Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

AFTERNOON SITTING

OFFICE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS' AFFAIRS

CONTENTS

Tuesday 19 February 1991

Ministry of the Environment

Afternoon sitting

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC)

Vice-Chair: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)

Hansen, Ron (Lincoln NDP)

Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)

McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)

Ward, Margery (Don Mills NDP)

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)

Substitutions:

Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North L) for Mr McGuinty

Coppen, Shirley (Niagara South NDP) for Mr Perruzza

Cousens, W. Donald (Markham PC) for Mr Carr

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP) for Mr Lessard

Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West L) for Mr McGuinty

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP) for Ms M. Ward

Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre NDP) for Mr G. Wilson

Villeneuve, Noble (Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry PC) for Mr Carr

Ward, Brad (Brantford NDP) for Ms M. Ward

Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP) for Mr G. Wilson

Clerk: Carrozza, Franco

Staff: Campbell, Elaine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1007 in room 228.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

The Chair: I call to order the standing committee on estimates. We have two and a half hours remaining to be completed this morning. When we last were together, the government party had about five minutes left in their questioning round.

I would just like to indicate that there has been an informal agreement to proceed with a 40-minute time slot starting with the Conservatives, then the Liberals, then the government. If there are no objections to that arrangement, we will proceed on that basis. Seeing none, thank you. Ms Haslam.

Ms Haslam: I would like clarification on that. What informal agreement was there?

Mr Cousens: I discussed it with Sean Conway. To me, the 15 minutes is just too broken up for us, and the Liberals and the Conservatives are prepared to go for 40-minute slots. You can do what you want to in that 40 minutes, and then at the end it will be 12 noon and we can close down.

Mr Hansen: I have one question. Is Dr Chant appearing this morning?

Mr Posen: No. There was no request yesterday.

The Chair: There was a request to make an inquiry. Did you make an inquiry?

Mr Posen: Yes, but he is unavailable this morning. We have certainly asked staff to be here.

Ms Haslam: I would prefer the procedure that we now go through, because I like to come up with some supplementary questions and can follow through on some ideas from both the third party and from the opposition.

The Chair: Your concerns are noted but I have two-party consensus at this point, so I would like to proceed, if I could recognize you, Ms Haslam, to begin questioning.

Ms Haslam: I want to go back, if possible, to the information that we were given regarding the setting up of waste disposal units in municipalities. I have a concern and I have an interest in this particular area. I am not sure where we found it in the estimates, but I would like some figures again on the waste disposal departments and how the municipalities can set them up.

I have a number of constituents who are very interested. They have written to me to ask what efforts are being made to develop permanent solutions to dispose of these things without damage to our land and our water. I have a newspaper article that is indicating that in Usborne township and Blanshard township people are coming a day at a time and there were so many that they had to be turned away.

I wanted to know whether there would be some increase in this area so that municipalities could have a better chance of setting up some of these disposal units. Is that the direction? I would like to see if there is going to be a direction towards some additional funding in this area. Is there going to be additional help for municipalities in this area? What do you see as being available so that people can actually set these things up?

Mr Posen: We are talking about household hazardous waste, and Mr Wong explained yesterday what the grant program was in the ministry. We certainly had some discussions and are doing some work internally as to what is the most cost-effective and environmentally efficient way of dealing with those issues. Gerry, is Hardy here this morning?

Mr Ronan: No, Hardy is not back.

The Chair: Please come forward to the microphone so the Hansard can record all your comments.

Mr Ronan: Gerry Ronan, environmental services division. Hardy Wong, the director of our waste management branch, received that question yesterday and, as he indicated in his response, he is trying to dig up all the relevant information. He detailed the whole range of approaches from a single day, from half days, and the effort has been to tailor it to the size of the community and the infrastructure in the community, and he indicated that there is a range of funding available.

I think his commitment is to provide you with all the information you require in terms of your community and whether, if there is a specific request or concern with the size and the advice and the technical infrastructure, you had a staff available who would try to tailor the proposed approach to the infrastructure resource. By that I mean whether you have a local public works yard, municipal yard, whether it is a site that you have to acquire, so it could be a range of costs, as he indicated, from $100 to $15,000.

The intent is to provide that to you, through the committee Chair, as soon as possible. I expect that within a day or two we will have that information, and then there will be a further follow-up to explore individually with you your concerns about your local community to try to tailor the approach to fit the need that has been defined.

Ms Haslam: What I am asking, though, is when you are looking towards the future, can I see an increase in this particular area?

Mr Castel: André Castel, corporate resources division. I think the member has asked for three different programs that we have.

First, we have a financial assistance program which provides capital grants to municipalities for new waste sites. The budget for this particular item for 1990-91 is $9 million, and this is an increase of $1 million over the previous year.

We also have another program that I believe you are asking about, which is the waste management improvement program. These are grants to municipalities to improve existing waste sites with environmental problems. The budget for this particular item of the budget is $3.25 million, which is a very small increase over last year of approximately $100,000.

Then there is the hazardous waste collection program, and this has a budget of $200,000 a year. This program is again to provide grants to municipalities to collect hazardous waste like the toxic taxi that was indicated yesterday.

Ms Haslam: Two hundred thousand dollars a year in that particular thing, and that covers all the municipalities?

Mr Castel: It covers a number of municipalities that have taken advantage of this program. We have not been spending the $200,000 actually, but it covers a number of municipalities that have taken advantage. If the demand exceeds the amount of funding that is available, then we can always make adjustments because there is some flexibility between these various components of the budget.

Ms Haslam: Okay, I will -- you go ahead.

Mr Hansen: Could I say on that I think --

The Chair: Is it a supplementary?

Mr Hansen: Yes, it is actually on the same point.

The Chair: Go through the Chair, because I wish to recognize Mr O'Connor first for a question.

Mr Hansen: On that $15,000, I have not got the figures in front of me but I think it cost St Catharines $60,000 on their collection. Now what happens if there is money left in that fund? Could it be possibly more than $15,000 that municipalities --

Mr Castel: I will give you the criteria.

The Chair: I think in fairness, Mr Castel, the question is, if there is money left in the fund, can it be transferred, as opposed to the criteria?

Mr Castel: I thought the question was if you could provide more than $15,000.

The Chair: Yes, and if you did not spend the whole fund, if it could be transferred. That is what I understood the two aspects of the question to be.

Mr Castel: The maximum for any one project is $15,000.

Mr O'Connor: The question I have is something that has been raised in my constituency -- it is a concern that I think goes back actually to the past administration, the previous government -- that is, a backlog as far as new subdivisions and hydrogeology reports and stuff. This here delay that small builders and contractors are facing, of course, now puts them under an added financial strain because of the GST that is placed upon a lot of services that they provide and the goods that they buy. Is there any way that we can speed up this process and still keep within the parameters of making sure that the approvals are environmentally correct?

Mr Posen: This has been an ongoing challenge to us over the last few years. I think the facts of the situation are that the number of demands on our approvals branch, both centrally and in the regions, has continued to grow faster than we can provide the personnel in either of those units. That has been a difficulty we have been addressing over the last couple of years by trying to strengthen the approvals branch to speed up the pace of approvals. That is one set of problems.

The other set of problems is simply that we are having great difficulty competing in the marketplace for hydrogeologists, who are in scarce supply generally. The private consultants are outbidding us for hydrogeologists and, in effect, as we look around the consulting community, we can almost point out the number of people who have left the ministry and are now working in the private sector. We have been unable to resolve that problem, and that has certainly slowed things down. The hydrogeologists, I should note, are in demand at Environmental Assessment Board hearings, at OMB hearings, and often are sitting there waiting to give their evidence and have to be in attendance and therefore are not available to do the kind of report review that developers and municipalities would like to see them do. Those are the two sets of demands on us.

A couple of thoughts: One is, and this I guess is a kind of ironic comment, in a sense we have not seen the momentum slow down yet as a result of the recession, but it will in terms of the demand and that will allow us to catch up. Obviously that is a cyclical solution, not a structural solution to the problem. We have been talking to Management Board about salary levels to see if we can compete and treat them as specialists, and we may be able to move a little better there.

We have been considering internally by what means we can delegate to municipalities some of the approval functions for certain standard functions where they would not be in a conflict situation in providing that kind of approval. If we can do that, that may take some of the pressure off ourselves. Obviously municipalities would be only interested in doing that if there was some kind of financial incentive which meant that they found themselves at least no worse off for taking on that function.

Mr O'Connor: Do you think they would have capabilities of actually doing that then? Is your ministry going to come up with the ultimate approval, or are you saying to pass that on to the municipality to have that?

Mr Posen: We have already delegated certain functions to municipalities and there are others that could be delegated. It certainly has worked with the larger municipalities that have planning and engineering departments where we know they have the capability to provide that kind of overview and approval. Erv, do you want to comment any further?

Mr McIntyre: Erv Mclntyre, approvals and engineering division. What the deputy has been speaking of is we have been looking at the aspects of the items that we could delegate that the municipality is probably closer to, where they have the technical capability to do the work; for instance, if you are looking at a subdivision, at whether or not there is enough ground water there to satisfy the needs of the subdivision type of thing.

This tends to be a very local thing, and if the municipality has within its engineering department a hydrogeologist who is looking after the monitoring of wells from the landfill site or something, there is no particular reason why that person could not be also doing the review of the hydrogeology and the hydrology of the available water resources in the area, to be able to determine in fact, again hypothetically, that a development could occur without there being any interference to the other people in the area and without depleting the resource that is in the area. That would greatly simplify the activity that is going on. The deputy has spoken of the fact that municipalities are loath to take on these activities where they do not have a manner of reimbursement, and we are trying to figure out how we could do that.

Mr O'Connor: Is there any way of having a check done, when you do pass responsibilities on to a municipality, to ensure that it is being done? What is the possibility of private consultants moving in that field and having the municipality react to the consultants?

Mr McIntyre: Checks, of course, could be set up on quite a random basis. You could say one of every three, I will do or one of every 10, I will do. I will just have one of our hydrogeologists look at every 10th one to see whether we would agree with the conclusion that was reached by the municipality. That is just a random check basis. It works everywhere as a reasonably effective way. Auditors operate in this fashion.

There is no reason not to use the private sector also, other than the fact of the money involved. I think we are all aware that private sectors carry a lot of fees with them, which makes it more attractive where you have a number of these to have a staff member doing the work.

The Chair: That is quite a bureaucratic opinion, is it not? I have Mr Lessard as well, unless you have much more.

Mr O'Connor: Just very briefly, is there any way of checking the final outcome that a consultant would maybe put forward to make sure that that is going to be okay?

Mr McIntyre: Again, on a random basis you could do that. We find that the professions and the business, of course, are trying to protect their reputations because that is how they continue in business. Other than an outright error, which any human will make from time to time, I do not think there is likely to be much slanting of these activities, if that is what you are suggesting.

Mr O'Connor: If their approvals still come back then to the ministry.

Mr McIntyre: Sure.

Hon Mrs Grier: Can I just intervene briefly, Mr Chair? First of all, let me apologize for being late. I am sorry. I was at an event that was a partnership between four levels of government, and the speeches were all longer than anybody had told me they might be.

I want to make a claim that when we talk about working something out with the municipalities, it is not just another function that we are seeing devolving to municipalities and their picking up the costs. It is looking at how we can in fact both do this effectively and make sure that the environment is protected and the right decisions are reached, and also cutting down on duplication of review, which is part of the expediting of the approvals process I was talking about yesterday.

We often get a proponent or a municipality saying: "Look, we have been all through this. We're satisfied that there is not a problem." Then we are sort of duplicating some of that work. I do not want to be clear-cut and hard and fast at this point, because I certainly have to be assured that there is not any lessening of environmental standards as we begin to look at more creative ways of doing things and involving our partners at the municipal level.

Mr Lessard: My question relates to an item that is on page 42, environmental services and environmental research, and has to do with the environmental technology fund. I have not heard any discussion of that fund so far during this hearing. It indicates that the budget would be increased from $2 million to $8 million, which is a pretty substantial increase, and obviously reflects a dramatic change in philosophy of the previous minister. I am wondering what that fund was going to or is going to be used for and whether you, as a minister, support those initiatives as well.

Hon Mrs Grier: I do, but let André explain some of the details of the funding and maybe I can comment on our views of it.

Mr Castel: The environmental technology fund is a $30-million fund that was supposed to be spent over a period of five years. Let me explain, if I may, what led to the establishment of the fund.

We did an environmental study in the ministry on the pollution abatement industry in Ontario and we discovered that it is a very vibrant industry. It does business in excess of $2 billion a year and employs 28,000 people, which is more than the clothing industry, as an example, employs. It is a vibrant industry, but very few exports were being done, so this fund was established to look at those industries and encourage them to export and to see what pollution abatement equipment is necessary for Ontario, for Canada, and for export, because some of the pollution abatement equipment, for example, being used in Ontario is imported from the United States. So this fund was to encourage industry, to participate with industry to develop the technologies that are essential for us, but also to encourage exports, because there are tremendous possibilities in this area for exports.

It was, I believe, established a year ago, and we have been drawing on the $30 million as the need arises. We now have a very large number of applications being reviewed by the ministry. We also have an interministerial committee that decides on the funding and on the merit of each application.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me just expand on that. I think it is a very worthwhile program. For example, the kinds of programs that have been put in place such as MISA require technological innovation and development of new techniques, so the fund is designed to some degree to stimulate and spur that activity. I think it has also enormous opportunities for, as André has said, developing an export market and replacing some of the lost industrial sectors in Ontario's economy with a pollution abatement sector.

Finally, one of the things that has been spurred by this has been a technology transfer conference where people -- industry and the scientists and the researchers -- meet to look at practical applications of the kinds of projects that are being funded out of this and other grant programs. So I am very pleased with this program, because it is sort of industrial development and practical applications of the technology that are being focused upon.

Mr Lessard: This seems to be one of those areas where there is a multiministerial or across-the-department involvement. What other ministries might be involved in this fund?

Mr Castel: The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and Treasury are on the committee.

Mr Lessard: Can you give us an idea of some success stories or some of the types of technology that we have been involved in?

Mr Castel: I have a list of projects that were funded that I could bring to your attention, if you would like, but the other thing I would like to point out is that this is a program that also shows some of the benefits of environmental control. What is always considered when we come to environmental control are the costs of control and we do not take into consideration the benefits. What the ministry is doing now is that we have a team of economists who estimate the benefits of environmental control, which in a lot of cases are either equal to or surpass the costs. This is something we try to explain to industry when it has to spend money on environmental protection, that there are benefits, tremendous benefits for the environment but also social benefits. This is what we try to bring up.

Regarding some of the projects that have been funded, I will have to refer to my notes, if I may.

1030

The Chair: Do you know a good joke? Hum a few bars. Just to break the silence briefly, perhaps Ms Haslam might follow up on her line of questioning with respect to household waste disposal and the fund from the government. How many communities applied this year and did not have access, as it is a finite amount of dollars? I am very fortunate in Halton, because we have one a month and I now learn that we get 50% funding from the province and 50% from the local tax base. But will all the moneys in those three programs you raised be expended this year?

Ms Haslam: Are you asking my question for me, Mr Chair?

The Chair: No. I thought you had asked that. You were on that line of questioning and I did not hear the answer to that. But in the interests of estimates, I think we would like to determine if this is an area where we did not spend all the money allocated, and how does that square with the demand from communities who want to do the program?

Ms Haslam: I have a couple of letters from communities. This one was written to the Ministry of the Environment in September, and it is regarding hazardous waste and used tires and the tipping fees and so on. It says: "I am writing to inquire if the ministry has grants available for programs for these pollutants. I would also like to know if the ministry has programs as to how to dispose of hazardous waste and used tires."

I am talking about small townships here. I know that in Stratford -- Stratford is my major city and it is right now in the process of applying to the ministry because it wants to set up one of these depots for hazardous waste, and I get letters saying: "We did it one day. The lineups were so bad." I am questioning $200,000 a year. It does not seem like a lot when it seems the demand is out there for these depots. Perhaps it is a situation of one of these small townships saying: "What is available? What do you have out there?" I am not saying they have not done their job in looking into it, but sometimes these small communities do need some help in finding out what is available for them to make use of some of the money that is available.

The question is very good, Mr Jackson. If there is excess money out of $200,000 -- if only $200,000 a year is in this program and you actually did not spend it all, then I would like to know how many applied for it and why was it not all spent? If I have communities in my county asking for information on it, I would like to know how much is left in that and how many applied for it, and is anybody ever turned down and on what criteria they were turned down for use of this fund?

The Chair: Mr Castel, you returned with some information for Mr Lessard, first, and then --

Mr Castel: The information is going to be here within an hour. I have asked for it.

The Chair: Very good. So we will move beyond Mr Lessard's line of questioning. Did you hear the essence of Ms Haslam's question?

Mr Castel: Yes. I think what I was going to explain yesterday is that in the waste management area, particularly in the 3Rs, we have a budget of approximately $54 million. There is some flexibility within the various components of waste management. For example, for the hazardous waste collection program there is $200,000 earmarked based on the demand that the staff is aware of, but if there are applications from municipalities that exceed the $200,000, then there is flexibility to move money from other components. Really, it is a question of demand. I cannot answer how many projects were turned down, but as far as I can tell the projects that were turned down were simply because possibly they did not meet the criteria for funding.

Ms Haslam: What are the criteria?

Mr Posen: André, Hardy Wong is here.

Mr Castel: I have it, actually. First of all, the objectives of the program are to reduce household hazardous waste disposal to sanitary sewers, to assist in determining an environmentally superior method of managing household hazardous waste, to reduce the potential of injuries to refuse collection and disposal workers, to increase public awareness of hazardous waste issues, and to aid in the development of a sustainable long-term strategy for management of this waste. The eligibility criteria are that any municipality establishing a household hazardous waste collection program or project is eligible for financial assistance, and municipalities are prioritized on the basis of health and environmental concerns in their area. The ministry provides up to 50% of the operating cost to the municipality as a grant, and the maximum grant payment is $15,000.

Those are the criteria we assess these applications on, and if there are applications that qualify based on the merit, there is flexibility in the funding. The funding has not been an issue.

The Chair: Can I put a fine point on that? I am sorry to interject, but you said it is open-ended. Does that mean there is no cap on this program, that all a municipality has to do is apply and it is eligible? Ms Haslam was trying to get at whether we spend all the moneys. We are almost finished this year's estimates. We have a month and a bit to go. Did you spend all this money, and were there any applications turned down? The committee would like a sense of that.

Mr Castel: We have not spent the $200,000 yet.

The Chair: For this full year?

Mr Wong: Hardy Wong, director, waste management branch. If I may add to what André said, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a request from a municipality rejected based on the grounds that there was a shortage of funds. The only times we reject, most cases we reject are that in our opinion several municipalities can group together to run a much more efficient system together, one household hazardous waste day; they insist on having three at about the same time, because most happen in the spring and fall, and they are very close by and we encourage them to do it together. Again, that was not the last reason for dispute, that we did not always come to a consensus and agreement that something worked out to have one event be launched, that sort of case.

I can always get you information as to exactly this year how many applied, how many were funded and what the actual expenditure was and if there is any money left at all.

Ms Haslam: That is fine. That is what I asked for.

The other thing you are talking about is the one-day event. I am also talking about the long-term project. I would like to know how many long-term hazardous waste projects were funded this year also.

Mr Wong: I can also get you that information, but I know total in the last two and a half years, I think, we have 12. I indicated to the committee yesterday that 12 municipalities in this province have already established permanent depots. This is what the ministry has been encouraging the municipalities to do, setting up a permanent one on an ongoing basis.

The Chair: Mr Hansen has a quick question. There are only a couple of minutes left.

Mr Castel: I was just going to add that perhaps the previous year's expenditures would give an idea to the committee of how much is being spent for this program. In 1988-89 we spent $298,000 and in 1989-90 $341,846, so we have exceeded the $200,000 ceiling in the last two years.

The Chair: That is very helpful.

Hon Mrs Grier: Can I just pick up on that? My understanding of some of the difficulty is that the municipalities have to then commit themselves to an ongoing program and to some operating funds. Our funding is really start-up and incentive funding, so the municipalities are more inclined to do a one-day, one-shot thing, because that will be covered by us, than get into a long-term program.

Mr Castel: That is correct. The municipalities have to provide 50% of the funding.

Hon Mrs Grier: Right, which is sometimes the impediment to us disposing of all of our funds.

Mr Hansen: That was actually my idea, the first question, that if there were funds left over at the end of the year municipalities that actually got swamped with toxic waste -- in other words, say it is $15,000, they figured it would cost $30,000 when it is going to cost $60,000 and it is outside their budget. That was one thing.

