which is about $100,000 above the original purchase price.

The Ombudsman's position that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations should repair any substantial or major structural defects in the homes relating to the original construction is based on a minister's unconditional promise that this would be done. In fact, the minister's statements did not create a legal liability and the home owners have chosen not to pursue the builder in the courts. The Ombudsman, lacking jurisdiction with respect to anything other than the ministry, appears to have used the ministry as his vehicle for resolving grievances between third parties.

Complying with the wishes of the Ombudsman and the standing committee on the Ombudsman would create a significant precedent, both of responsibility in the absence of regulatory authority and of retroactive responsibility. I ask the members to take into consideration that this will affect not only this ministry, which must mediate difficult situations on a daily basis, but also other ministries.

Mr. McClellan: The government spokesperson has provoked me to a brief comment because I have been acting as an advocate for the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association for a number of years. I was preceded by Phil Givens, Margaret Campbell --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Phil Givens?

Mr. McClellan: Phil Givens, I know, is one of the minister's favourite human beings. Margaret Campbell --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Another one.

Mr. McClellan: --is another one. Stuart Smith is yet another.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yet another; three in a row.

Mr. McClellan: While they were in opposition, and I think somebody cited the Orland French article, the Liberals were very enthusiastic in their support of the cause of the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association.

17:40

The facts are very simple. Leaving aside all the gobbledegook that the spokesperson for the bureaucracy has just put on the record, these people were ripped off by a developer, and the government of Ontario made promises and commitments. A number of these were made in my presence, both at meetings at the head office of the ministry and in the standing committee of this Legislature. Promises were made by the government of Ontario to take certain actions to compensate these people, and these promises have been broken.

While they were in opposition, the members of the Liberal Party supported the position that the government of Ontario should honour its promises and commitments. Now that they are in office, we get the same kind of mindless parroting of the excuses of bureaucrats that led to the downfall of the previous government. People expect that when a government makes promises it will honour its promises, and that is all this issue is about.

We have an opportunity to vote in support of the recommendation of the select committee to uphold the decision of the Ombudsman to find a means of redress.

I have a flash from the front that indicates I may have maligned my colleagues unfairly. I have never done that before. I would find it unbelievable and incredible if the government were to oppose this recommendation.

Mr. McNeil: As the chairman of the standing committee on the Ombudsman, I feel I should make a few remarks. We were informed that this was a case regarding homes that were purchased between 1971 and 1973, when the builder refused to respond to complaints from owners about deficiencies in the homes.

Here is a little of the history. In 1978, a petition from 365 home owners was presented to the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Frank Drea, and the minister made public commitments to the home owners that deficiencies would be repaired. For example, during his attendance on October 10, 1979, before the standing committee on the administration of justice, he said:

"I have worked out an arrangement whereby all those homes will be repaired....they will be brought up to standard....I would like to get those homes repaired by the end of the year if possible. But it will be done at no cost to the home owner."

On October 12, he said:

"The arrangement I have worked out is that the deficiencies will be remedied, whatever the deficiencies are....somebody would be brought in at their convenience, free of charge to them, the place would be rectified up to the present standard....

"You put it in place exactly as though it had been covered by the HUDAC home warranty program."

The committee has recommended that "the ministry reopen its file on the matter and take whatever steps are necessary to review the HUDAC and related inspection reports for those houses which are owned by persons who originally filed a deficiency list and who are still interested in some form of assistance from the ministry." The committee stated that it shall be the home owners' association's responsibility to advise the ministry of the names of these persons.

The second recommendation the committee made is as follows:

"Following this review, the ministry, at no cost to the homeowners, pay or cause payment to be made for the repair of those homes which have suffered damage as a result of a major structural defect relating to original construction or in which there exist substantial defects relating to original construction as reflected in the HUDAC inspection reports.

"If any of the above-noted home owners have repaired damage caused by major structural defects relating to original construction, or any substantial defects relating to original construction, as reflected in the HUDAC reports, then these home owners should be compensated for their actual repair costs.

"In the committee's opinion, the ministry should seek contribution and/or indemnity from HUDAC for the cost of these repairs. The committee has concluded that HUDAC's actions have in some measure caused or contributed to the ministry's predicament and to the statements made by the minister wherein he made commitments to the home owners."

As a member of the committee, I strongly urge the members to support the recommendations that were made by the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

The Deputy Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question on this recommendation? Shall the recommendation in part IV(i) carry?

Motion agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported a certain recommendation.

TOWNSHIP OF MARA ACT

Mr. McCague, on behalf of Mr. McLean, moved second reading of Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Township of Mara.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CEDARHURST GOLF CLUB ACT

Mr. McCague, on behalf of Mr. Stevenson, moved second reading of Bill Pr22. An Act to revive Cedarhurst Golf Club.

Motion, agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. JEROME'S COLLEGE ACT

Ms. E. J. Smith, on behalf of Mr. Epp, moved second reading of Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the University of St. Jerome's College.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, His Honour has indicated his desire to come into the chamber to give royal assent.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 12, An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act;

Bill 24, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act;

Bill 27, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act;

Bill 28, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act;

Bill 32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act;

Bill 70, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act;

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Legal Aid Act;

Bill 130, An Act to repeal the Gold Clauses Act;

Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Township of Mara;

Bill Pr22, An Act to revive Cedarhurst Golf Club;

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the University of St. Jerome's College.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There have been some minor amendments to the work for tomorrow. A number of members, including opposition members, are finding it inconvenient to do the bills that were previously scheduled. However, we have agreed to proceed tomorrow with Bill 72 and Bill 128 and, if time remains, we will continue with the estimates of the Treasurer.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

4 novembre 1986