I have had some complaints from people who live in my riding. They tore down a building which had paint on bricks and built a driveway, and now the ministry is after them, fining them, plus to have all these bricks with paint on removed. Is there anything in the process with municipalities, on a permit of tearing down the building, where actually rules and regulations of the ministry are told to the persons who are demolishing a particular building? It seems to be that after the fact, all of a sudden, you find out you broke a rule and now you are going to get fined. This is what I hear coming back from the ministry all the time, "But I didn't know." Is there anything in the process or an education program out there with municipalities so that people know ahead of time?

1040

Mr Wong: That particular case I am not aware of. I understand why the problem might happen. It is a general provision in regulation 309 which defines what is hazardous waste and what is not hazardous waste and what is not a waste. There are basically three types of material defined by the EPA. In this case, I assume from the scenario that the contaminated bricks have been defined as a waste rather than non-waste; non-waste we call inert fill in regulation 309 on EPA. I assume that, in the opinion of the district officer, the contaminated bricks should be defined as waste and as such that the material could not be used for roadbed construction purposes. That is probably the reason. I am guessing from the story you are describing.

Regulation 309 was introduced in 1985. Prior to the introduction of regulation 309 was a full year of applying 309 as a guideline in the field. After one year as an application, that regulation was incorporated into the regulation format. Again, before 1984-85, used as the one year, there was for about 9 or 10 months a public communication program; extensive, 68 seminars being held across the province from Cornwall to Kenora, many sessions being held and educational programs. Of course, no matter what kind of public communication program there is, there are always gaps and people are still not aware of the regulatory requirements. But we are speaking of a regulatory requirement which has been the requirement for the last six years.

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly have had the same situation in my own constituency, which is that when a demolition permit is issued for something it is issued by the municipality, and it does not necessarily check with the ministry to say, "Are there any environmental problems?" and they do not have the capability themselves or the interest in saying, "Hey, this may be a problem." If it is a major plant demolition, then it comes under decommissioning guidelines, but, again, that is voluntary and there is no mechanism.

I spoke to my own municipality about whether it would, every time it got an application for a demolition permit, advise the ministry, and it was reluctant to do that. I think that is one of those areas between the ministry and the municipalities as (a) we become more conscious that you cannot just tear down a building and use something that may be contaminated in another way without creating secondary problems, and (b) as people become more conscious that what they picked up from a waste site is perhaps hazardous and ought not to be reused to build a garden shed, it is one of those areas that now falls between the cracks, so we have to start looking at it.

Mr Hansen: I agree with you completely. This was a volunteer job of tearing down an old church; it was with a licensed contractor but a volunteer basis.

Hon Mrs Grier: Again, that is exactly the kind of issue where I think, quite frankly, it is more appropriate that we help the municipalities, which are on the spot, which have to issue the demolition permits, with information about what they should watch for. I heard a frightening story of somebody who, in their summer area, had gone into an old mine site and taken materials that were just left lying to build a dock, and they turned out to have been contaminated. People are becoming more conscious of the dangers of doing that, but in a formal way, in cities, there is not a way of getting the information through. I agree it is something we need to look at.

The Chair: I would like to move now to Mr Cousens, by prior agreement.

Mr Cousens: If I can follow through, I did ask the ministry yesterday, and the minister indicated there would be some response forthcoming on the biochemical waste, biomedical waste and so on.

Hon Mrs Grier: Right. Mr Jackson of the ministry is here.

Mr Cousens: That is good. There are a couple of questions I would like to raise and just put on the table, and maybe there can be quick answers.

Hon Mrs Grier: Oh, that would be nice.

Mr Cousens: It would be an amazing moment.

Ms Haslam: It would be more amazing if they were quick questions.

Mr Cousens: I will try.

Hon Mrs Grier: Wait until you have heard the answers before you comment on the questions.

Mr Cousens: A doctor in Hamilton is not indicating that AIDS is the cause of death, and so therefore funeral directors can receive and pick up remains that could have died from a number of causes. Toronto General Hospital will no longer indicate whether a corpse died of hepatitis or whether it was quarantined. Corpses are no longer typecast in any way.

Hon Mrs Grier: Did they say infectious without specifying the nature of the infection?

Mr Cousens: There is no indication of the infection or the degree of infection or whatever now on corpses from the Toronto General Hospital. That is not true of all hospitals, but it is true of the Toronto General Hospital. It is also true that anything that comes with the body, the body wrap and any other materials, is considered hazardous waste, and so therefore that is something the funeral director has to look after once he has received the body.

Now we get to the situation of what happens with the hazardous waste that funeral directors have, and I understand there is not an Ontario-based organization to look after this. Could the ministry indicate if there is an Ontario-based medical waste disposal place? Otherwise I guess everything goes through the Decom Medical Waste System, where this waste is looked after in Quebec. Is that true?

Hon Mrs Grier: Will you introduce yourself for the record and try to handle that one.

Mr M. Jackson: I am M. B. Jackson, counsel at the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Cousens: Do you know the answer to the Decom part?

Mr Conway: I did not hear that. Legal counsel to the ministry?

Mr M. Jackson: Yes. One of the lawyers in the legal services branch of the Ministry of the Environment.

Regulation 309 under the Environmental Protection Act requires that the hazardous waste be manifested and picked up by people who have certificates of approval to operate hazardous waste management systems. Decom is the major one in the province -- I do not know whether it is the only one; Mr Wong may be able to answer that -- that picks up waste from funeral homes.

Mr Cousens: What waste is picked up then from funeral homes? I guess the question I have is, why is blood not picked up?

Mr M. Jackson: Blood can be picked up. However, under the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act of 1989, which is administered by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the regulations under that act require the funeral home to have equipment to decontaminate liquid wastes. The infectious liquids are treated with disinfecting agents, embalming fluid or Javex before they are discharged to municipal sewers or septic tanks.

Mr Cousens: So it is a clear statement then that blood waste, after it has supposedly received this chemical disinfection process, will end up in the sewer system and is not picked up along with the other contaminated waste.

Mr M. Jackson: It is up to the funeral director to determine which method of waste disposal he uses, shipping it as a hazardous waste or first rendering it into a nonhazardous waste by disinfecting it and then using either a sewage system --

Mr Cousens: The province has no standard on what happens with blood waste?

Mr M. Jackson: Yes.

Mr Cousens: But has no way of making sure that all funeral directors would follow that procedure.

Hon Mrs Grier: That is what the new legislation last year was precisely designed to do, to give the authority to the funeral directors and the regulation under that legislation provides for how they dispose of it.

Mr Cousens: Why is blood waste not picked up along with other hard waste?

Mr M. Jackson: Because it is not hazardous waste if it is disinfected.

Mr Cousens: Is this true of AIDS virus, hepatitis virus and other viruses? Is it absolutely certain that this is the case?

Mr M. Jackson: The Ministry of Health has issued information with respect to the AIDS virus that indicates it does not survive outside the human body for any extended period of time, and if it is also subjected to treatment it will survive an even shorter period of time.

Mr Cousens: What are the guidelines? I guess I would like to see a copy of them circulated, the guidelines for fluid waste and solid waste. Are there regulations and other matters that tie into that?

1050

Mr Wong: I am Hardy Wong, director of waste management branch. All funeral homes in Ontario are registered with the province under the requirement of regulation 309 as a hazardous waste generator, and when those materials are shipped offsite and it is defined as pathological waste and biomedical waste, they will be using the manifest system under regulation 309 for the cradle-to-grave monitoring. We certainly can provide the biomedical waste management guidelines both for within hospitals and other health care institutions, for solid waste including sharps and equipment as well as fluid materials.

Mr Cousens: What is the way in which fluid wastes are handled from all labs and hospitals? Are they treated in the same way as funeral director licensed centres?

Mr Wong: They are treated by the regulatory requirements under 309. As long as they are pathological wastes as defined by reg 309, no matter what sources they come from, whether it is from lab or hospitals or funeral homes, they are dealt with in the same way.

Mr Cousens: Is there any risk to society when some of these fluid wastes are put in the sewer without being pre-treated?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the Ministry of Health has guidelines that are followed. I am not sure that we are able to make a judgement on the --

Mr Cousens: I am asking a question, Minister, because I am saying, are there any dangers to society -- you as minister and your staff should have an answer on this -- when fluid wastes go into the sewer system without being pre-treated?

The Chair: Is there a water quality person on staff present who can answer water quality matters?

Hon Mrs Grier: Under regulation 309, if it is a hazardous waste, I am confident there is no danger to society in the way in which it is treated.

Mr Cousens: That is not the question I asked. I asked the question, does society have any concerns about untreated fluid waste that would come from either labs, hospitals or funeral directors? I want to know what risk that poses because the present system that you have described, and is being described here by your legal counsel and Mr Wong, would indicate that there is a system, but if there is some place -- lab, hospital or funeral director -- who does not follow the guidelines you have just described, then the fluid waste will end up in the municipal system. I want to know if there is any risk for AIDS, hepatitis or other infectious diseases to be carried in that way. I would just like to know that.

Hon Mrs Grier: Every time any generator of waste fails to obey the guidelines there is a risk to the environment, whether it be sewage, whether it be body waste, whether it be chemical waste, and the regulations are designed to make sure that those are treated properly. If anybody violates those, that is why we have an investigation and enforcement branch and attempt to make sure the regulations are followed.

The regulation with respect to the treatment of body waste from funeral homes, as I heard described, is a regulation prescribed by the Ministry of Health as to what has to be done to it. If in fact that treatment occurs, the Ministry of Health considers it safe. If it is not safe, it is subject to regulation 309 and has to be disposed of in accordance with hazardous waste.

Mr Cousens: Are you satisfied that the present regulations for dealing with fluid wastes that I have just described are satisfactory and you are satisfied the way it is now?

Hon Mrs Grier: I had not been aware of the issue in the questions you have raised until you raised them. I think they are serious questions that have to be addressed and I certainly wish to explore with the Ministry of Health what that regulation says and satisfy myself that in fact the regulations are adequate. I am not prepared at this point to give that categorical assertion because I quite frankly do not know.

Mr Cousens: Can you tell me and this committee or the Legislature when it is you would have some statement on this matter for clarification?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am satisfied that the enforcement and the operation of the regulations administered by my ministry are designed to protect the public and protect the environment and that if followed, will do that. On regulations of another ministry that you have brought up in this context, I am going to need to consult with the Ministry of Health and form an opinion on it.

Mr Cousens: Can you indicate when you will do that and when possibly you would have an answer?

Hon Mrs Grier: No, I am sorry, I cannot do that.

Mr Cousens: Do you see it as a problem that is worth looking into quickly?

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly do. I think it is a problem I need to inform myself about with my colleague the Minister of Health, and I will do that and I will communicate to you the conclusions that I reach as soon as I can.

Mr Cousens: I asked a question earlier as to the licensed incinerators to take medical waste. Are there any such licensed services in the province of Ontario?

Mr Wong: We will provide more details in the next day or so. The total of our biomedical waste incinerators in the province is 106, 26 of them built post-1986 and 80 of them built prior to 1986. The reason I mention 1986 is because during that year there was an amendment to regulation 309 imposing some different requirements on the incinerator.

Mr Cousens: Is it true then, in your experiences, that Decom Medical Waste System seems to be the large and important one in Ontario? Are there any others that are looking after it, labs, funeral waste, or is that all?

Mr Wong: A portion of lab wastes is going to hospitals right now.

Mr Cousens: I guess what we see here is another possible not-in-my-backyard syndrome, where people have said, "I don't want to have anything in this province," so you will end up seeing, as we have in certain other areas of incineration, that it will go to the United States, or in this instance it goes to Quebec. I think Ontario should have a way of looking after its own refuse. You say that of Metro Toronto and people -- maybe you do not, but others say -- "Hey, look after your own." We as a province certainly have a responsibility to look after things within our area, rather than just constantly shipping them outside. I make that as a comment.

Hon Mrs Grier: I would not disagree with you, Mr Cousens. What I have found in my own experience as a member of a board of governors of a hospital was that hospitals were attempting to collaborate and co-operate within their areas, so that a central facility would be built, shared between a number of hospitals. I think in the rural parts of the province, certainly in northern Ontario, that has been the pattern that is followed. Inevitably that sometimes takes longer to put in place, but I have not been aware of a not-in-my-backyard scenario. I think the acknowledgement that biomedical waste is a problem and has to be disposed of by incineration has been very generally acknowledged.

Mr Cousens: I think you can accept the fact that it is largely a NIMBY syndrome, though, and I am not going to argue. That is not for you to handle or me to handle. I will just tell you that in my community there has been an effort, on occasion, for a company to set up biomedical waste disposal and there was such a strong reaction they did not build it there. I am sure it has happened in other communities and that is not germane to what your ministry handles. It has to do with a societal problem. I am not about to waste time in this committee on that issue.

Hon Mrs Grier: We are in a consultation with two proposals at this time that I think may lead to something.

Mr Cousens: I asked yesterday from the minister an organization chart of your staff. Did you bring one along perchance?

Hon Mrs Grier: No, I have a list of my staff which I can share with you.

Mr Cousens: Talking with the Oshawa/Whitby This Week publication, I was told that one of the writers has tried many times to get hold of your staff to ask questions with regard to the barge that has PCBs on it and is not getting any answers back from your staff. I wonder if you could give me an indication, what is the time frame in which people can expect a phoned response or some kind of response from your staff that deals with a local issue outside Toronto? There is a feeling sometimes that non-Metro areas do not receive the same treatment as does Metro and I wondered if you had just a simple guideline for your communications staff to get back to news reporters, such as the Oshawa/Whitby This Week publication, which has been trying innumerable times over the last couple of weeks to get a statement from you or your ministry.

Hon Mrs Grier: I was not aware of that call. We do not have a guideline, other than we try to respond to all telephone calls as quickly as we can, regardless of where they originate, so that we can identify the nature of the problem and receive assistance from the ministry staff in resolving the issues. I am sorry if somebody from that particular publication was not able to get a response, but if you would give me the name and the number, I will make sure that somebody gets back to them as quickly as we can. I was stunned by the increased level of my popularity after 1 October.

Mr Cousens: You could tell it when you went to Sudbury. Would you like to give the estimates committee some indication of what your expectation is for response by your communications staff to media questions, so that it is on the record?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think media questions ought to be responded to at least within 24 hours, if not sooner.

Mr Cousens: Thank you very much.

Hon Mrs Grier: But I acknowledge readily that I have not up to now -- failed to make that standard.

1100

Mr Cousens: Now we have at least got something to look forward to. I have a number of other questions. I am going to run out of time, but I would like to get crisp questions and crisp answers, if I could. The Countdown Acid Rain program: what are your plans for extension of the program, specifically the revision of the 1994 guidelines, and inclusion of the remaining 20% of emitters?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think what you are referring to is the clean air program that was promulgated by my predecessor and which has been out in the public purview for consultation. The deputy is telling me this is the continuation of the Countdown Acid Rain.

Mr Cousens: Yes, it is. It is Countdown Acid Rain.

Hon Mrs Grier: That is right, but the CAP program was also to catch many of the smaller emitters that were not part of the original countdown one and we are getting response to that. I have not at this point a timetable or a specific plan that I can share with you with respect to the extension of either the countdown program --

Mr Cousens: Have you any idea when you will be able to make such a report?

Hon Mrs Grier: No, we are looking at all of the ongoing programs of the ministry, evaluating them from the point of view of whether they are in fact effective, whether they are reaching the objectives our government would like to see, and that is one of the many programs that is being examined. I cannot be any more specific than that at this point. The deputy would like to add something to that.

Mr Posen: I would note that the federal government, through its discussions with the US, has recently concluded a Canada-US air agreement which covers the acid rain portion. There have been some initial discussions with the federal government, I think, to ensure that we are on target for the 1994 limit and the beginning of the discussions about where we intend to go nationally, as well as provincially, in the post-1994 period. I might add that one of the complications is going to be that there are differences in view in this regard that the federal government has experienced from different parts of the country.

Mr Cousens: Do you have any other specific measures to reduce sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions, as a ministry, specific measures under way to reduce SO₂ and CO₂ emissions?

Hon Mrs Grier: That is part of the program that, as I say, was put in place by the previous government, the clean air program, and that is now out for public consultation.

Mr Cousens: You do not have any measures yourself at this point?

Hon Mrs Grier: No, because I am waiting to hear the public response to a program that was initiated by my predecessor and that I felt deserved to be discussed widely and broadly across the province, so that I could benefit, not only from the work that had been done in the past, but from the public's views of this program, before I made any decisions about whether or not to proceed in the same way or to take any new directions.

Public consultation is, I think, very important and there are a lot of people out there who have a lot of good ideas and a lot of very practical experience, both whether as part of the Countdown Acid Rain program or in their own capacities and I do not think, quite frankly, that all of the best ideas originate in government. I want to hear what industry and the public have to say before I move.

Mr Cousens: What is your total expenditure on the development of the clean air program?

Hon Mrs Grier: Clean air program?

The Chair: Mr Castel will be with us in a moment. Mr Cousens, perhaps you could move to another question while Mr Castel comes back.

Mr Cousens: I guess the question the minister could answer quickly is, is it going to look like MISA? Now he is coming forward. Are there many parallels?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I think I had indicated, Mr Cousens, the program is out there in the public for consultation and what it is going to look like as a result of those comments and as a result of any decisions this government makes is too early to say.

Mr Cousens: Okay.

The Chair: We have Mr Castel and Mr Ronan back with us.

Mr Castel: I believe you asked how much was spent for the development.

Mr Cousens: Yes.

Mr Castel: Approximately $600,000.

Mr Cousens: Could you give me a breakdown on that? Was that just within this past fiscal year?

Mr Castel: Yes, that was the start that was used to develop the program.

Mr Cousens: What would you see your budget for the next fiscal year to be?

Mr Castel: This will depend on which way we go and it will depend on the public consultation process and what final program is decided on.

Mr Cousens: What is your time frame for the public consultation process to be completed and you to begin your thorough evaluation?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think Mr Ronan can respond to the timetable.

Mr Ronan: The decision paper, the draft regulation, was released last August and there is a 180-day consultation period. As you probably know and you have had the opportunity of looking at that program, it is a very comprehensive, complex, massive kind of --

Mr Cousens: The 180 days is over when?

Mr Ronan: At the end of February.

Mr Cousens: Do you have a time frame of activities that will take place at that time?

Mr Ronan: What we are doing now, we are looking at the program. Since our draft regulation was released on 15 November 1990, President Bush signed the amendments to the Clean Air Act. So there have been very substantive changes in the level-playing-field requirement associated with the draft regulation. We have also been directed by our new minister that we should look at the draft regulation that we have put out to see whether it is the best way of integrating all the program approaches we have and it incorporates all the pollution prevention requirements.

Mr Cousens: Mr Ronan, do you have time line of what you expect to do over the next period of time as of the end of February?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me respond to that. The ministry staff do not have a time line because what we are getting back, as part of the consultation on the previous government's program, is a mixture of comments. We are getting from some people some very detailed addressing of the actual specifics in the draft regulation and we are getting back from other people some questions about the fundamental approach that was taken by the clean air program and some concerns that the time frames that were embodied in that program are not sufficient, and obviously from others that they are too short.

I think what we are going to be faced with, when that period of review is over at the end of this month, is a very broad range of opinions and points of view that is going to take some intensive analysis to see whether the way in which the previous government had been proceeding is in fact the most effective way of reaching our objectives of a really good clean air program.

The other change that has happened since the clean air program was put out by my predecessor has been the movements in the United States which have in a way changed the playing field and, thank goodness, brought the United States up level with where Ontario has been.

Mr Cousens: But you do not have a specific time frame.

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not have a specific timetable.

Mr Cousens: And you do not know when you will have that.

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not know when I will have and I am very concerned that what we do is good, can stand up to scrutiny and can achieve our objectives rather than is rushed for any particular --

Mr Cousens: I do not think I suggested for a moment that you rush it but I would like to know what your plans are. It does seem to have a priority with you, I hear you saying, and you will be giving --

Hon Mrs Grier: What I am hoping to achieve is a more ecosystem approach. I find that, as we look at the various programs that are in place, there has not always been in the past the connection between land, air, water, and the approach that I think environmentalists feel is desirable. So we want to look at both the fundamental underpinnings of the various programs and the kind of priorities that this government will have.

Mr Cousens I could not agree with you more. I have some more questions.

The Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy: I wonder why the Minister of Transportation was not included in the round table that was recently given out. Yesterday in your opening remarks you indicated that specifically, if you go back to Hansard, you said the Ministry of Transportation was an integral part of your environmental strategy. Why then was the Minister of Transportation excluded from the round table?

Hon Mrs Grier: The Minister of Transportation, as I am sure you know, is the chair of the cabinet committee on environmental policy, and so certainly his point of view is brought to bear there. There are representatives from the transit sector on the round table and there are representatives of that ministry, I think, on some of the sectoral task forces.

Mr Cousens: Yes, but he is not on your round table.

Hon Mrs Grier: He is not on the round table --

Mr Cousens: Is that an oversight?

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not think that is an oversight. I think --

Mr Cousens: Why is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology not on the round table?

Hon Mrs Grier: What this government has done is have both the Premier's Council on Health Strategy and the Premier's Council on Economics revamped to take the broader approach rather than a fairly narrow sectoral approach and to link them more closely to the ongoing work of the ministries and of the government. So in appointments which were made by the Premier to both of the councils as well as to the round table a balancing was done so that there was representation from all aspects of the government's programs and on the various councils and round tables. I forget, quite frankly, which one the Minister of Transportation is on, but he is on one of them.

1110

Mr Cousens: That is fine. I draw it to your attention anyway. You may have missed your purview but both the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology are not on the round table on the environment, which is another good process. One question I had --

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me just comment on that because I think it is important that we be clear as to what the round tables were intended to be, which was very much a multi-stakeholder approach --

Mr Cousens: That is why I questioned why you do not have them in there as a multi-stakeholder.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- because government is one stakeholder, industry, non-governmental organizations, community groups are other stakeholders --

Mr Cousens: Mr Chair --

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and I certainly do not -- may I, please? I think the question is about our approach to the round table.

The Chair: Actually, Minister, you freely offered to offer additional clarification, and I sense Mr Cousens is satisfied.

Mr Cousens: I am.

The Chair: For this committee's purposes, he has the right to indicate that he is very satisfied with your response.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Chair, with all due respect, when I am cut off in the middle of a sentence as I try to give a response, Mr Cousens may be satisfied with some segment of the information, but I would not want Mr Cousens to find himself privy to only part of the answer and therefore perhaps misinterpret some of the information that I and my officials are here to give him today.

The Chair: I do not think that was the problem. Please, order. You are both engaged in a to-and-fro, and --

Hon Mrs Grier: Well, as long as we are engaged in a full and fact-finding exercise, I --

The Chair: No, you are engaged in an estimates, Minister. I want to bring that to your attention.

Mr Cousens: That is right.

The Chair: If any members of the committee indicate that they are satisfied with your response, it is not the minister's position to interpret how they will interpret the information you have given up to that point. I think that is only fair. Mr Cousens did provide advance warning that he had a series of questions in a very short space of time and he wished to convey them as briefly as possible. If we could go back to the questioning and answering, and I will take my guidance, all members will take their guidance through the Chair.

Mr Cousens: Mr Chairman, I want to just --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I have been sitting here quietly and I have been listening. Mr Cousens has been very crafty this morning in his questioning of the minister, and I am very --

The Chair: He has been crafty and you have been silent. What is your point of order, Mr Perruzza?

Mr Perruzza: I am getting to my point.

The Chair: Will you get to your point.

Mr Perruzza: Will you give me an opportunity?

The Chair: No. The rules say you must state your point of order immediately.

Mr Perruzza: I have been sitting here and I have been eager to hear some of the answers that Mr Cousens has asked. By and large, they have been questions that have been bang on, and I am interested in the answer that the minister is providing and --

The Chair: I am still waiting to hear a point of order.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Cousens continually cuts the minister off in midstride as she is --

The Chair: I am still waiting to hear your point of order, Mr Perruzza. I am not hearing one.

Mr Perruzza: I would like to hear the answers.

The Chair: There is no point of order. Proceed, Mr Cousens.

Mr Cousens: I want to go on record to say that I am strongly supportive of the round table on the environment, the process it follows and the importance it has to the gathering of information. The round table is not the problem, absolutely, categorically. The point I just make in humble suggestion by the question is that there is a need to look at the composition of it.

Where does the funding originate within the ministry for the round table on the environment? Is it vote 1503? I guess the other question that ties in to it is that it was under Management Board before and then it had been moved over to your ministry. How much money was transferred over to the Ministry of the Environment?

The Chair: Deputy?

Mr Posen: The chairman of the round table under the previous government was the Chairman of Management Board. The funding for the round table and its administration was with the Ministry of the Environment. The current government has appointed the Minister of the Environment as chair of the round table.

Mr Cousens: I know that.

Mr Posen: So no funding change was required to take place because the funding was located in the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Cousens: It is just a matter of taking that as a lump sum now and referring it through to the Ministry of the Environment?

Mr Posen: It was in our budget last year.

Mr Cousens: Under what vote?

Mr Castel: Vote 1503, item 4, and the amount of money that was in the ministry, as the deputy has mentioned, is $620,000.

Mr Cousens: Okay. That is fine. That satisfies my question.

I have a question for the minister on research, the environmental technology fund. Could you provide for us today, or is it available quickly and easily, a list of the projects receiving funding from the environmental technology fund showing the project name, the amount of grant and the recipient?

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes, we can. In response to Mr Lessard's question, we have already agreed to provide that information. Whether we can do it today or not, Mr Castel can tell us.

Mr Castel: The director of the research and technology branch, Mrs Tosine, is on her way and will have this information.

Mr Cousens: That is wonderful. Thank you very much.

What kind of accountability is there, Minister, to the Ministry of the Environment for grants given to organizations like Friends of the Earth? They received, on page 117, $25,000. The Friends of the Earth monitors federal and provincial issues. I am interested in what kind of true accountability you have. Do you have feedback from them? They receive a grant from the ministry of $25,000 a year. How do you know it is used in a certain way, on provincial issues rather than -- not that I oppose it, I just want to know the method of accountability that you have for that kind of thing.

Mr Posen: The organizations which receive either a miscellaneous or line item grant from the ministry do so by agreement with the ministry. They are obliged to report back to us that the funds have been used as they put forward in their application.

Mr Cousens: Do you have any checking up on that, or is it just a matter of auditing the things that are done with those moneys? When I add it up, you have the Conservation Council of Ontario, whose functions I attend, $21,000; the Harmony Foundation, $25,000; Ontario Environment Network, $25,000; Canadian Waste Materials Exchange, $25,000; Ontario Waste Exchange, $70,000; Pollution Probe, $25,000. If you have a system where they give you a response, is there any further checking on it?

Mr Posen: Yes. I think most of the funds are in support of specific projects which they submit to us and there is an ability to check on that basis. André, do you want to comment?

Mr Castel: We have a ministry committee and the applications come to the committee. As soon as they are received, depending on the application, they are sent to the relevant branch for analysis. For example, if it is an air project that we are funding, the applications would go to the air resources branch. We would get the recommendation and then the committee would recommend payment, and at the end of the project we always insist on getting a report or something for the money that has been paid out. For example, the Harmony Foundation has developed certain applications and the ministry received copies. We always make sure that we get a report on the project that has been funded.

Mr Cousens: Okay. Some of the more generic, though, I would think there may not be a specific book. A book would be easy to cover.

Mr Castel: Some of them, for example, have given environmental conferences on topics of current interest and either we attend the conference or we get the proceedings of the conference. We make sure that the money has been well spent.

Mr Cousens: Thank you. That is great.

A question I have as well for the ministry -- just to make sure the dollars are well spent. I am on the public accounts committee -- the Environmental Youth Corps was originally an $11-million commitment. Now it is down to $9.2 million on page 119 of the main estimates. Why has it decreased? The next question that goes with that is, could I have a list of the projects and jobs that were funded by the Environmental Youth Corps?

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes. My understanding is that this is money that we manage, but in fact we then give resources to other ministries to hire the youth for their particular projects. Again, Mr Castel is the expert on the finances of it.

Mr Castel: We have a number of student programs in the ministry because we feel that the employment of students is of tremendous benefit for the ministry during certain periods of the year. For the Environmental Youth Corps there is a budget of $10.9 million. It is a government-wide program that was established by the previous government; it is government-wide, not just for the Ministry of the Environment.

What it does is to contribute to conservation and effective resource management and to provide young people with an opportunity to be positive contributors to environmental protection enhancement and advocacy and to acquire and develop transferable job skills. So this criterion fits, for example, the Ministry of Natural Resources as much as the Ministry of the Environment. What has happened is that we have been able to recruit 3,800 students under this program and they come from all parts of the province. For example, we had 536 participants from eastern Ontario.

Mr Cousens: Without being rude, I appreciate that, but would it be possible to receive a list of the projects they did and the jobs that were funded?

Mr Castel: Yes, that is possible.

Mr Cousens: I ask the question of the minister. Last year during the provincial election the Environmental Youth Corps was used in at least one riding by a sitting Liberal member to do a public relations activity, cleaning up a creek bed at that time. Is that in keeping with the policy of the Environmental Youth Corps, or is this something that you would do differently if the election were to fall during the time they were active?

1120

The Chair: And where might we make application, depending on the answer?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am quite sure the guidelines do not provide for that kind of political activity, but let me confess that last summer I was invited to help clean up a creek with the Environmental Youth Corps in Etobicoke, not even in my own riding, and was more than happy to put on hip waders and get into the creek with them. I think it is a salutary experience for all members of the Legislature.

The Chair: And there was not even any mud slinging.

Mr Cousens: To that extent I was glad to see you with hip waders. I have done it without the Environmental Youth Corps. But I would challenge the ministry to review the guideline for politicians. If you were to do that without the Liberal, Conservative and other parties being able to be represented at that time during a political election, then I would suggest that the Environmental Youth Corps needs to have political guidelines and that the minister would want to rethink what she did last summer for future possibilities.

Hon Mrs Grier: I can assure you I will not be --

The Chair: You will need to take it under advisement?

Hon Mrs Grier: I will take it under advisement. What a good idea.

I think to suggest that these kinds of projects are vehicles for political activity is unjust to the very well meaning, non-profit organizations that in fact sponsor and put to work a lot of these young people. They frequently are in partnership with municipalities, as the one in Etobicoke was, or with other government agencies, and those people are asked to come and kick off the project or be present at its initiation. I think that to impute the motives of that would be unfortunate.

Mr Cousens: I am imputing the motives to the extent that it was used in an election campaign. The person who was able to go out with the Environmental Youth Corps was of another party. The representatives of other parties running for election in that riding at that time did not have an equal opportunity, and I see that as a misuse and abuse of the Environmental Youth Corps, which otherwise has salutary purposes and does a worthwhile job. But to use it during an election campaign in a way that gives preferential treatment to one over the other is wrong, and I was strongly hoping that the minister would take stronger action on this.

Hon Mrs Grier: I take your point. I was not aware of it and I think that if you or the other candidates were not invited --

Mr Cousens: No, it was not in my riding.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that should then be taken up with the sponsor of the particular event and the organization sponsoring it.

Mr Cousens: There is no guideline for the minister to correct that and you have no intention of changing it?

Hon Mrs Grier: No. People involved in this project are, as any other employee of the ministry, bound by the guidelines of the civil service, I would assume.

Mr Castel: There is an interministerial committee actually that can use these vouchers. As I said, the funding is for various ministries, not just the Ministry of the Environment, and the applications are reviewed by a committee.

Mr Cousens: I do not think I am being understood. I cannot believe that there is not a stronger feeling from someone other than myself that the Environmental Youth Corps could be seen to be used to political advantage, and was, by one specific party. It was a Liberal.

Mr Conway: Who was it and where?

Mr Cousens: I will tell you privately.

Ms Haslam: Was it an incumbent?

Mr Cousens: It was an incumbent in his constituency.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: Yes, and I am not about to. I do not want to get into it. But they are back, and maybe that was the thing that just did it for them.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Chair, let me allay any suspicions --

The Chair: Let us get back on track.

Hon Mrs Grier: No, I want to set the record straight. There certainly is no intention, I suspect, on the part of the previous government or of this government to use the Environmental Youth Corps or any other organization that receives a grant from the government in a political way. If that was done, it was unfortunate and it certainly would not be my intention to allow that to continue in the future.

Mr Cousens: I want to thank the minister for that excellent answer.

The Chair: Supplementary from Mrs Marland if you would, please.

Mrs Marland: It is actually a supplementary to the subject that I raised yesterday. I wondered if the minister's staff had the answers about the burning of PCBs at St Lawrence Cement. Second to that, I did ask, through the Chair yesterday to the minister, what her position was vis-à-vis St Lawrence Cement proceeding to an environmental assessment hearing for an RDF facility at its plant, now that it would be in conflict to your position of being opposed to incineration.

Minister, you said you would be willing to sit down with the St Lawrence Cement people and tell them your opinion, but my question goes further than that. Do you see that it is a good use of public funds to allow an EA hearing to go forward, knowing how many thousands of dollars it costs the public to hold one of those hearings, if you are opposed to incineration, and what would be the logical end to this? Will you bring in legislation with a prohibition on incineration?

Hon Mrs Grier: I cannot answer that question specifically at this point. St Lawrence Cement, as a private project proponent, is certainly entitled to know the views and the policies of the government and to make its decisions based on those policies, and I will make that plain to it.

I do have an answer to your question about the PCB content. Let me make sure the question has been taken correctly. The information I have been given is that the question was: What was the PCB content of the waste solvents being burned at the St Lawrence Cement plant in Mississauga, and when did the ministry order the company to cease its burning of these wastes? The answer is that the PCB content of the waste solvents was 37 parts per million. The ministry instructed St Lawrence Cement to discontinue receiving and burning waste solvent on 8 September 1990.

Mrs Marland: Thank you for that answer, Minister. What is the answer, then, to the question about proceeding to an EA hearing with a refuse-derived fuel proposal for St Lawrence Cement, knowing what the cost to the public for that hearing is if your ministry is opposed to incineration?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am not familiar with the details of that proposal or the stage it is at. I will undertake to investigate and get back to you with a conclusion.

Mr Cousens: The minister was talking earlier about the technology transfer conference. It is something that has been going on for a number of years; it is not something that has just happened this year. Is that not true?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think it has been seven or eight years.

Mr Cousens: To me, it is something that has quite a good history to it. On the spills action centre, what was the number of spills reported last year, and is it declining or increasing?

Hon Mrs Grier: Erv McIntyre can answer that one.

Mr McIntyre: I am stretching my memory now. If I recall correctly, it is in the order of 20,000 spills. We have reported to the centre, though, far more than spills. We have events, we have complaints off hours when the other offices across the province are not open, and we have spills -- or alleged spills, I suppose, is a better way of referring to it, until a field staffer goes out and looks at it. There is a report available for 1989; 1990 is in the process of being done. I can certainly make that available to you if you wish.

Mr Cousens: I would very much appreciate it. I would like to have 1990 as well.

Mr McIntyre: The 1990 is not available yet.

Mr Cousens: But when it is, if you would be so kind.

Mr McIntyre: Yes, certainly, there would be no difficulty providing that to you. In terms of the number of spills, it is up. Marginally, the trend has been upwards, which we partly attribute to the activities of our investigations and enforcement branch in terms of prosecuting people who do not report the spills to us, and, second, the general awareness of people to the acts and to the legislation that has come over time. When the spill centre was created, we started off essentially with a very small number of spills being reported to us, and we are catching them and we anticipate them peaking out.

Mr Cousens: I would really appreciate that. I would love to hear more, but I have that information. If we could get a listing of those spills for 1989, and 1990 when it is available, we would very much appreciate it.

Minister, what are the number of environmental assessments under way? Could you give us, rather than comment on it, a breakdown by sector for the number under way at the present time?

Hon Mrs Grier: Not off the top of my head.

Mr Cousens: No, in writing following the presentation today.

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes, indeed.

Mr Cousens: Is the security fund for your ministry still $20 million? Will it stay at that level or go up? What did you spend on it last year and the year before, and could you give us a listing of the payouts through to the security fund?

Hon Mrs Grier: I suspect more than $20 million, but, again, André has the figures.

Mr Cousens: Could I just table the question and receive the answer later?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think other people will be interested in this one because we have not really talked about Smithville or the major expenditures.

The Chair: Excuse me, Minister. Mr Cousens has about two minutes left. He may wish to put questions on the record, or you can agree with Mr Cousens that if he were to submit those they will constitute part of his request and will be circulated to the members of the committee, but he has specifically requested that he be able to put them on the record at this point.

Hon Mrs Grier: We will endeavour to answer them and share the answers with the other members.

1130

The Chair: And the other remaining speakers may wish to pose the questions Mr Cousens has raised.

Mr Cousens: I can just table the questions so that they are on the record and we have them. The Environmental Compensation Corp: What is the total paid out so far for Hagersville? The Environmental Assessment Board: How many hearings were held last year, how many are expected this year and how many of these were for waste management projects?

I am very interested in your progress on the beach cleanup, and I would just like to know if you have any specific plans for 1991. Also, under utility planning and engineering, vote 1504, was there any support in this section planned to help municipalities meet MISA requirements? If so, I would like to know how much.

I would like to know more about the Ontario Waste Management Corp, the total spent to date from the time of its inception, not from this year. I would like to see the total cost, to get where we are as of 19 February 1991 from the moment we started putting people on salary and began the project. This year it was supposed to be $13.3 million. I am wondering whether we are over or under budget for this year. I would like to know what the status is of the EA hearings there, and, if you could possibly take the kind of chance you no longer seem to take as minister, as to when the facility will be up and running or some guideline as to when that could be happening.

I have one other question. It is that the employee benefits in your ministry are up in every activity. Is there some explanation of why employee benefits have increased so much across the board within your ministry? Mr Posen's eyebrows go up an extra notch there. I would like to know that. Could you also explain the meaning of the large increases in "cyclical awards, reclassifications, pension adjustments and transfers"? I would be interested in that, and if also we could receive this year's staff complement compared to last year's, the total staff complement for the ministry by different divisions so we could have a sense of the growth and change taking place.

The Chair: Could I move on? Thank you very much, Mr Cousens. Briefly, Minister, then I would like to recognize Mr Conway.

Hon Mrs Grier: We will certainly try to get the answers to those specific questions. I just wanted to comment or perhaps ask for a clarification on the one with respect to funding to municipalities to meet MISA guidelines. I think I explained yesterday that we had not proceeded in the municipal sector with the MISA program yet, so I do not know what you were looking for in that.

Mr Cousens: There is no money allocated at all to the municipalities in any way at the present time?

Hon Mrs Grier: We will clarify how much is ongoing funding for utilities and how much is in fact --

Mr Cousens: I would have thought there was some already.

Hon Mrs Grier: It may be difficult to distinguish between what they would get for sewage treatment and water treatment plants anyway and how much of it is related to MISA.

Mr Conway: My colleagues and I would just like to proceed to a number of questions, some of the areas touched on earlier and in some places a couple of new venues.

I am intrigued by my friend the member for Markham's earlier observations about the politicization of the Ontario Environmental Youth Corp in only this respect: I certainly would be concerned to think that there was undue political activity by any government department during an election campaign. I know that would be a first, and I do not condone whatever was done if that in fact happened.

I would be almost tempted to go back to the Unionville and Thornhill newspapers for March, April and early May 1985 to see how my friend, in his role as a ministerial incumbent, conducted his campaign. He is a very good fellow and I suspect that it was perfectly antiseptic and absolutely apolitical, but I do know this: In the course of my time here, I think particularly of 1981 when we had something called the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development unfurled in, I think, late January 1981, only to be followed hours later by the launch of the 1981 campaign. I witnessed in the course of that 37-day period, shall I say, an enthusiasm for certain government programs with clear association of Progressive Conservative candidates. I do not, again, condone the unreasonable, but I think my friend invites us to a kind of monastic existence during the 37-day event that not even his sterling character and past record would recommend.

The Chair: I thought you ran the whole 1987 campaign that way.

Mr Conway: I only know what I did and I certainly -- I do not expect the new government to behave without an interest to its own re-election. I expect to see some things, lots of things, over the course of the next five years that I have seen over the past 25, and I think the minister is certainly wise in what she said about undue or unreasonable activity.

But I just want to put a slight caution to what the member has said, because certainly all members -- as I say, I am tempted to go back and see what was done in York Centre in 1985 to see the extent to which the incumbent for Markham invites the representatives of the Reform Party or the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party to share in those things that he would consider, I think, the normal part of his incumbency. I just make that observation and I expect, as I say, to see some things.

By the way, I got a note from the communications people at Environment the other day, quite a nice letter, actually, asking me to indicate my preference in the making of announcements in my constituency. I was kind of intrigued by that, because it seems to me that that is, by and large, a ministerial function. My advice to the communications person, which I tried to make as polite as possible, is that I do not expect to be involved in those announcements. Those are the government's announcements and if I choose to comment, I can.

It is like presenting cheques. If there is anything unseemly, it is the presenting of cheques. I think that is probably a dying art. If it is not, it ought to be.

I think one of the most encouraging things the new government has done, and I commend it entirely for it, is that throughout my constituency now there are nice big billboards that say, "Brought to you by the taxpayers of Ontario," and I think that is entirely appropriate. I do not know who the guru in the communications world of the new government is, but whomever she is, she ought to be congratulated for that.

Hon Mrs Grier: The Premier can take full credit.

Mr Conway: I give him credit in that respect. But as to the politicization of certain activities, certainly in the new order I do not expect there to be a totally non-political approach to things.

Hon Mrs Grier: But I am sure, Mr Conway -- let me just get it on the record -- that the activities of the public service are non-political and will continue to be. I think it is important that we just re-emphasize that point in view of the questions that were raised.

Mr Conway: I think it is an interesting observation. Standing back and watching the new government, my impression is that there is a very significant politicization of the public service. We do not need to debate that here, but I am quite struck by what I see as significant new undertakings by the new government, some of which are clearly stated --

Ms Haslam: Excuse me, is this about Environment? I question the time --

Mr Conway: I think this is a matter of government policy, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: The Chair rules it is germane. The minister and the member can use their time as they see fit, but thank you for the question.

Mr Conway: I do not have a quarrel, Minister, with this. You are the duly elected government and you have won the right to do things your way. As I say, back to some of the conversations we had earlier, I expect, for example, this to be a very political administration, and part of good politics, of course, is seeing your way to effecting change and part of that, surely, is winning re-election to effect even more change. Certainly I have in the first three months observed some patterns of activity within the public service that I will be watching for greater development. At any rate, I think I see some interesting things occurring that I would recognize as being perhaps more political, in the best sense of that word.

I want to come back to a couple of points that were raised earlier. One of them has to do with the Countdown Acid Rain program and the whole question of clear air -- clean air, rather; clear air as well. If you live on the 46th floor of an apartment building in this city, I will tell you, clear air is not always what you see in the morning. One of the questions I have about this is the Clean Air Act developments in the United States. Some comment was made earlier. What specific steps has the Ontario Ministry of the Environment taken or is contemplating to monitor the implementation of that particular program and the development of regulations under that program?

1140

Hon Mrs Grier: Ed Piché from the air resources branch is here and has been involved over time in all of the programs.

Mr Posen: May I just begin by noting that the ministry does have by contract an agent in Washington who does provide us with information on activities in the US Congress and the administration related to environmental matters, and provided us with an ongoing sense of how the debate in the United States on that act was developing and a sense of what the issues would be for consideration. That is one means we use for keeping track of what is going on there.

Second, through our discussions with the federal government in federal-provincial fora, we certainly receive reports from it on its discussions with the US government. Third, we are involved in a number of cross-border arrangements. Mr Piché, for example, is Ontario's representative on the Ontario-Michigan air quality board, and that provides another set of contacts and networking to keep track of what is happening there, because so much of what happens in the US is an arrangement with the US federal government setting the standard, but a lot of the delivery is happening at the state level.

Mr Conway: I gather that they are proceeding now to get into the highly contentious area of writing the regulations under the new legislation. Is that correct?

Mr Piché: Ed Piché, director, air resources branch.

That is correct. The curious aspect of the American approach is that they talk a good story but when one examines in detail the actual benefit, it is a long time coming. An example of that has been our experience in dealing with the Americans in the acid rain issue. I think it is safe to say that they still have some going to catch up, independent of what it says under their new Clean Air Act.

We have, as the deputy indicated a moment ago, many parallel approaches for dealing with, from the basic scientific level all the way essentially to the senior level, in terms of communication channels both via the federal government -- because the US Environmental Protection Agency is a federal agency -- as well as via the state groups in the United States. We have at this time a detailed analysis comparing our programs vis-à-vis the new clean air programs, and I am pleased to say that they stack up very well.

Mr Conway: Is there an internal committee of the Ontario government looking at the draft regulations that are being contemplated under the US Clean Air Act?

Mr Piché: Within the confines of my responsibility, yes there is.

Mr Conway: What is the involvement with some of the key players? The Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain comes to mind. What kind of participation has your group with the coalition in this matter? Is it fairly formal?

Mr Piché: I am not sure if I totally understand.

Mr Conway: I am trying to understand, for example, how you are as a government -- and you have indicated how that is happening -- looking at the ongoing development of those regulations. As you monitor that, what kind of input does the coalition have, for example?

Mr Piché: As you know, we have a proposed approach, as it were, on the street, and we have, in the process of entertaining all comments from all sectors on that proposed approach -- one of the aspects of the consultation process is that it is perhaps a continental consultative process because of the promulgation of the Clean Air Act. Do we have a formal process at this moment where we sit on a regular basis with the coalition? The answer to that would be no. Do we communicate with them on a regular basis? The answer would be yes.

Mr Conway: Can you just briefly, from your vantage point, elaborate on where you see some of the real difficulties coming? You indicated the gap between promise and performance unique to the American Congress. Where in the early going do you see some of the real problems developing?

Mr Piché: I will be pleased to do so. I think one can focus one's thought by perhaps an analogy or an example. As the deputy indicated earlier, we work very well or very closely with Michigan on various issues. We have a so-called MOU or memorandum of understanding. During the time the Clean Air Act was being promulgated, we were engaging in other activities dealing very closely with the Americans and at the relatively senior level. The comment was made to me that when the act is passed, it will be necessary for a very significant infusion of resources in the United States or it would have some difficulty in enacting it. If one studies what has happened in the United States, that infusion of resources has not come so this then causes us to watch the ensuing events very carefully, because if it does not have the resources, it does not matter what it says; it is what it does.

Mr Conway: Just then to another area, one of the initiatives that has been taken recently that seemed to attract a great deal of attention and support was the ban on CFCs. I am interested to know how we are coming with that, what progress you can report and particularly what progress you can report on some of the discussions with people like Fiberglas.

Mr Ronan: The Ministry of the Environment has been kind of a leader in this field. We have been working with the federal government and we have joined in a program with it to achieve 50% reduction in CFCs by 1994, and we also have signed on with the federal government to, by the year 2000 -- to bring that forward now, it is suggested to bring it to 1997 -- have got out of the whole production of CFCs and their use.

We are very advanced with respect to having a regulation in place and having programs in dealing with the companies. We have met the companies and we have negotiated with them how they would phase down their production. In fact we are still negotiating with some of them because they find that it might be a bit draconian, as they perceive it, because it is very fixed-target oriented, but I believe we are going to meet those guidelines.

Mr Conway: So the time lines that were contemplated by the previous government's policy seem to be able to be met. Is this what you are telling me? There is no unforeseen difficulty in proceeding along; that is at least a minimum timetable.

Mr Ronan: Yes, because always with these programs now we are dotting the i's and crossing the t's with some of the companies in terms of some of their positions they present about potential hardship, so we believe that notwithstanding that, which is a normal mode of trying to get delivery on these targets, we are confident that we are going to achieve the goal of the 50% reduction.

Mr Conway: Do you see expanding the ban beyond that which was initially contemplated?

Mr Ronan: Yes. There is some use in sterilents. It is also used as a solvent for electronics. There are also other substitutes that we are looking at, some of the Halons, etc, and consequently there is a whole dynamic here about the substitutes and whether they have an ozone depletion potential and whether we will need a regulatory mode to go after them.

1150

Based on the success of the program we have now in place, I am happy to say the willingness of the industrial sectors to participate and buy into the environmental concerns and hazard and change process is really I think a very good example of the new approaches we are seeing in the corporate sector. We will go beyond that 50%, and we are hopeful that by the year 2000, we will have substitutes which do not have any ozone depletion potential, or minimal.

Mr Conway: If I called Fiberglas Canada this afternoon, it could confirm this? They would say, "Yes, we are moving along without unforeseen difficulty"?

Mr Posen: Fiberglas Canada is a special case because the regulations set a time frame on which to judge the amount of CFCs it was using. Fiberglas Canada's plant in, I believe, Scarborough was in the process of starting up during that point. We have deemed a base number for them. They have accepted that number and they and we recognize that over the next two years as they ratchet down the amount of CFCs used in their process, they have got a technological problem. They have a substitute which will take them so far, but their research department is working to see where they can go after that. That is going to be a problem in a number of cases. There are individual cases dealing with individual types of CFCs and products, but so far my sense, though, is that those are a minority of situations.

Mr Conway: Perhaps, deputy or minister, you could supply the committee with a brief memorandum indicating those kinds of exceptional situations.

Mr Posen: Yes. My sense is that is the only one, but I will check into it.

Mr Conway: I would not mind, and I am sure the committee would not mind then, a brief note just simply telling a bit of the story of Fiberglas because it is not insignificant in this equation. I do not expect you to tell me state secrets but I would like to know their case against the broad outline of that policy and what --

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Ronan, I think, wants to answer that.

Mr Ronan: With respect to that question, we have discussed with officials of these companies the proprietary nature of the information we are dealing with about their base year, the product line, and they have indicated they would have serious concern if that information became public. They have consulted their lawyers, so I just point out that may not be easy to table, I think.

Mr Conway: That does not surprise me. What you are basically saying is that you have had to treat Fiberglas as a special case because of difficulties with --

Mr Posen: Simply their startup time.

Hon Mrs Grier: The calculations.

Mr Conway: As long as you start up presumably because they cannot yet identify certain substitutes, I guess, beyond a certain point.

Mr Posen: Beyond a certain point, but that is a problem down the road, and the regulation, if I remember it, reads that you are to cut 25% in year 1, 25% in year 2, and it does leave the minister some discretion to explore problems as they arise. I think for the first couple of years they have no problem. It is after that that they begin to be concerned about their product and the production capacity --

Mr Conway: I would like a note within the constraints with which you are obviously working just to explain to me and the committee how the Fiberglas case stands in light of the general policy. I appreciate the point because we were talking yesterday -- I want to move now to the pulp and paper sector -- the sort of thing that governments have to deal with as they move forward with very good and sound policies and encounter these kinds of practical difficulties.

Minister, the party of which you are a member has, I think, made a fairly clear position public over time that by, I think it is January 1993, two years from now, you want to see a zero discharge of organic chlorines from all pulp and paper mills in Ontario. Is that still your view?

Hon Mrs Grier: I must confess I do not remember that particular date, but certainly getting down and defining "zero discharge" is part of the whole issues resolution process of MISA. We had some discussion yesterday about the moving percentage point and there are various ways of coming at your discharge.

We just recently released the monitoring and data from the pulp and paper sector, if that is the one you are going to talk about, and we have some very real concerns about what we now know, and we know, thanks to MISA, more about what is coming out of these industries than we ever have in the past. Coming to grips with how quickly we can move to deal with it is a very high priority for me. I see Gerry has come to the table and I know Jim Ashman from water resources is here. He will be more than happy to go into some detail.

Mr Conway: Mine is just a very simple policy question. Time is short and my colleague the member for Fort William I know wants to engage some of this pulp and paper sector as well. I am in the pulp and paper industry and I am in northern Ontario and I have read over time that the NDP has stated a policy that by January 1993 it wants a zero discharge of organo-chlorines from pulp and paper mills operating in Ontario. My question is a simple repeat: In your view, is that still the policy of the party in government?

Hon Mrs Grier: Certainly reaching zero discharge is the objective of this government. What we are faced with is a MISA program designed not to do that and not to do it by 1993. A number of industries have been proceeding on the expectation that this in fact would not be what would be imposed upon them. So as I say, the whole question of the definition and understanding of what in fact zero is and how you get there if you are going to proceed on the best available technology approach that MISA has is something that I have not yet resolved, but now we are working and almost completing the monitoring phase of MISA and it obviously is the first question that has to be answered when we look at the control regulations.

Mr Conway: My colleague, I know, wants to get in on this. I just have another question. Given what you have said and anticipating, as I would, a number of communities and certainly a number of companies anticipating very significant capital outlays, have you had any discussions with your colleagues in council about providing some assistance to help companies reach this objective of zero discharge?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sure the member does not expect me to reveal the discussions in council, but certainly dealing with discharges to the province's waters is a concern of all of my colleagues and our support for the stated objectives of the MISA program is well known. The timetable by which we reach those objectives I have always felt was not satisfactory under the existing program and what we can do to accelerate that is on the agenda of all of us.

Mrs McLeod: I would like to pursue this a little bit and to pick up on a comment that I believe you made yesterday, although I do not have Hansard in front of me to confirm the actual words. As we talked about the definition of "zero discharge," I believe one of the comments you added was to the effect that the ideal would be not to use any chemical compounds at all, which would be the clearest way of achieving an absolute zero in discharge.

I guess that raises the question of a confusion in expectations which I was wanting to address yesterday -- industries broadly under MISA, but perhaps specifically with the pulp and paper industry. I confess to a little bit of a concern as a representative of an area that has pulp and paper industries in the riding, that there tends to be a constant focus on what has not been done without any corresponding recognition of what has been done and the efforts that have been made.

The other comment you made in another context yesterday was your belief that incentives will encourage people to take action and I truly hope that will be one of the focuses that you bring to environmental management issues: incentive and positive recognition of achievement.

I would also just mention that if lagoon technology continues to be the best available technology for some of the treatment of waste in the pulp and paper industry, you will discover that the siting of lagoons creates as much of a NIMBY problem in northern Ontario communities as waste management sites in some other parts of the province.

Having said that, can I ask about the confusion of expectations? I was wanting to elicit yesterday some sense of whether or not the zero discharge concept, if it really means "Do not use chemicals at all," is incompatible with the direction of MISA, and if so if you would in fact bring MISA to a halt and substitute a different set of goals.

1200

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Bradley had put in place an issues resolution process as part of MISA, and the whole question of zero discharge and how that was defined and what it in fact meant and what virtual elimination meant was very much a part of that. In fact, discussion is not yet completed, but I would like to ask either Jim Ashman or Gerry, who were part of that issues resolution exercise, to perhaps comment on it as they have been privy to it.

Mr Ronan: Maybe we could just place into context this term "zero discharge." It has arisen because of the analytical technology, the ability to detect ever-decreasing lower numbers of chemicals in the environment. Dr Ashman yesterday described it as the shifting decimal. In the 1960s we could measure things to a parts-per-million range. Then in the 1970s, when gas chromatographs and other instrumentation came into labs, we were able to go to the parts-per-billion range. To place that in context, it is about eight decimal points before you get a one. Now we are down to the parts-per-quadrillion range. I will use dioxin as an example, and it is linked to your pulp and paper question. We are able to measure very, very low levels.

Mrs McLeod: Just because we are very conscious of time and have a number of areas to cover -- I am well aware that we had some discussion yesterday about disappearing zero. I think, in fairness, it was a very specific policy question. If the direction now is no chemical use at all, are we talking about substitute processes rather than MISA control regulations?

Mr Ronan: As the minister indicated, some of the industries we have been meeting with have acknowledged that they may have to actually change the process. In Sweden, this is what has happened in the pulp and paper industry; they have changed the use of chlorine and they have used other bleaching agents. That is one of the challenges we are posing for the industrial sectors, and we have set up a very elaborate consultative mode to explore the viability of that with the sectors. Dr Ashman is leading a team that is carrying through that process with the sectors; perhaps, Jim, you could mention how we are proceeding with it.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps, again, that is something we could come back to at a later moment in time, and I will just ask a couple of focused questions, because I know otherwise my colleagues are going to experience the frustration of not being able to move on to other areas. Is there any point in this estimates book, any funding that has been given through the loans for environmental defence fund? A supplementary would be plans you would have for financial assistance, and I will use again specifically pulp and paper companies, to make the restructuring adaptations for the environmental directions.

Hon Mrs Grier: Were there funds allocated in this estimates for --

Mr Castel: It is $500,000 for LED, but it is a program that has not really been used yet. The LED program was intended to help industries at the time that we promulgate the control regulations and we are still in the monitoring stage, so it has not had any application as yet.

Mrs McLeod: If there is to be financial assistance provided through LED or through another program at a future point, are you concerned, Minister, about the issue of countervail under the free trade agreement for any assistance which is provided to industries to make these adaptations?

Hon Mrs Grier: This program is one that I gather was announced in 1987 and has not come into play yet. I confess I do not know how much work was done prior to its initiation with respect to examining the possibilities of countervail, but I am sure it was taken into account by your government when the program was put in place.

Mr Castel: When the program was put in place we did not yet have a free trade agreement with the United States. The free trade agreement was silent on the environment, but this is something that will have to be examined, because you are absolutely right: it may contradict the agreement.

Mr Conway: Just three other areas that I think will occupy the time of the deputy and the minister. Very quickly for the first one -- I am a resident of Waterloo city or the town of Elmira, and I am very troubled by what I have seen, drank, read. I am very anticipatory now of good news that is going to come my way as a result of stated commitments by the New Democratic Party last summer. What can I tell my friends in Elmira as to when you will be making your announcements, consistent with the promises made last summer, that a pipeline would be favoured and dollars would be flowing to support that and other clean-water-related matters?

Hon Mrs Grier: Our primary focus in Elmira has been trying to deal with the backlog of the problem that exists in making sure that the water supply of residents at this stage is safe. The alternative supplies that are being used, I think I can assure the people there, meet the quality of drinking water within the province. I would like to ask Boris Boyko, who has been handling the Elmira one, where we are at in terms of a long-term solution.

Mr Conway: Specifically, just to focus this, my memory is, and my file makes plain, that commitments were made that the NDP in government would favour and would fund a pipeline into Waterloo-Elmira as really the only practical solution for the intermediate and longer term. I presume that still holds? That is really a question for the minister; I do not expect a public servant to answer that.

Hon Mrs Grier: Of course not. I wanted to bring you up to date as to where we were at. I am not at this point in a position to say what the long-term solution will be. As you probably know, the region has looked both at a pipeline and alternative sources of recharge. But we talked yesterday about the whole ground water monitoring system. It is a very extensive and serious problem in that area, not just because of contamination that has been found but also because of the depletion as a result of growth and development, so I think that a quick answer is not available.

Mr Conway: I am just recalling commitments, and the commitments that issued from the now Premier and others were pretty clear on this point. You can take the question as notice and provide me with a written response perhaps summarizing what you said. I am really interested in being able to go to Elmira and simply tell those people, yes or no, a pipeline is coming as promised.

Hon Mrs Grier: I think that to say a pipeline is coming at this point would be premature. But the status of the pipeline proposal, which really the region has been discussing, we could give you a quick answer on.

Mr Conway: No, I will take that as a written answer at perhaps a later point, just because of time. The next area -- and I know my friend the member for Nepean wants to have a go at this -- is beaches. Again, I have lived in Toronto and I have lived in Ottawa, and I am very excited about the possibilities that will follow 6 September, because, again, I think some very firm and friendly commitments have been made about cleaning up the province's beaches. I want to know what specific plans you are developing, let us say for the summer of 1991, to improve upon what has been complained of in the past as perhaps an inadequate governmental response to the whole area of usable beaches.

Hon Mrs Grier: There are whole levels of concern about beaches, as I am sure the member is aware. There is the whole aesthetic approach to beaches, which is algae and things that wash up that are undesirable. My concern about beaches has always been not what you could smell and see but what you were not aware of that was there, and that, as I am sure you would appreciate, is a very broad issue, especially if you are talking about the Great Lakes and what is in the Great Lakes, and is not going to be resolved by the summer of 1991, let me assure you.

Mr Conway: Can you give me some of your goals, then, very briefly? What do you see as the ingredients of an appropriate and an affordable clean beach strategy?

Hon Mrs Grier: "Appropriate" and "affordable" are terms that I am not sure one can use in cleaning up beaches. It is not going to be cheap to get our beaches back to the state they were in before the development all around the edges of the Great Lakes occurred.

I guess I take a couple of approaches. One is looking at zero discharge, MISA and the kinds of programs that your government put in place that are long term and that are dealing with both persistent toxics and those toxics that bio-accumulate and which have very serious consequences for the usage of our water, whether recreation at beaches or as a source of drinking water supply.

The other aspect has to be preventive. Looking at my own community of Metropolitan Toronto, and the approach advocated by David Crombie in the royal commission, in that our planning and our ecosystem approach to what we do inland from the beaches has as much effect on what happens at the water's edge as the state of the water, I hope certainly by next summer to be able to share with the people of this region some of the aspirations and the programs that will follow as a result of taking that approach. But it is a long-term goal to make all of the beaches in this province swimmable again, and I entirely subscribe to the goal of the Great Lakes water quality agreement, which is that all of the Great Lakes should be swimmable, drinkable, fishable -- but that is not going to happen by the summer of 1991.

1210

Mr Conway: My colleague from the national capital area has a supplementary, and I have one last, quick question.

Mr Daigeler: This whole question of beach cleanup is a very major one in the Ottawa area as well. Quite frankly, I am not very comforted by what you are saying. You seem to be planning a lot of looking and studying, but we have heard very little about precise commitments, and I think when you were in opposition that is what you were asking for: What is your plan for this year? What is your plan for next year? What resources are you committing to that severe problem which you have criticized before? I would like to know from you what you are planning in terms of beach cleanup for this year. What are the resources you are allocating and what is the breakdown by region in the province in that regard?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sure that is the kind of information we can provide you with. It comes from a number of different sources, whether it be preventive, whether it be something like MISA, whether it be rebuilding of sewage treatment plants which may, in any particular area -- I know in some of the regions you are concerned about -- be part of the difficulty. We would have to look at the wide spectrum of programs and provide you with a breakdown as to where that funding was going.

Mr Daigeler: I would certainly appreciate that, because I think that is what the people want to know. They do not want to just have a general expression of concern, because everybody does that. They want to know some specifics.

Let me give you an indication of what I am interested in as well. It is that whole LifeLines program. You have not touched on that yet; it is obviously closely related to the beach cleanup. Can you provide us with a list of this year's applications for funding, those that have been granted and those that have not been granted? My own city of Nepean made application a long time ago. We have a major problem in a particular area, and the ministry wrote that it is not sticking with its previous commitment of providing funding in that regard. So we are very disappointed about that, because we see that as an extremely important area, to improve some of the sewer infrastructure that is aging or was never put in place properly. First, can you provide that information? Second, what is your view on LifeLines? Are you going to continue the financial effort that was put into that by the previous government? What are your plans?

Hon Mrs Grier: We acknowledged in some of our discussions yesterday certainly that rebuilding of the infrastructure is a very important component of preventing contamination of water, whether it be through LifeLines or some other program. I am delighted that under the initiatives of the Treasurer to stimulate employment this winter some considerable amount of money has been made available to our ministry to place with municipalities to do just this kind of work.

I cannot comment specifically on the Nepean application, but I do know that projects are rated very much with respect to their priorities and where they can do the most good, rather than the squeaky wheel getting the grants necessarily, as has happened in generations past. We want to look very carefully at what we can achieve by that grant program and what the real problems are that are being addressed by the rebuilding. I see Jim Ashman indicating that he can perhaps answer something with respect to LifeLines.

The Chair: That is fine, but Mr Conway has pre-advised the Chair that in his final minute or two he would like a final question.

Mr Conway: Just a summary in writing would be fine, and I have some additional questions I will table with the clerk of the committee.

The Chair: You have a minute and a half, if you would like to read several into the record.

Mr Conway: No, I have two very quick ones. By the way, there is a nobility of purpose in that last observation, and I commend the minister, that not necessarily the squeaky wheel is going to get government's grease in the new order. That, as I say, has a nobility of purpose, but --

Hon Mrs Grier: It certainly will be a change. Is that what you are saying?

Mr Conway: No, not at all.

Hon Mrs Grier: Oh, I thought you were.

Mr Conway: No, no. As I say, I remember the previous order, when good friends, good members like the current Minister of Natural Resources and the current Minister of Mines came to see the government of the day about squeaks and creaks in their constituencies, and I tell you, it was a pretty interesting dynamic.

Two quick questions. You or the Ministry of Energy: Which has the lead for the global warming initiatives within the government?

Hon Mrs Grier: Essentially, the Ministry of Energy, but we are working very carefully and co-operatively together.

Mr Conway: To the deputy, because the member for Markham touched on it and I just cannot resist: In a ballpark number, what is the current best guess, all dollars in running total, at the OWMC? Where are we now, just roughly?

Mr Posen: André has the number.

Mr Castel: So far, $111 million.

The Chair: We thank you, Mr Conway.

The Chair wishes to recognize that we have 15 minutes remaining for estimates. At this point, with the committee's indulgence, I would like to ask two questions that have been asked of all ministers, then I would like to ask for any information which the ministry has which it wishes to share, then closing summary comments and then the four votes. Is there agreement to proceed on that basis?

Mr Perruzza: Do we need another hour?

The Chair: No. We are going till 12:30. We will do our eight hours and that will be sufficient, in accordance with the time the House leaders have given us.

If I may, the two questions that have been asked by the committee to all ministers is: How much of the $700- million inflationary package has the Treasurer allocated to your ministry? The second question is on the ministerial order for cutbacks of last year: What, if anything, can you report are the areas in which you have had to adjust, according to that interministerial memo?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think it was $26.6 million under the new initiatives.

Mr Castel: It is $26.5 million under the new initiatives, and the constraint that was imposed last year was $8 million.

The Chair: And the areas in which that was --

Mr Castel: It came from various areas; we did not just take it from one area. I can provide this information.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr Castel: Mr Chairman, Ms Tosine has arrived.

The Chair: I want to thank the committee's indulgence for allowing me to ask those two questions on its behalf.

Now, deputy, I am in your hands with any and all of the information you have been able to assemble up to this point that you can share with the committee, and then I would like a closing statement of your assurances that the matters will be sent to the clerk, who will in turn send it to the members.

Hon Mrs Grier: We sent for Ms Tosine around the grants, because there were two members asking those questions. Perhaps the deputy would like to respond to that.

Mr Posen: I have over 20 items that either have been put on as questions with the request for written responses. My suggestion would be that we simply undertake to respond to those questions in writing through the clerk. I would suggest that we do it in two parts: those things we can do by the end of the week, we provide at that time; and the others we will try to do as quickly as we can thereafter. I am not sure, in some of them -- for example, on the PCB sites -- whether we have that centralized or whether it has to be pulled in from each of the regions. It is that kind of problem. But I would undertake to provide those things we can by the end of the week and for the rest of it to follow.

The Chair: Thank you, deputy. Do you have any matters you can report to the committee now?

Hon Mrs Grier: Can we do the grants question?

Mr Posen: Ms Tosine is here.

The Chair: She has made the trip. Please introduce yourself.

Ms Tosine: Helle Tosine, director, research and technology.

Hon Mrs Grier: Essentially, the question was the nature of the grants that had been awarded.

Ms Tosine: This is under the environmental technology program, is that right?

This technology program began in 1989. To date we have approved 16 projects on which we have negotiated with the companies five contract agreements, with a total commitment of over $2.9 million from the ministry.

I understand the question was to bring forward some examples showing marketability, commercialization and export. Was that the question? I have brought two examples. Because of the nature of the granting program, I am not at liberty to disclose who these companies are, but I can describe what their technology is.

1220

The first one I would like to bring the example of is a technology whereby gold mine tailing wastes would be addressed. What they would be doing is recovering toxic metals such as cyanide, and ore recovery. What they have done here for the marketability and commercialization, as part of the requirement for submission to the grants, is that they are required to do a detailed market assessment plan. They have looked at the Canadian market, for example, as well as the Pacific Rim, and they have made several assumptions looking at the recovery for gold, copper and cyanide; the total recovery would be, for the Canadian market, over $29 million annually. They have extended this to the United States; they have shown that the marketability of this technology would include the United States as well as the other Pacific Rim countries.

Hon Mrs Grier: How much money has the ministry contributed to that?

Ms Tosine: For that particular project? That project is for $406,000. The total cost is $719,000.

Hon Mrs Grier: So the payback is significant.

Ms Tosine: That is right. Would you like the second example also?

The Chair: One quick additional example would be helpful.

Ms Tosine: The second example looks at the use of ultraviolet light to decontaminate effluents from wood-treating process wastes, water that would be used for drinking water that is coming from the ground water, as well as water resulting from gasoline tank leakage. They have looked at the use of physical and chemical technology, including ultraviolet light, to treat this.

I neglected to say that the marketing and commercialization assessment is provided assistance to us by Industry, Technology and Trade as well as Innovation Ontario Corp. So they provide a fairly intensive review.

Once again, they have done a North American and European marketing strategy plan here and they show the export potential of this. They have also looked at eastern Europe's market as a potential, in areas where they have water pollution problems.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Tosine. That almost completes our time for estimates. If I may, I would like to give some closing comments, two minutes or less, to Mr Cousens, then Mr Conway, then allow the minister the final response, and then we will conduct the votes.

Mrs McLeod: I just have a very quick question for clarification. Are all the environmental technology grants for market analysis studies? Is that the focus of those grants?

Ms Tosine: That is not the only focus of the grants. The focus is that it has to do something to protect the environment, has to be innovative and it has to show marketability and commercialization and export potential for Ontario. There are about five criteria and that is one of them, but that is not the only focus. The focus is environmental technology.

Mrs McLeod: That the money is actually used for?

Ms Tosine: The money is used either to develop the pilot plant to further develop the technology, but they have to provide a marketability. It is not simply research for the basis of research.

Mr Cousens: I want to thank staff and minister and all for coming and for sharing.

I think there is a real problem with the process, because there is no way I am satisfied with what has happened by virtue of the time I have had in order to delve more deeply into the issues. If we are to do it differently, there has to be some kind of initiative on the part of -- I think it starts with the minister at this point, to bring us together in our own round table so there can be dialogue and discussion. I have not talked to the minister since the House was in session and I think there should be ways in which there is an ongoing dialogue.

As it stands here today, I have some answers, I have tabled many, many questions and, to me, the process is fraught with frustration and problems and we will never be on the same team until we change this system. It is not doomed to the success that it should be; it is doomed to a kind of continual infighting which does not benefit the people of Ontario or the environment. It is all after the fact. What we want to have is something that is win, win, win, and I am not satisfied that we are doing it now. Even though the minister and her staff have responded to these questions, we need to find new processes.

Mr Conway: I just want to say that as a substitute to the committee I have had a good time. I congratulate the minister on a very effective and spirited defence of another person's estimates. She once again proves that all the reports about her being one of the best and brightest in the new order are in fact accurate reports.

Having heard her in a very effective way, I think, indicate what her views are, what her expectations are, we will return a year from now to see how well she is doing. Certainly next year's estimates will be her estimates. We will expect, presumably, to see significant changes in some of the in-house priorities and the funding moves to give effect to those changes and priorities.

That is the fun and excitement of any new administration, and I wish her well in that and I thank her for her candour and for her commitment to the cause.

Hon Mrs Grier: As minister I get the last word. That is one of the joys of being minister.

Let me thank the committee. It has been a helpful process. As Mr Conway has said, they were not my estimates, but certainly I am grateful that I had some familiarity with the programs before I became minister. It would have been an extremely, ever more difficult process had I not.

I appreciate the questions of the committee and I share Mr Cousens's concern. I, certainly as a critic, never felt that this was a particularly good process. What I had tried to do as critic was to set some priorities within the committee and establish those issues that would be done in depth, and I think that another year I would certainly be very open to the members of the estimates committee indicating ahead of time those issues or programs they wanted to pursue in depth, so we could come prepared to perhaps answer rather than have to send back issues. I always found it very frustrating as a critic when the committee went over a whole range of issues without ever really coming to grips with any of them, and I would be very happy to co-operate. But I think the determination of the process is very much in your hands, Mr Chair, and in the hands of the committee, and it would be inappropriate for me, as minister, to suggest to the committee how it handles it. I just want to indicate that I am more than happy to work co-operatively on whatever seems most appropriate to you.

I appreciate the questions and the range of them. I also am very interested to find that the priorities the committee has ascribed to issues in their questions are priorities that I myself have identified, ie, waste management, which is our most critical and immediate problem within the province, and I was interested in the focus on water and on MISA, because that, too, is something of very real concern to me. I am glad to note that that is shared by the members of the opposition and by my colleagues in my own party, and look forward, when I come before you next year, to perhaps having some changes of direction that I can share with the committee and defend at that time.

Thank you for your attention. Obviously, we need more than eight hours next year. I also leave that in your hands.

The Chair: We have now completed the assigned time for the 1990-91 estimates of the Ministry of the Environment. I should like to now proceed to call the vote on each of the estimate votes.

Votes 1501 to 1504, inclusive, agreed to.

The Chair: Shall the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment be reported to the House?

Agreed to.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, it is wonderful to see that once again we have unanimous consent on all these votes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perruzza.

Before I adjourn, this standing committee on estimates will reconvene at 2 o'clock in this room, 228, to begin estimates of the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs.

The committee recessed at 1230.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1405 in room 228.

OFFICE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS' AFFAIRS

The Chair: I would like to call to order the standing committee on estimates. We now begin seven hours of the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs. I would like to welcome the minister, the Honourable Elaine Ziemba, to present her ministry estimates.

There are a couple of procedural matters I would like to cover off. First of all, as Chair, it would be my intention to remove myself now that my Vice-Chairman has arrived and for the purposes of conducting these estimates. I have been pre-advised by my colleague that she has to leave at 5, so I may return to the chair at 5, if there is no difficulty with that.

The procedure, as per custom, will be to have the minister speak up to one half-hour, followed by the official opposition, then the third party, each for up to half an hour. Then the minister will be given up to a half-hour to respond in any way she sees fit with respect to the points raised prior. Then the committee will determine how it wishes to proceed through the estimates. As you can see, there is only one vote, so it is impossible for us not to be on topic at all times.

Ms Haslam: I assume that you are reverting back to the original way the estimates committee ran, which was 15-minute blocks of time for the opposition, for the third party and then for the government?

The Chair: That will be determined by the committee through a consensus. We would ask first if there are any requests from the committee at this time for any persons to be before the committee. As it stands, the Chair has not received any special requests, nor has the minister approached the Chair about any particular persons to attend to talk to the committee. Seeing none, at the end of the two-hour period we will determine how we want to proceed. If that is fine, I would now like to hand the floor over to the minister, who will introduce key personnel who are with her today. Minister, welcome. We are in your hands.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Thank you. I must admit these chairs do not help a short person at all.

I would like to introduce my deputy minister, Randy Norberg, and special assistant to the seniors' office, Philip Adams. We have a number of staff people sitting throughout, if they want to just introduce themselves.

Clerk of the Committee: We will not be able to pick them up on the microphone.

The Chair: Just the people beside you.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Fine, thank you. We do have a number of staff people and also from the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens.

I am very pleased to appear before this committee and I want to be able to present the 1990-91 estimates of the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs.

Our government in the recent throne speech declared -- and I am going to quote from the throne speech because

I feel it is very important -- that, "Politics is about far more than what we can all get; it is also about what we owe each other." The work of my office is very much about what we owe the senior citizens of this province.

The way a society treats its older members is one of the most telling measures of its values and ideals. This government believes that the senior citizens of Ontario, who have built this province and worked all their lives to bring up their families, are entitled to live in dignity, security and with respect in their later years.

As you know, my cabinet responsibilities also include citizenship, human rights, disabled persons and race relations. In the past, the senior citizens' office was represented by its own minister. I want to stress -- and I stress this emphatically -- that the new arrangement in no way lessens the priority our government places on senior citizens. In reality, combining these responsibilities has enlarged and enhanced the role of the minister responsible for their concerns and issues. I am confident that seniors will judge our government by the results that we will now be able to achieve through this new structure.

I want to cover a little bit about the demographic trends. Our government recognizes the challenge of demographic change. Over the next 20 years, Ontario's population of senior citizens is expected to increase 57%, from 1.2 million to 1.9 million. By the year 2011, 16% of our residents will be 65 or over. That is compared with 12% today. By the year 2030, those 65 and over will represent one out of every four in our population.

The older-age categories will grow fastest. The 80 to 84 group will nearly double and the 85-and-over group will more than double over the next 20 years. In other words, the greatest proportional increase will occur in the group which requires the most intensive level of service, that is, those over the age of 85. The pronounced growth in the absolute number of senior citizens, and particularly the older elderly, will require expansion of many existing services and will create a new generation of needs. This will have a profound effect on provincial services, particularly health care.

To put these trends in perspective, let me quote the UN World Assembly on Aging. In its 1982 action plan, this global body proclaimed that the aging of society is not a problem to be solved but "an opportunity to be utilized." The issue is "not just one of providing protection and care, but of the involvement and participation of the elderly."

The greying of Ontario will have as profound an impact on society as did the baby boom in its day. We are committed to ensuring that Ontario's programs and services are geared to responding to this challenge of an aging society. But in our planning we must avoid generalizations. Seniors are not a homogeneous group. In fact, there is as much diversity in the 65-and-over population as there is, say, in the under-30s in terms of health status, income, lifestyle, education, cultural background, and so on.

Consider finances, for example. On average, today's seniors are well-off by historic standards. But averages can be misleading. The fact is that 34% of all senior citizens, one in three, qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. This means they require government financial assistance to reach the minimum income level guaranteed to all Ontario seniors.

Seniors living alone are especially hard pressed. One of every two people in this group, most of them women, currently receives less than the urban poverty line; that is, they receive $10,317 a year compared to $12,148, the Statistics Canada poverty line in 1989. Put simply, there is too much poverty and inequality in our society, and too many senior citizens are the victims.

It is clear that improved income security for seniors is a systemic problem requiring systemic answers. One of the root causes is the state of the private pension system. Many of today's seniors have no private coverage at all. Some retired too early to benefit from the Canada pension plan. Many others, primarily women, were not employed outside their homes and therefore never acquired any pension entitlement. Also, many of those who have worked outside their homes were employed in service industries and other low-paying occupations where pension plans are not common. The situation of some recent elderly immigrants is particularly stressful. They do not even qualify for the basic income support to which other seniors are entitled. Welfare is often their last resort.

Our government is committed to pension reform. Recently, an interministerial task force was established to develop a private sector pension reform package. This would include proposals for indexation, employee access to pension fund surpluses and employee participation in overall pension plan management. These reforms will prevent the erosion of private retirement incomes by inflation and give employees a say in the decision-making around their retirement income. The ultimate result will be more people retiring with good private pension coverage.

We are also committed to pay equity and employment equity. If women are compensated fairly and equitably during their working years, fewer women will spend their retirement in poverty. At the same time, if those people who currently encounter systemic barriers are permitted to achieve their full employment potential, then their earnings and retirement income will be enhanced.

Let us also recall that economic and social conditions are linked. People with adequate income also tend to enjoy adequate housing, good nutrition and good health. On the other hand, poverty and inequality breed ill health, loss of independence and early institutionalization.

For seniors of ethnic backgrounds, the problems related to economic and social conditions are often intensified. A number of cultural and linguistic barriers limit their access to services. This is particularly acute for those who do not speak French or English. While all seniors in Ontario have equal rights to services in accordance with human rights legislation, in practice inequalities do exist.

The changes in immigration patterns will be of significance to all of us in government. The special needs of ethnocultural seniors must be taken into consideration when planning for the future.

Prior to 1989, the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs had the lead responsibility for co-ordinating the implementation of A New Agenda. This was the then government's blueprint for a reform of health and social services for Ontario's seniors. The key aspects were to put in place a broader range of community-based services, to improve consumer access to these services and to rationalize and improve the quality of care in extended care facilities.

The principles outlined in A New Agenda have served as a basis for reform efforts to date. This government remains committed to the fundamental principles outlined in this document, to improve the quality of life for seniors both in the community and in care facilities.

With the government's decision in 1989 to take a more comprehensive approach to long-term care reform, the policy work done by the office served as a key component for the broader reform effort taken by the government. The office continues to contribute to this effort and will play a significant role in future development of a renewed, long-term care system in this province.

With the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services assuming the lead responsibility for this reform, the focus of the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs turned to public education, communication and advocacy within government. We also offer a number of services designed to create environments that are supportive of seniors.

Our central role is to act as a government advocate on behalf of senior citizens. We express seniors' interests and concerns, both in the corridors of power and in the public arena. To do this, we are active in six major areas.

1. We promote the development of co-ordinated provincial government policies to ensure that seniors' interests are well served.

2. We encourage the recognition of seniors' contributions to society.

3. We foster the independence and participation of seniors.

4. We develop resources to motivate and assist communities, organizations and businesses to respond to seniors' needs.

5. We provide a central information and referral service to the public on programs and services available to seniors.

6. We sponsor research into matters affecting senior citizens.

In carrying out this mandate, we begin by listening. As minister, I have met personally with representatives of key seniors' organizations and service provider groups. I will continue to do this on a regular basis.

1420

Now I would like to highlight some of the recent accomplishments and upcoming plans under the six themes of our mandate.

First, our role in policy development. We identify emerging seniors' issues and advocate an effective government response.

The Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs participates in nine government committees on subjects ranging from home care to retirement communities. This participation, through interministerial committees, task forces and working groups, ensures that government policies reflect the needs and concerns of seniors.

I am pleased that our government is moving decisively to tackle some long-standing policy issues. Just a few months into our term, I had the honour of making two major announcements.

First, the government has appointed a commissioner to inquire into unregulated residential accommodation, that is to say, rest, retirement and boarding homes. The commissioner, as the committee members may be aware, is Ernie Lightman, an economist in the faculty of social work at the University of Toronto.

This appointment is consistent with the coroner's jury report on the death of Joseph Kendall, a 65-year-old former psychiatric patient. Mr Kendall died of a heart attack after being assaulted at a privately run boarding home. The 61-day inquest, the longest in Canadian history, revealed the appalling conditions which some vulnerable adults have been forced to endure.

Our government will not tolerate such abuse. We have put all facility operators on notice that mistreatment and neglect must cease now. We are going to put the full force of government behind this commitment. Mr Lightman will hold public consultations across the province, as well as receive written and verbal briefs. He will be reporting to me in early April, with the final report due in July. This report will assist me in providing better protection to our most vulnerable adults.

The second major government initiative I announced is a legislative package on advocacy, guardianship and substitute decision-making, to be presented during the spring session. These three pieces of separate legislation are being worked on in conjunction with the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Health.

Our part of this legislative package will include an Advocacy Act. This measure, for the first time, will establish a system of advocacy for vulnerable adults that will allow their voice to be heard.

Ontario has approximately 600,000 citizens, including the frail elderly, with moderate to severe disabilities. We know most of these individuals can conduct their own affairs or are able to do so with the support of friends, family or social service providers.

Vulnerable adults are those who are unable to defend their own interests, yet have no one capable, willing and appropriate to assist them. This group is virtually powerless and at serious risk of neglect, abuse and exploitation. Our advocacy system is a systemic intervention to correct this power imbalance and protect those who have been forgotten in our society.

It is important to underline that many vulnerable people are not mentally incapable. They do not need and should not have a guardian. Advocates can help these individuals maintain independence and avoid guardianship.

The new advocacy service will deal with rights, personal care and systemic concerns. Rights advocates will visit persons who may lose their right to make decisions as a result of guardianship or other interventions. These advocates will advise vulnerable individuals of their options and make certain their wishes are expressed.

Case advocates will assist individuals to obtain needed programs and services and help them resolve problems. Finally, systemic advocates will concentrate on identifying barriers to participation and bringing about changes in laws, rules, regulations, policies and practices that affect groups of vulnerable adults.

An independent advocacy commission will develop and operate the system. Members of the commission will be appointed by cabinet on the advice of a committee representing the vulnerable adult population.

We also intend to enact a new Substitute Decisions Act that will replace and repeal the current Mental Incompetency Act. This new measure will provide for a power of attorney for personal care, so that mentally capable persons can designate someone in advance to make personal decisions for them should they become incapacitated. This mechanism will also allow individuals to choose in advance the types of medical treatment they would accept or refuse. The new act will make provision for partial or fluctuating mental capacity and will contain several other innovations to better protect our most defenceless citizens.

Finally, in tandem with the advocacy and guardianship legislation, we will introduce a Health Services Consent Act. This measure will clarify the rights and responsibilities of individuals, health care providers and substitute decision-makers in giving or obtaining consent to health services. This government is committed to protecting the rights and interests of vulnerable adults in this province. This legislative package will help create an environment in which vulnerable adults in Ontario can live with rights and dignity.

As I mentioned earlier, the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs has been very active in the reform of long-term care. We in the new government acknowledge that reform is needed for compelling reasons. The number of seniors is growing dramatically. New medical technology is creating new service requirements. Seniors want to preserve their independence and are indicating a strong preference for more community-based services to permit them to remain living in their own homes. But our present services are disconnected, without co-ordinated planning and management. As a result, there are gaps and overlaps, and consumers trying to locate the right program or service are often left confused and bewildered.

In opposition my party was concerned about services for seniors. In fact, in 1986 David Warner introduced a private member's bill, the Seniors Independence Act, which was to provide for the integration of community-based support services with established programs and facilities.

Now that we are the government, we will be closely examining the needs of seniors in the community and addressing long-term care in a more holistic manner. This is being done in consultation with consumers and service providers. In recent months I have met with groups such as the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations and the Ontario Nursing Home Association.

As the committee members are aware, a framework for long-term care reform was presented in the Strategies for Change document released by the previous government. We have a number of concerns with this document.

First, many people with a stake in the issue were left out of the consultations leading up to these proposals. I have heard complaint after complaint from community groups who were not consulted. There was little input from the most important people, the consumers the system is designed to serve. In addition, for a document that was supposed to be a blueprint for reform, Strategies for Change contains a surprising number of vague ideas, unresolved issues and unexplained omissions. It raises almost as many questions as it answers.

Our government believes long-term care reform is important. We are determined to do it right. The Minister of Community and Social Services, the Minister of Health and I are meeting weekly on this issue to plan our course of action. We intend to move forward with recommendations to cabinet on the next steps for dealing with long-term care reform.

As you can see, the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs plays an important advocacy role in the development of government policy. We are committed to effecting real change in critical areas such as long-term care, private pension systems and the enhancement and protection of the rights of vulnerable adults.

1430

I would now like to say a few words about the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens. The council addresses major issues of concern to seniors and advises the government on appropriate courses of action. The council also responds to requests from me for information on specific issues.

The council is now studying three priority issues: palliative care, home equity conversion, or reversed mortgages, and aging in small rural communities. I am pleased that Bill Hughes, the advisory council vice-chair, is here to answer any questions the committee may have about the purpose and role of the advisory council.

The Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs serves as an advocate for seniors in the public forum. This role underlies the second theme in the mandate of the office: promoting recognition of seniors' contributions to society. We are determined to break down outdated stereotypes about the elderly and to convey an active image of the achievements and potential of today's generation of seniors. The fact is that 92% of seniors are living active and independent lives in the community. We must make every effort to tap the talents, resources and wisdom of this group.

The annual proclamation of June as Senior Citizens' Month not only provides an opportunity to recognize the enormous potential we have in our seniors' population, but also provides an umbrella for celebrations of age around the province. A highlight last year was an exciting concert series planned, promoted and performed by older adults in 17 locations throughout Ontario. This initiative put the spotlight on the leadership qualities, management abilities and creative talent of Ontario seniors.

Each June the government presents the annual Senior Achievement Awards in a special ceremony at Queen's Park. These awards honour outstanding seniors who, after age 65, have made significant contributions to their communities. Any person or organization may nominate seniors for this distinction. The closing date for nominations for this year's awards is 2 April.

The third direction in our mandate is to foster the independence and participation of seniors. This is the primary goal of almost everything we do. It also is the reason for a specific program, the access fund we operate jointly with the Office for Disabled Persons.

This fund provides grants to non-profit organizations to make their meeting places more accessible to disabled persons and seniors. The program shares the cost of such renovations as wheelchair ramps, visual alert systems for persons with hearing impairment, and braille and other tactile features for those who are visually impaired.

In December I was pleased to announce special access fund grants of nearly $1.2 million to 39 projects across the province. This allocation is part of the government's $700-million commitment to public infrastructure renewal, as announced in the Treasurer's economic statement. Also in December we awarded 16 grants worth more than $400,000 from the regular access fund budget.

All these projects, in communities from Nepean and Picton to Dryden and Sault Ste Marie, address two crucial challenges. By creating jobs, we counter some of the hardships of the recession, and by improving facilities, we enable senior citizens and people with disabilities to share more fully in community life.

Our fourth major direction also addresses the challenge of fostering seniors' independence. With the help of more than 60 leading experts from the private and service sectors, we develop and distribute educational resources and programs designed to overcome barriers to participation in community life. We offer some 75 videos, 35 publications and five workshop series to sensitize communities, organizations, businesses and professions to the needs of seniors. The resulting educational products are of the highest quality and have strongly influenced public attitudes. In the past three months alone we have held 33 workshops and responded to requests for 48,000 publications.

Let me give you a few examples of the type of resources being developed in this area. In October we launched the Good Neighbours program province-wide. Good Neighbours is a public awareness campaign to encourage residents of neighbourhoods to reach out and help one another, especially frail, lonely or isolated seniors.

Partnership is the key to the success of this program, as it is with all our resource materials. Three corporate sponsors, the Royal Bank of Canada, Shoppers Drug Mart and Today's Seniors magazine, have donated funds to assist with the purchase of promotional materials. At the community level the Royal Bank branches and Shoppers Drug Mart stores are working with the local communities in launching the Good Neighbours program and providing ongoing support.

The program responds to the need for informal support networks to complement organized and professional services. The lives of many seniors can be improved and their independence preserved by little things, like a neighbour who checks, high school students who shovel snow or a bank teller who takes a little extra time to explain.

Another effective example of our educational resources is the Through Other Eyes workshop which has been offered to police forces, transit systems, retail chains, nursing homes and other institutions. In this simulation exercise participants experience at first hand how declining vision, hearing and physical strength affect seniors' lives.

The Through Other Eyes program often gets quick results, leading to simple but meaningful changes that make goods and services more accessible. Stores, for example, have made price tags larger, improved shelf placement, installed chairs for resting and encourage their employees to be courteous to older customers. In all, we are offering 100 of these workshops this fiscal year.

As a final example, we have just approved 20 more volunteer management training workshops to be held by the end of March. Volunteers are an irreplaceable human resource in our community support network.

The aim of these workshops is to maximize the volunteer contribution and reduce the attrition rate among volunteers. At these sessions co-ordinators and managers learn how to recruit, train and place volunteers in their organizations in ways that contribute to satisfaction and long-term participation. All these prevention and community development initiatives reflect the enabling role of the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs. We are also providing leadership and tools to equip all sectors of society to meet seniors' needs.

A major barrier to seniors' independence is lack of awareness of existing services. We address this in our fifth priority area, our central information and referral service, which has just undergone a major expansion. We now have province-wide toll-free phone lines in operation, staffed in part by senior citizens. We are making it easier for seniors, their families and care givers to find out about available programs and services and obtain answers to their questions.

We have been receiving some 1,500 calls a month with questions on financial matters and health insurance, which are the most frequent. For the first time ever, this provincial inquiry service is now being promoted through a public awareness effort. We have prepared a brochure of the toll-free line and other services. A million copies are now being distributed through some 12,000 outlets. This campaign is expected to generate a substantial increase in the volume of calls.

Our office also produces a range of publications for seniors. These include the popular Guide for Senior Citizens, which describes health, community, social service, education, recreation and pension programs for seniors. It is available in several languages, audio cassette and braille.

We are gearing up for a stronger effort to improve access to seniors services by Ontario's multicultural groups in the next fiscal year. Building on the approach of the highly successful cultural interpreter service of the citizenship development branch, we will be sponsoring a series of community seminars to link professionals and community leaders closer to the seniors they serve.

These workshops will address some of the difficulties ethnocultural seniors have in obtaining services, for example, helping to educate them about the availability of appropriate services and providing information on how services can be accessed once needs have been identified.

Finally, the sixth direction in our mandate is support for research on issues affecting seniors. A major research priority is elder abuse. A recent national study concluded that a minimum of 4% of Canadian seniors living at home are victims of abuse in one form or another. They are physically assaulted, financially exploited, psychologically intimidated or neglected. This is a problem that has been hidden far too long. We must now bring elder mistreatment into the open and confront it head on.

1440

I recently participated in the first national conference on elder abuse held in Toronto last month. I was encouraged to see the interest and commitment of the participants. We in the government see the Lightman commission and the advocacy initiatives I mentioned earlier as crucial steps in the prevention of elder abuse. We must also deal with the challenge of treating elder abuse cases. We must find better ways of helping victims and their families.

As a start, the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs has commissioned a province-wide review of community responses to elder abuse. In carrying out this study consultants have held focus groups, interviewed key people, surveyed organizations, visited five Ontario communities and examined the experience of other jurisdictions. We expect to release their report in March.

This study shows that despite the lack of formal programs and procedures, community organizations and agencies on their own initiative are beginning to address elder abuse across Ontario. The study also uncovers the barriers standing in the way of a more effective response.

One of the foremost needs is to provide more support for family members, friends, neighbours and volunteers who provide an estimated 90% of care and assistance to individuals with functional dependencies. Informal care givers face a demanding and at times frustrating task. They need and deserve our help. That is why, when discussing the future of long-term care in this province, the issue of how to best provide help for the care giver must be an integral part of the reform process.

This research report will be invaluable both to the government and communities as we plan further action. Let me add that in the coming year we plan to supplement this data with a survey in specific ethnocultural communities on elder abuse and the response of service agencies.

That completes a brief sketch of the recent achievements and ongoing work of the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs.

In conclusion, let me quote again from the United Nations action plan on aging, which observes: "All too often, old age is an age of no consent. Decisions affecting aging citizens are frequently made without the participation of the citizens themselves."

Guaranteeing the rights, independence and participation of seniors is our overriding goal. I am looking forward to a constructive dialogue with the committee members on how we can best achieve this vision we share.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. Your opening remarks were 35 minutes, so we go to the critic for the official opposition, who may have equal time if he so wishes. Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: I probably will not need quite as much time because I think we would all like to get into questions as soon as possible to find out some of the answers to the specific directions the minister has talked about. Thank you, Minister, for your overview of your ministry's work, and I wish you well with implementing a very difficult task of trying to really, as a bottom line, increase the dignity and the comfort level of our senior citizens.

I have often believed, and in having travelled to other parts of the world have noticed, the differences between Canadian society and other societies where senior citizens are really elevated in many parts of the world to a position of proper stature. We in North America perhaps tend to want to find a place to put mom or dad and get them out of our hair, which is really inappropriate and certainly not constructive. I really believe that a very true measure of society is how we treat our young people in the form of them being an asset, but it is also how we recognize our seniors, they being probably our most precious resource, and most untapped resource, I might add.

There are a number of issues of concern. I would point out of course that as you have mentioned, your government appears to be adopting the philosophy laid out in A New Agenda set by the previous government and I applaud that. It was very clearly and in a very nonpartisan way back in about 1985 when the ministry was created, a major step in the direction of seniors in this province, to create an office that would pay attention to their concerns and a step that I am pleased to see, with naturally some reservations and some concerns, this government is going to follow.

That major step of course led to the previous government spending in excess of $2 billion a year in the area of senior citizens' services and in various areas whether it is nursing homes, beds for nursing homes, chronic care beds, community services. The concept of allowing seniors to remain in their homes as long as possible I think is a concept that many of us share. It is something -- I know the Chair would agree with our past municipal experience and our dealings with seniors at a very local level -- that I think is vitally important because we have all seen many tragic stories where people have had to lose their homes for various reasons or they are incapable of getting a level of service to stay in their homes, be it even Meals on Wheels or as basic a service as that, or some form of in-home care that was not available.

I am pleased that we at least in the last five years leave a bit of a legacy in the area of increasing that level of service to senior citizens. As I said, I am pleased to see that you recognize that and that you indeed have expanded in your speech, I believe, on the mandate laid out under A New Agenda. I do not have right in front of me the exact words, but we will get to that perhaps during question period. I really think that the issue of senior citizens and their care is very much a nonpartisan issue. It is an issue that we as a society must recognize and work very hard and co-operatively on.

In as positive a light as possible, I would perhaps take a little bit of exception however to the comments with regard to the Strategies for Change. I was delighted to see that the honourable minister, Mrs Akande, commented in Hansard, and I quote: "We agree with the intent of the proposed reform and agree that reform is needed. We accept many of the recommendations, question some and require further consultation on others." So there was a little more of a positive approach coming from the Minister of Community and Social Services that I was pleased to see.

Of course you will recognize that while Strategies for Change was introduced by the previous government in May 1990, on the statement that there were many groups upset because they did not have an opportunity to consult, the fact of the matter is that a little minor detail like an election got in the way of much of that consultation. You will know, and if you do not I am sure your staff could advise you, that the advisory group was established with membership drawn from across the province and that some of the consultation to discuss local planning and implementation of the reform was held in the fall of 1990, and it was certainly anticipated that further discussions would take place.

There was never, and I would hope you would not be implying that there ever was, any attempt to simply foist programs in areas where local consultation would not take place. That clearly was the agenda and the long-range plan of the government.

But I do not want to spend a lot of time defending the past, except to say that I think the record speaks for itself in the areas of the creation of the ministry in 1985 and the funding programs that have gone on. Many of the attitudes and social changes that have taken place are indeed a result of the previous government.

Perhaps I missed it, but I did not see any reference to mandatory retirement or age discrimination in the statement. I heard a lot about pay equity and employment equity, presumably in their earlier years when they are working to allow them to avoid the poverty cycle. That is a laudable approach, but we are dealing with issues that concern people who have attained senior citizen stature at this time, such as mandatory retirement. In fact, I go back to a question that Alvin Curling, along with myself, asked you in the Legislature with regard to the government's position and, with respect, we heard that there was more study involved in the process.

1450

I have no difficulty with the necessity of a new government to study an issue. I have no difficulty with the necessity of a new minister to become fully aware. I suspect if you had been asked prior to the election if you would be senior citizen's minister, you might not have answered. You might have said yes, but on the other hand you might not have, and therefore should be allotted a respectable period of time to get up to speed, and I appreciate that.

I am just a little concerned, though, that when we have the meter ticking literally in the lives of millions of senior citizens around the province, by the time we study it, it may no longer be a problem to those individuals. I am a little concerned that perhaps your very competent staff in the ministry would be able to advise you on areas where, whether it is extended care or the issue of co-op payments, whatever the issue is, you could perhaps get a little quicker grasp of many of the issues that I consider urgent as the critic for your ministry.

Frankly, the issue of mandatory retirement is one that I think is extremely important, that people know where this government stands. Yet what we really have been told is that we are going to do some interministerial dialogue and we are going to sit down and talk. When we get to question period on this, I would like you to tell us where the government stands and what position you are going to take, and I hope that it is not one of just continually -- I believe the Premier was even quoted as saying that he cannot afford the luxury of a private opinion on the matter. I do not know that any Premier would be asked for a private opinion. We would like to know the government opinion and the government position on a matter like that.

One of the other aspects that concerns me greatly -- again without more or less opening statements and without getting into the details of cutbacks and corporate services and other areas in the estimates -- is that I am more concerned about certain conflicts.

There is a very real problem brewing in the communities in this area of transportation, the area of other Transhelp services that are provided through regional municipalities and in co-operation with the taxi industry in providing handicapped vehicles, and again there are programs started by and funded by previous governments, but we now have a conflict.

I had a lady contact me who has an advanced case of multiple sclerosis. She is not a senior but she is confined to a wheelchair, and her concern is that there are healthy seniors, she claims to me, using the Transhelp services, thereby causing her to be a shut-in. Minister, in your position representing both those sectors in your role in cabinet, you would appear to have a real conflict in attempting to resolve that particular problem.

As to whether or not it is true, I have not been able to fully substantiate it, except to say that this particular individual is indeed shut in, is indeed a captive of her own apartment in the west end of Toronto and is unable to get out because the Transhelp services in that part of the community are telling her that they are full, that they have got to go here and have got to go there, and are telling her that senior citizens who are otherwise healthy are using the facility.

Obviously we have to provide a service for seniors to get out and about in the community to enjoy shopping and the amenities and provide other good public transportation for those seniors who are healthy enough to use the standard public transportation, but also we have to provide additional support in the area of Transhelp. I think it is extremely critical, and the last thing we would want to do is have a handicapped community pitted against a senior citizens' community, feeling one was stealing services away from the other.

I think that is a very real concern. I have talked to regional chairpeople about the issue who are quite concerned that the support is not there, and once again it is their concern that perhaps too much time will be taken to analyse and study and consult on an issue when really the solution is quite apparent.

I guess the real fear is the danger of dealing too much in philosophies and not getting down to pragmatic solutions. It is very easy for all of us to go on at great length about how wonderful our seniors are and how important. Words like "dignity" and "retire with dignity" are ones that one of your colleagues has used, and that type of thing, but when you get down to the hard provision of services, these folks want an opportunity to be able to continue to lead a normal, productive life in their society. They want to be active producers in the community and indeed are quite capable of being that if they get some direction and some assistance from an advocacy ministry such as yours.

I have not seen the details, of course, of the numerous pieces of legislation that you referred to in your opening remarks, but I will be looking for detailed answers. I am a little concerned off the top that your ministry does not get so bogged down in the legislation and attempting to bring new pieces of legislation through the process that we are unable to accomplish anything substantive. I would ask that you seriously look at what areas can be dealt with either by regulation or by co-operative changes with perhaps the other delivery agencies in a community, be it a regional government or a local municipal or be it some form of self-help group or other agency, either for-profit or not-for-profit, that are providing services to our seniors.

It is not to say that I am just blindly criticizing legislation. It may well be that legislation is something we, as a party, will end up supporting, putting forth amendments and changes as we go through that process, but I am sure you know, from having at least viewed the process at Queen's Park over a number of years, that legislation is very tedious and can indeed bog down. The clock is ticking for many of our senior citizens and I think that time is of the essence. If there are other alternatives with which to deal with many of these issues, then I would strongly encourage you to look at those other alternatives, be they regulations or whatever.

I did not also notice any response to the AMO position. I know there has been consultation and dialogue with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I think one of the problems we have in society is we perhaps limit the scope of who we consider stakeholders on issues such as dealing with senior citizens' affairs. Certainly AMO would be a major stakeholder in my view, and would be someone I would hope you would consult with on an ongoing basis. I will not ask you the question but just simply serve notice that I have a question that deals with their suggestions, and would hope that you could give us some response on your ministry's position with regard to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Minister, you have a big job. I guess you have the largest title in the cabinet and probably an extensive budget for business cards and things of that nature. But I wonder at the fact that so many things have been put on your plate, if that is appropriate, if it perhaps diminishes in some way, because of the broad scope of the responsibilities, the fact that you have to fight at the cabinet table on the one hand for the disabled, on another hand for the seniors, on another hand for race relations and human rights.

Of course they are related in many instances, but I also have some concern that not enough focus will be placed on the issue of senior citizens and their concerns. As you well know, while we may have senior citizens who are actively involved in human rights issues, many of our seniors are disabled, so there is a tie there, but on the other hand, we have many who are involved with neither of those situations. I would just be concerned that your ability to deal with the severity of the issues as they relate to senior citizens has been watered down to the point that you will have difficulty concentrating on one or the other of those particular issues.

1500

I express that not in an overly negative way, but in a way that would ask that your people in the ministry come up with a plan that allows you to concentrate and put forward a vision, put forward some concepts that frankly are not simply -- I mean, while I appreciate the fact that you are carrying on the former government's agenda in this, I think that many people would like to see on your government's agenda, whether it was stipulated in An Agenda for People or not, those particular concepts and promises and ideas put forward.

I think your opening statement does recognize the numerous issues involved in senior citizens' affairs and concerns. We have of course, on a bit of a parochial level, a very active seniors group in our own community which we meet with on a regular basis. Margaret and I go dancing and go to dinner there quite often.

Mr Daigeler: Who is the senior?

Mr Mahoney: No, neither one of us is the senior, but they do invite us there.

Mr Daigeler: You act like one sometimes.

Mr Mahoney: Well, some of the times perhaps I get a little carried away.

But the vitality of the senior citizens in all our communities, from Kenora to Ottawa and right across the province, is such that I just get a little concerned when I see some of the statements that were almost being paternalistic in a reverse sort of way. We need not be that way. These folks are very eager to participate in society, and statements like "foster the independence and participation of seniors" smacks of paternalism and just gives me some concern that you might be looking at it in that regard.

The main principle, of course, in A New Agenda, "to improve the quality of life for seniors both in the community and in care facilities," I note that you have endorsed that. It is a principle that needs to be endorsed by all three parties in the Legislature, but it is one that we need some action on. We need to see that this government, with all its good intent and its promises and its philosophical bent towards helping people in the community, is prepared to take some action, to not simply continue to study things to death.

It is perhaps unfair in two or three or four months to expect things to take off from your perspective. But it is well past that time now, and I think it is time for us to be asking the hard questions of you and, as critics, to be motivating you whenever we can to put forward positive suggestions that the people are going to see as very real and to get on with indeed creating a society where senior citizens are thought of as our most precious resource, to use them as much as we can and to further the good parts of this great province.

I have numerous questions, as I am sure my colleagues do, Madam Chair. Rather than just carry on in a general sense I would like to get focused on some of the questions that I know will hopefully lead to answers and to action by this ministry.

Might I say in my first opportunity to publicly talk to you as the new minister, as the critic for the Liberal Party, I do wish you well in your job. I think it is a major undertaking and one in which the role of critic need not necessarily be totally negative. But I can also assure you that we are anxious to see action; we are anxious to see good things that we can all take out to our community.

I think my colleague Mrs McLeod has some comment she would like to add. That is the time I require for my opening remarks and I look forward to the question period.

The Vice-Chair: There are about eight minutes left for Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I just want to add a very few words to the opening comments of our critic in relationship specifically to long-term care reform from the perspective of the critic for Community and Social Services. I do want to express a certain amount of surprise and concern with the statement on the bottom of page 6: "With the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services assuming the lead responsibility for this reform, the focus of the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs turned to public education, communication and advocacy within government."

My concern was the hope that that does not mean the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs or you as minister would be in any way stepping back from a continued advocacy role in the area of long-term care reform, since that clearly has such major implications for seniors. I was reassured as I got on to page 13 that that in fact would not be the case, that you were continuing to play a very active role with your colleagues in both Health and Community and Social Services and continuing in an advocacy role in the area of long-term care reform.

I had a little note, a further concern, though, about the weekly meetings of the three ministers, and I certainly think an interministerial approach is very much needed in this regard. The concern that that particular statement raised in my mind was that it sounded a little bit like the reverse of 11 men in the room, which has certain connotations that are to be avoided.

I would trust that any planning that is done in terms of a revised direction for strategies for change in long-term care reform is very much based upon the results of the consultation which has taken place to date and is not the result of senior levels of government, even at the ministerial level, putting their heads together to determine what should be done next.

I very much take to heart the earlier comments about the concerns in relationship to the consultation process prior to Strategies for Change being put forward by our government. I think, with my own particular beliefs about process, as we look back retrospectively on that, the concern that I have heard expressed is that there was not more consultation before the white paper itself was released. I think that is a fair comment that people are making.

In some measure of defence, because I was a part of the government that brought that paper out, I think that the proposals were based on a sense of an urgent need to respond to some very long-standing concerns and that there was a great deal of excitement about some truly different, innovative approaches to dealing with those concerns.

It should not be a surprise that it was somewhat less than specific in its implementation details because it was intended to be a conceptual framework and the details of implementation were to be developed as the consultation process and the local and regional planning evolved. Certainly that kind of specificity was to be added through a very intensive process of consultation.

I would go back to page 12 of your comments, where it sounded as though, in examining the needs of seniors in the community and assessing long-term care in a more holistic manner, it was almost as if you were feeling that you needed to reinvent the whole process of looking at the need for reform in the long-term care area. I trust that that is not the case.

As I have read some of the consultation documents that have been shared with me as critic, there is that question raised about the original consultation process and there are some concerns identified with the directions, and we will want to explore those in our questions. But there is also consistently a great deal of positive support for many of those initiatives. I do not think you want to step back from the progress that has already been made. I think you will want to build on that foundation, address the concerns, but take the agenda forward without having to reinvent many of the concepts that were put forward for consideration in that particular paper.

I too look forward to the discussions and to having some specific responses to you in some of these areas.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mrs McLeod and Mr Mahoney. I guess Mr Mahoney and I get invited out by the seniors and we are such a big hit there because we are fast approaching their generation.

Mr Mahoney: They have a couple of chairs set aside for us.

The Vice-Chair: But we certainly are very popular in Mississauga with the seniors and we love them too.

The next speaker is Mr Jackson, the spokesperson for the PCs.

Mr Jackson: I would just at the outset indicate that I am struck by what was said at our annual seniors seminar, which is attended by some 550 to 600 seniors every year. Our guest speaker this last year was Dr Robert McClure, and his opening line was: "I am so delighted to be invited to talk to you about seniors' matters, because some day I hope to be one." Of course, Dr McClure is 91 years old. But it is very much an attitudinal thing for our most dynamic seniors in this province.

1510

I would like to comment in a general way, first of all, to commend the minister for her election victory, to welcome her to Queen's Park in a more official way, to congratulate her on her appointment, which, as Mr Mahoney alluded to, seems to be a never-ending story. But I do know of her background and am pleased that the Premier has seen fit, at least with respect to seniors, to assign her that responsibility because of her background with seniors in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Having said that, though, I think it is fair to say that it is a tribute to the former government that it was so concerned about making seniors a priority that it did assign a single minister to the responsibility. As such it spoke -- at least in this building; it may not as a public perception -- in this building it means it is a priority for the government of the day.

The minister would be aware that she has many challenges with the many offices she may run back and forth to. I know that I have been on record as asking a very delicate question of ministers who wear two, three and, in some instances, four ministerial hats; that is, just to share with this committee how much time you spend at each. Those previous ministers who have answered the question have come up with some major revelations with respect to how much time they actually are spending. There is just so much time to go around.

That division is an important issue, because where the government sees fit to divide the responsibilities of seniors, it tends to, in its policies, divide its emphasis as well. Although that might be an unfair thesis for me to advance at this time, I think it is fair, when I look at the minister's 35-minute, prepared presentation. I can support some of that thesis when I look to your own comments.

I would raise for example this whole notion that -- first of all, I should recognize the Kennedyesque statement that appeared in your throne speech which I am not so sure is appropriate for seniors. I very much see it as the reverse: I very much see the struggles, the trials, the tribulations that seniors make. If I were asked to pick a quote, I would, in my own personal reverence for oriental thought, paraphrase an old Zen proverb, which says that a true measure of a society's quality is in the manner in which it treats its seniors. It becomes the singular hallmark in oriental thought. Mr Mahoney has made a brief reference to that as well.

However, the Premier has seen fit to state that, and I can imagine that in these recessionary times it has more to do with "It's all for one and one for all" in this belt-tightening exercise on the road to improving the life of all Ontario citizens. However, the throne speech, which has been alluded to first by you, was also deficient, according to some critics, in the areas of health and senior citizens. Perhaps people had legitimate anticipations. After all, An Agenda for People talked about a reform of rest and retirement home regulations. It talked about $62 million to expand the integrated homemaker program. Yet nowhere in the throne speech is there a clearly enunciated approach to seniors.

We have seen those in previous throne speeches, and again, in fairness to the former government, it made very clear and specific commitments in the area of health care. Again, I guess your statements today concern me in that they are very careful to devote no more than a single page to the issues of health care. There is nothing that really strikes more to the issue of quality of life and dignity than the issue of senior citizens' sense of wellness, their ability to access medically necessary services.

These are issues I will raise during the course of the estimates in terms of what your directorate is doing in terms of advocacy and your role in terms of the approach of your government in terms of advocating for these needs, because if not you, Minister, then who?

I always am pleased to draw an analogy. We have just gone through an experience with the Ministry of Community and Social Services estimates, and we received not very good news about specific senior-based programs. I am sure the staff who were here reported to your ministry, which was coming up a week later, that series after series of questions were asked about access to seniors programs and the minister said: "We are looking at it, but there are no new moneys. We cannot promise you anything."

I always think of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues, a woman whose political statements I admire very much, who has indicated, quite contrary to the Minister of Community and Social Services, that there shall be additional funding for women, for example, for abuse shelters in this province, or heads will roll. That is the partial quote that I read in the paper. Yet the minister responsible for the funding has said: "No, we are not looking at a new funding formula. We are not able to talk to you about expansion at this time."

I see in her the essence of a real advocate, because she is prepared to go one step beyond and say: "These issues are worth fighting for. These are issues I believe in." So I am hopeful that you will approach your ministry. But, I mean, this is your ministry. It is your personality and your approach will be your own. I can only suggest to you, speaking on behalf of seniors, that they are more vulnerable than we care to admit, and we therefore must be more vocal and more tenacious in our approach to fight for their legitimate right to access to certain programs.

I do not wish to dwell too much longer on your statements. I think it is very clear that, if you are going to talk about income security for seniors, you have legitimate questions yourself about the government's commitment to the Social Assistance Review Committee recommendations and getting them on track. There was another election promise. We do not know if that will be fulfilled or not, but I certainly believe that that should be supported, as I do reform for access to more affordable accommodation, which I consider one of the larger issues for senior citizens. It was not mentioned extensively in your comments, but during the questioning I am sure you have many things you would like to share with us on that.

The examination of food banks in this province will tell you that one of their fastest-growing client groups is seniors and that, at least from experience in the food banks that I work directly with in my riding, I have some additional concerns about the fact that our seniors are returning. It is not in their nature to seek out charity; it is not in their nature to admit that they need to be helped. They distinguish themselves in our society here in Ontario very much on that basis, and we may never know how serious the real need is for many of them in the privacy of their own accommodation.

I want to talk about this whole issue of long-term care, and start in support of the comments by the former government. I am concerned about your statements -- I believe they are on page 1 -- which indicate that you see a lot of vagaries, and perhaps a lack of focus, unresolved issues and unexplained omissions contained in Strategies for Change. I want to echo their concerns that I hope that you are not reconstituting some already very good things that are happening and suggesting that we need to study them further, because I can assure you that there are some serious issues involved in long-term care in this province and they must be dealt with.

The most serious is that we are reducing access to institutional beds in this province at an alarming rate, that in community after community there are absolutely no beds available. Yet we indicate, even in your own statements, something to the effect that "overall growth of Ontario long-term care facilities is not envisaged in the immediate future." There are going to be some serious consequences to that.

1520

Let me say that the Minister for Community and Social Services had to come to that realization in a somewhat embarrassing way, because when she presented her estimates she only showed a bed reduction of several hundred beds, but that was on beds that were available. When we incited the staff to give us the real number of beds available to seniors in this province we found we were closing in on 2,000 fewer beds in the last six to seven years which have been removed or are unavailable. They are not funded.

Yet you can go into Halton Centennial Manor and you will see that the male wards and the couples wards have been shut down, that they have no new admissions. There is no place, for people who do not have the funds to go into a nursing home, for them to go except to stay in the circumstances they find themselves in.

Those blockages that are acute today are going to be much worse two, three and fours years from now. I seriously question why you cannot build on the existing discussions that have gone on, expand your terms of reference.

I notice that the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens in its report indicates that it has met with the long-term care task force twice in the previous year. I would ask you simply why it is that you have not included at least one member from the advisory committee to sit in on those discussions, to participate in those discussions, especially in light of your comments that your role is somehow being redefined as educational advocacy and perhaps review.

I believe you should be at the table pitching for these issues, because in the interviews I have had with some of the personnel who are operating the 14 new offices to implement long-term care reform they have already indicated in a sense that their priorities are already shifting. Disabled and seniors, somehow they are off to, "Maybe six months to a year from now we will get around to dealing with them," but the immediate access to the envelope funds is going to be concentrated in other areas.

If in fact that is the experience out there, and I will give the benefit of the doubt that it may not be, then I think it is more important that we have seniors on the advisory committee who are analysing that, and who are saying to you and reporting to you, "Minister, we are not getting our fair shake of that envelope of dollars."

Long-term care is a very complex issue, and I do not wish to dwell on it in my opening comments but simply to say that we have been struggling in this province for 25 years to reconcile the dual-headed monster of Health and Comsoc and the delivery of these services, and I wish your government well. I will support you in that, as I indicated to the previous government. But some of the best people in the province, à la former Treasurer Nixon, have tried and this is as close as they got. So you will get a lot of support from us in order to achieve that reality.

The other dual-headed monster is the two delivery systems between the commercial and the municipal non-profit co-operative homes for the aged. Obviously, there is some dichotomy there in terms of funding, and I will want to ask you some specific questions about that. But I certainly have read the report of Price Waterhouse and I am familiar with the presentations of this government before the courts and/or the Martha-Mary campaign, which I know you, Minister, are quite familiar with. In fact, there is not a difference in terms of the services provided but there is a difference in the services that we will fund, and in that there is discrimination, a class system to which we contribute unless we resolve this.

As you know -- you understand the issues of seniors as well as I do, I believe -- the acuity rate tends to change very rapidly for senior citizens, and once you become locked into an institutional setting your mobility is reduced but your needs increase. We are limited as a government and a society in terms of addressing those needs unless we make some tough decisions and we move quickly with the resources and the leadership that is required. I do not believe we have to continue to study the matter ad nauseam.

On the issue of abuse, I will want to ask you during the questioning some very specific questions about the manner in which we fund Alzheimer's patients in either of the two types of facilities.

I have recently gone through a most painful experience. I act as probably the only family member to my scout master, whose Alzheimer's has necessitated the placing of him in a psychiatric ward behind bars. It is probably one of the most painful realizations I have had in years, but that is the system we have in this province, and that is unacceptable. Ontario is not the place we all think it is. You know, Minister, that a lot of seniors are placed in that position in this province, yet our answers generally come to the point of, "We really don't have the moneys or the funding." How can we talk of dignity and respect for these our most vulnerable adults? I will come back to that.

I want to assure you, Minister, that when the Minister of Health says that more money is not the solution to health care problems, and knowing how socialized medicine has worked throughout the world, it inevitably and invariably results in the reduction of access for senior citizens to medically necessary treatments.

This exists in Ontario today. It exists with coronary transplants; it exists with certain types of surgery. We all have had examples. Recently, I had a dialysis patient be told by his hospital: "After all, you are 83. What do you really expect from the health care system?" Well, he has gotten another year of life because of another hospital. I will tell you, it was a Catholic hospital. They said, "We don't have a philosophy that discriminates on your age," and that is encouraging. But will we always have that Catholic hospital which has a funding mechanism which will allow it to continue with that ethos and that approach, which is blind to the age of the person who comes through the emergency department requiring help and support?

Yet we know that is a feature to a greater extent in neighbouring provinces which have had to deal with this reality, and nowhere do I see us commenting, nowhere do I see that within your own sense of your ministry this is something you are watching for and that you want to make it abundantly clear to the new Minister of Health, with her obvious challenges.

I hope we will talk more in detail about the integrated homemaker service. We know from our questions to the Minister of Community and Social Services that she is not anticipating any expansion in spite of the election promises by her leader, or that we would have a more efficient and more sensitive system to integrate the Red Cross homemakers and the Victorian Order of Nurses home care programs, because in those communities that are not on an integrated basis there are some access problems.

I want to commend you for your health services consent act reference, although, in fairness, when you mention Mr Warner and his work, I am sure you will not disagree that Mr Sterling in our caucus has done considerable legal research and North American research in order to help your government come to a position with this.

Substitute decision making: You know I was concerned that the Weisstub report was not being made public. I have had a chance to look at it and I know there are some very delicate matters in there. But again, I do not believe the answer is in studying it any further. It is an area that had not been studied for many years, but I would hope that your government comes forward soon, and you could look to us for support in that area.

1530

Respite and palliative care: I am concerned about the whole issue of respite care, and it references my long-term care reform concerns. I have identified that the number of beds available to the citizens in this province is declining at a very rapid rate. For that reason we have bed blocking -- we know that exists -- and the former government had a co-ordination service it developed. It was to their credit that a placement co-ordination service was established in major centres, and I commended them for that. However, as the total number of beds declines so dramatically in this province, it is important that we realize that there just are not the beds to free up for respite care. So we have pressure on institutions, whether they are homes for the aged or hospitals, where we can find respite beds. We cannot even go to nursing homes, which are taking disabled adults, and we cannot find placement for them to move them out. These families in increasing numbers are taking care of their spouses or relatives at older age.

A model 15 years ago was this wonderful nuclear family, that somehow grandma, who needed a little support, could keep her own little apartment downstairs. But what we are now seeing is a very dramatic shift to a 70-year-old woman taking care of an 82-year-old man. Those are two entirely different challenges and they are creating two entirely different types of pressures. We are degenerating the health of the woman who is caring for another person. As you know, outside of certain communities there is not even access to home support.

We have to set some priorities in order to help those kinds of people, and I am not seeing that in terms of mandates. More important, the whole issue of respite becomes an emergency. I am dealing with cases of people -- the wife is beating the husband into the hospital because she has had a nervous breakdown. That is not a system which we can call, in wonderful italics, community-based home care, which is the way to go for the future. We are aiding and abetting the degenerative effects on the entire family but we are burning out the care giver, and that is indefensible.

Assistive devices: I hope we will be able to have some time to discuss this. You do wear two hats in this area, and it should prove an interesting discussion. I think assistive devices presents itself as an excellent opportunity since you are involved with the two ministries. Seniors come to me in increasing numbers dealing with basic dignity issues, colostomy, incontinence products they have to pay for; and, if they are in an institution where the institution does not pay for it, that comes out of their supportive allowance, and the supportive allowance has only been increased once in the last eight years, I think. There are a lot of issues here.

Generally, seniors are asking questions about why certain assistive devices they do not have access to, yet a family with its baby bonus and its other benefits has access to all these simply because the person is under the age of 26. Perhaps we would be able to have a discussion on that.

I wanted to raise, when the time is appropriate, the access fund. I am pleased, first of all, that you are one of the ministers the Treasurer told how much money they are getting, because we asked Mrs Akande and she did not know how much money out of the $700 million she was getting; it seems the other ministers know how much they are getting. So I am pleased you referenced it and I am pleased that it is going to the access fund.

However, I did write you a letter on 4 January -- forgive me for being so parochial -- and I have not received a response to it. I actually requested some time to discuss with you. One of the groups to the access fund apparently got caught in the change of government. You were unable to deal with their file, yet it would have cost them thousands and thousands of dollars to wait to be eligible for the access fund, so they proceeded with construction. This is a church -- church money, limited funds. They did not want to go broke. In my letter I suggest to you that it was not your fault that the government changed; it was to your benefit. The Chairman, the member for Mississauga South, indicates she has a similar case, so I would hope you would be sensitive to the manner in which we have represented these; hopefully these estimates might produce an opportunity for you to show just how flexible the new government really is.

Housing: I guess one of the major concerns seniors are starting to express is over their accommodation costs, because it is the fastest-growing cost component to their savings. I will not get into a debate with you on rent control. I disagree with your government's approach. I think a universal program rewards the rich and still does not help the poor, and that is exactly what the Social Assistance Review Committee said, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Stuart Thom and just about everybody who deals with poor people. They say that rent control works for middle-income people and the rich but it does not work for the poor, and the fastest-growing group of poor is seniors.

The late Archie Dodds is a person I sort of made semifamous by always referencing the fact that when the former government went into office, he was paying 25% of his total income to his rent, and in five years -- the government changed and he passed away, unfortunately, but at that point he was paying close to 80% of his income, and his income had been indexed. Archie was an example of the failure of rent control, and capping his rent today or even rolling it back by 10% is still not going to help hundreds and hundreds of thousands of seniors who need support which is income sensitive. I think I still am the youngest chairman of the housing authority in this province, when I was 23; we very much became aware of the importance of assisting seniors to modest but respectable accommodation that was a function of their income. I certainly would hope that that is an area for you to advocate.

As I read the green paper from the Minister of Housing which was tabled yesterday, even though he indicated it would be a green paper on his government's position on housing generally, it only dealt with the narrow issues of rent control. So we still do not have a housing policy statement from your government, and I certainly will be watching it carefully.

However, there are programs specifically directed towards seniors, and I have written you recently about those. Supported independent living programs: again, the lead ministry is Housing, but I am told that your delivery service for the home-sharing program in Hamilton is the VON, and it has been advised that the Ministry of Housing is cancelling the program. We have some 42 seniors who are home-sharing accommodation with dignity, yet the Ministry of Housing is saying, "Look, we just don't have money and we'll have to cut back the program." Programs like that may be in jeopardy all across this province, I do not know. I am hoping that you, as minister, will look into it, because it is clearly an issue for seniors as that is the delivery arm.

I will briefly touch on the Lightman commission. The concern I have here is that we are again studying, and I think it was your leader who said at a couple of meetings recently that we do not need to study a lot of these things, we need to get on with it. I happen to believe this is one of them. I believe that for a variety of reasons, but it has been our position for some years, and I have shared this story with Mrs Akande, that it has to do with the bill of rights for nursing home residents, which has something to do with regulating and rights in unregulated institutions, which are in many instances run by the province; homes for the aged, for example.

In 1985, while working on amendments to the Nursing Homes Act, I tabled several amendments. One was to extend the nursing home bill of rights to homes for the aged, and both the NDP and the Liberals voted against that amendment. So I am very hopeful that your party, now in government, will fully support a victims' bill of rights for those residents in homes for the aged.

I take the view, since this province has on only two occasions shut down a for-profit nursing home and a not-for-profit home for the aged, that there is clear evidence that we cannot distinguish that people are inherently safer in one institution or the other. Therefore, the concept of bills of rights and residents' bills of rights is something which I and my party take very strongly, and we certainly would hope that you do not need to study that issue at length, but would be willing to bring forward legislation to make that a reality.

1540

I can understand your concerns about the regulations involved, since most of these are municipally based. When I read the Provincial-Municipal Social Services Review report, I see that on long-term care they want to recommend shifting much of the delivery arm and responsibility to the municipality, as well as reduced municipal contribution. The minister would be aware that we are paying 70-30 from the province and that the report recommends 75-25, with giving a little more authority to the municipality.

However, you could reasonably argue that the municipalities would then be responsible for all the regulating, sending in the inspectors, and that comes at local taxpayers' expense. Certainly I hope these are the issues that would get on the table and be discussed early, and not simply talk about the Lightman commission in its more romantic terms about protection. There are also some legitimate financial costs here which your government has to address. Mr Mahoney referenced consultation with AMO in this area. It is almost critical and we would like to certainly ensure that this is ensured.

I have lots more to say and I am afraid I am not going to have time, but we do have the next --

The Vice-Chair: You have about four minutes.

Mr Jackson: We have much more time to have a frank exchange in a question and answer format.

I can only say that support for seniors is something I feel very strongly about, and not only because I have a rather large seniors population in my riding; it is because I consider them far more vulnerable than we wish to discuss or admit. For the last four and a half years, and I think to this day we are the only one that operates this way, we have had a full-time geriatric specialist on our staff in order to deal with the extensive calls.

By listening only and then responding, I have come to appreciate how truly vulnerable they are in this province. I guess I want to reference back to you that when I look at your résumé, I see a person with extensive civic background in work with seniors, and yet I see the Premier of this province handing to you a multifaceted challenge. I wish you well with that great challenge, but I know that I would hope seniors will not just have a soft and warm spot in your heart, but a most vocal role on your advocacy agenda.

The Vice-Chair: I think there was just one omission, and that was from the member for Mississauga South that the minister comment on living wills in her response time. Minister, back to you for half an hour.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Where to start? Thank you both for your comments, and I really want to thank you for sharing with me your concerns, and the fact that you do share my concerns regarding seniors and that it is not a partisan issue. It certainly is an issue that we all should be sharing in a non-partisan way and I thank you for that because I think that will be most helpful. I do not think that as members of the opposition your role of critic is there just to criticize, but it is there to assist and to help and suggest. I certainly will be looking for your suggestions and your help as we try to implement and change and do all the various things that we are doing as a new government.

I do not think that coming from my background, I could sit back and take a passive role. I just have to say that one of the reasons I entered politics was to make a change and that is what I intend to do. One of the hardest things I have had to come to realize in the very short time I have been here is that having been minister on 1 October did not mean I could change it all by 2 October. Quite frankly I would have wanted to do that, but this is a democratic process.

Mr Mahoney, you will understand that we do have to go through that process of the Legislature and all of the various forms of passing legislation and the committee work that needs to be done. I do appreciate that we will do that. I hope that in my comments I did not make you feel -- I seemed to get that from you -- that there was some sense that we were consulting again. The reason I put in A New Agenda and the reason we talked about initiatives for change in Strategies for Change is that yes, there has been consultative work done out there.

The advisory council has done its job. People have made their suggestions, have made their comments, and we should build on that. There is no reason why we cannot do that. The work is there, the background is there and what we want to do is build on it. If we are going to make change, which we are going to do, we should be making change in a proper and good and equitable way. I did not try to get here for so long that we would make change and then come back here in eight years' time and make change again. Let's do it once and let's do it right.

That is one of the reasons why we are meeting weekly. We are meeting weekly as well because we do feel that seniors are important. If we did not feel they were important, we would not be meeting weekly, but we do feel that they are important, that it is the most important part of our change in our government right now to make sure that we make those changes. So we are meeting weekly and we want to make that change and implement it quickly. So again, weekly meetings it is.

I feel that although the various aspects of my ministry are diverse, they all come together under one ministry very well. Certainly I look at my ministry as a ministry of equity and equality. I have said that many times. I feel that although perhaps they are all brought together, they are not going to be watered down. They certainly have a better chance now of making change and getting things done, because we do not have to worry about consulting and getting too many ministers together. We can do it in a quick and efficient way.

You have brought up a various points and I do not think I am going to be able to address them all, so I am going to welcome all of the questions. I have made extensive notes as you chatted and talked to me about the various things, so I will try to touch on them briefly, but by no means does that mean it is my extensive viewpoint. l could not possibly address all of the issues that you have raised in an extensive way in the 30 minutes, but I will certainly try to touch on them and then we can come back to them during question time.

Mr Jackson very kindly commented on my past background. I did work with seniors. That was my past and I too have faced a lot of family situations. My mother just passed away last week, having suffered from Alzheimer's, so I do know the struggles and I do know what it is like to be a family member with those concerns and problems. The one thing I do know from my work and from my own personal experience is that the services out there for seniors are not equitable, and they are not there.

You talked about respite. We cannot think of respite just in an institution. There can be respite in a community, but unfortunately it is not there for every facet of the community. Certainly Meals on Wheels is not there for everybody in every community. I can just look to Toronto and tell you that in certain parts of Toronto meals are only served six days a week, whereas in the agency I come from, they were served six days a week with a frozen meal for the next day as well, or double-up meals.

In some agencies, yes, you can get respite. Our agency provided respite programs, both in a daytime program and also with people going into the home. But across the street, across the borders, in areas of agencies across the street, a senior could not get the same services at all because he did not come under our catchment area. So yes, the inadequacies are there and long-term reform was supposed to make sure those inadequacies were pushed aside and that equalities were built and that people would have services across Ontario in an equal and equitable fashion.

We are trying to do that and we are trying to make sure that we do it quickly. You are right. The studies have been there. Mr Mahoney said that we do not need to study any more. We are not trying to study any more; we are just trying to implement those studies in a fast and equitable fashion, but also to make sure that we do it in a proper way. Again, we do not want to just do it in a way that the services are not equitable and are not done in the proper way. They have to be done in a very comprehensive and in a caring fashion.

1550

You talked about the Ministry of Community and Social Services position, and yet when I go to my notes I do see how she talks about extending integrated homemaker services and that there are plans for further expansion. When we finally finish our work in long-term reform, when we finally do take our submission to the cabinet committee and the cabinet itself, I think you will find that many of the questions you have raised will be addressed and that we can implement those services in a quick and equitable fashion.

You talked about transportation. I know too well from my work with seniors that many -- I do not think this is a conflict, nor do we have to make it a conflict in my office for disability issues or for the fact that people in the community with disabilities are using Wheel-Trans. There are seniors who might appear not to be in an ill-health situation who need the use of transportation and need that assistance and that help, because of heart or other problems that might not be visible. A lot of disabilities are not visible just by looking at a person.

To get this assistance in transportation is not easy. I used to work in an agency where we spent most of our time trying to convince doctors to write out that little prescription. Cam, you probably know that in your own work in your own riding office. It is not that easy to be able to use the service.

But the service is not proper, and again it needs so much more work and there is so much to do. We have set up a small interministerial committee that is working relatively quickly. We are also working with the Metro transit system and with other Metro-based services to make sure that we look at how we can improve the service and how it can be more flexible, and how it can be more widely used and can be more appropriately delivered. I am sure that we are going to be able to do that without the conflict between the two ministries and I do not see how that would be a conflict. I think it would be an enhancement for the services and it need not be a conflict.

Legislation is being bogged down: You said that we could work towards building regulations and legislation is not needed. Somehow that means shifting responsibility and I not too sure, but I would be interested just to hear your viewpoints on that and to see how we can work that out.

We have met with AMO and one of the things, its main priority and concern when it met with us, was the fact that it was not consulted on long-term care, that it was expected to help us deliver service that was a partnership, but it had not been consulted and was not being consulted and had no way of an input. We have met with them, we have consulted with them and we will continue to do so, because they will play a very important role in our delivery of service and we need their assistance and we need their input and we need their help.

You will see me avoiding the use of words like "partnership." I tend to see us using the word "team," and I continue to use that word "team" rather than "partnership," because it depends on how you build partnership. You can build partnerships in a company and small business where two people can be partners, but go off in opposite directions doing other things and not really working together. But if you work as a team in delivering service, that can work out if everybody is working together.

I am certain that with municipalities, with our clients, with our service deliverers and providers, our community-based agencies, and our various ministries in government, we can work towards providing those services and making sure that equity and equality will certainly go forward.

Again, there seemed to be some mention of having to consult, but that people wanted action. There is a very thin line, and I think you understand that. We do have to consult, but consulting has been done. Action is needed now, but at the same time we also have to make sure that we are not imposing and not overriding people's powers, and make sure that people do have their rights enshrined, so we will continue to cross that thin line so that we are not just inflicting our ideals and our philosophy, but at the same time bringing people in, but at the same time making sure that action is there, because I too want to make sure we get things done.

Having been on the other side and wanting and pushing and saying things had to be done, that the Advocacy Act had to be put in, that the Health Services Consent Act had to be there, going towards area managers and saying, "What's happening along long-term care and why are you not embellishing and enhancing community-based services?" I too want to get that work done and get it done now and move towards correct and decisive action, but at the same time making sure that we listen and hear what people are saying.

I think we can do that, but it is going to be hard and we are going to need your assistance, because as you said this is not -- I do not think it is -- a partisan issue. We have to make sure that our population, the people who make up, I think, one of the most important parts of our community, are served and served well, and assisted and looked after.

Now there is a healthy component to seniors and I hope you did not take my remarks as being patronizing. I think the people whom we are discussing and talking about helping need that assistance. The other people, and that is the 90% of the population of seniors, manage very well on their own. My grandfather lived until he was 96 and died a year ago and still managed to grow his own tomatoes, and still managed to do his own thing.

I have learned from him that yes, you can have your ideas and live your own life no matter how old you are. It is a matter of attitude, but it also is a matter of health, and some of us are blessed with good health and some of us are not and that happens throughout our lives.

Health is also related to poverty and we have to address those issues today, about people who live in poverty now, because as they move into the seniors' age, their health deteriorates, obviously, as they grow older, and living in poverty when you are older is much harder than when you are young. We have to make sure that we -- why we have introduced rent control. Mr Jackson, you realize that what happened to your friend -- I cannot remember -- Archie Dodds -- certainly happened under rent review and not rent control, and there is a big difference.

That was a big concern of ours, that this not happen to anybody again, because that is true: Nobody should have to pay 80% of their earnings on accommodation or housing. It is very important that we address those issues and that is why we are taking that review.

Also there is the Fair Tax Commission that our government has set up to look into how we address, all through our lives, the paying of taxes, who pays the proper taxes, where taxes are being spent and how we address that.

Mr Jackson: And an enhancement of a seniors' tax bracket?

Hon Ms Ziemba: That is right. Various things are all integral and not one thing can address the issue. As you said, it is a very complicated issue and it is a large issue that has to be addressed at many fronts, and certainly we have to look at all these various things.

You talked about perhaps there were too many aspects of my ministry. I do not think there are enough. I think I can add more to it. I think there is a lot more that has to be done and we have qualified people who can assist us with that. I think that we are going to make sure that we address all those issues.

There are so many things that you talked about that I did not mention, certain things in my opening statement. It ran longer than 30 minutes; it ran 35 and I tend to read fast, so there could have even been more things we could have put in. There are just so many issues and there just is not enough time. I could have probably spent the next four hours, if you had wanted me to, having addressed all of those issues and added all those various things. That is why, I guess, we do have this question period next and we will try to address those issues.

1600

But, again, if we do not, if there is not enough time to address all of the issues in this period of time, I am glad that you have written to me and we certainly will have to sit down and talk, and that is what we can do. I think that we can continue to do that and not worry just about questions and answers. This is a team effort. This is work that has to be done, as I say again, on a non-partisan level, and we must all work together.

I am trying to look at my notes to see what I have missed out. We talked a lot about food banks, and I know that when I worked at my agency, 85% of our clients who came under our domain lived below the poverty level. Even $1.25 for a meal from Meals on Wheels was too much for them. I saw a lot of that and it kept getting increasingly worse. These are the same people who had many, many health problems because of poverty, and we have to make sure that we address those issues.

Many of those people -- approximately 80% of them were female -- had lived on very poor-paying jobs, had worked in traditional-type work where there were no pensions. If the women had worked at all, they were in service work in stores, in restaurants, where there were no pension plans. There was also the fact that the wages were low, so throughout their life they did not have the proper health facilities and care that they needed and did not live equitably. Others had not worked because they were housewives. In that era women tended to stay at home, and their husbands' pensions were not transferable. When the husband died, they were left out. There were a lot of issues that I saw on a day-to-day basis that we really, really have to address and we have to look at.

Again I will go back to long-term reform and the vagaries that I thought were not addressed, and perhaps they were not meant to be, but we feel they have to be addressed now, that is, rest and retirement homes, chronic care facilities. That has to be brought in to long-term reform. They are not issues that are outside of the issue; it is much broader than that.

We have to look at including many things under long-term reform that I think will be the basis for a much better and more equitable delivery service, making sure that the foundation is built out there, rather than just trying to build on something that might not be able to hold that whole big structure that we are trying to place on top.

It means looking at this in a little different way, but not necessarily -- we are looking at a lot of philosophical changes too. Obviously, we do have some different philosophies that might not be the same as other forms of government. We will be certainly looking at that and we hope that will be for the betterment of individuals, and not for the detriment. So that is what we are doing when we meet. I am interested to hear about home sharing, and yes, I will look into that. I thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Mr Lightman's work as well -- we have given the commissioner a very short time frame, so we do not feel that we are studying this to death. There have been lots of reports and there has been lots of work done, but we do have to look at it and tie things together. The poor soul has only six months to do it in, which is not a great length of time. But once he finally brings together everything that is out there and talks to people within that six months, we then can move towards action. I think that that is very important.

I meet with him on a regular basis weekly. I will see a first draft in the beginning of April, so we can take a look to see which direction he is going in. I do not want to say to him in July, "Oh, my gosh, we forgot something. Let's add to that," and then add on to his commission time. Six months and we hope to get the work done and then we hope to make sure that we can implement change. We feel that that is very, very important.

Many years ago, when I first started to get really interested in why I was going to run in politics, it was the fact that, in the west end of Toronto, Lakeshore had closed down, and many other institutions were closing down as they were out of patients. Suddenly west end Toronto was faced with an enormous amount of people living in accommodations that were not good, that were not meant to be for people: living eight people to a room, no services in the field to help them, roaming the streets, having nothing to do and being completely at a loss.

That goes back to the whole ex-psychiatric patient delivery of service, deinstitutionalization. We do not want that to happen to seniors. We want to deinstitutionalize but we want to make sure that we have a broad structure in place, that we have a foundation in place, that we have support services in place to make sure that we are not going to do that to the group of people as we did in the early 1980s. We cannot let that happen again.

That is something that really drives me when I think back and when I see in my own communities still today the people who are living in situations that came up and why the Lightman commission was appointed; people living in conditions that are, quite frankly, if it was an animal the humane society would be in and everybody would be screaming and crying. We must make sure that that never happens again, so we will work quickly. The commission is supposed to do that, is intended in the short time frame to do that, and we will make sure that that happens. On the other hand, we can learn from those past mistakes and make sure that we do not do that to our senior population.

Of course there is the added question because seniors are aging. We are into a situation where the demographics forecast seniors at a higher proportion than they have ever been, and they will be in that proportion in the very, very near future. Something that had not been looked at in the past is the fact that we have got this aging population. What are we going to do? How are we going to address their needs? This has to be addressed and looked at. We must be realistic about the type of services that we need to provide and make sure that we have all of those various things in place.

I think, as an advocate of the Office of Senior Citizens' Affairs, we have to really make sure as we are doing our advocacy work. We also have to make sure that we do the research and that we have the facts and figures for it too. There are the changing demographics and the multicultural community, and something that we keep overlooking is our native community. As we work towards self-government, we have to make sure that the seniors in our native community also have services available to them in their language on their own home turf, not just in areas that they have to move to because they cannot receive the services.

The horrible thing about the issue of seniors in the native community is that their changing demographics are not the same as the other societies that we look at. Their demographics show that, unfortunately, because of poverty and because of what has happened in the past, there is not a large population over 65, and we have to make sure that we address that. I want to make sure in the next 10 to 15 years that that demographic starts to change, that our senior population in our first nations does increase and does move towards the same demographics that we are seeing in our other societies.

But that has not happened and it is not happening now because of related drug and alcohol abuse, because that then relates to handicaps. It also relates to poverty and not having the proper nutrition. Even when I went to visit Thunder Bay and Armstrong White Sands Reserve a few weeks ago, the price of milk in those communities -- and I think Lyn will tell us a little bit more about that coming from that area -- is so different in those communities. Young people and young babies and especially children on reserves cannot afford to have milk, and obviously cannot afford to have fresh fruit and vegetables. They do not have the same type of health and benefits that we do.

We have to address all of those things and we have to make sure that all of these issues are put on the table when we look at seniors because it is very important. We cannot overlook one community over another. They are all integral and all part of a large, broad picture. I feel that very strongly.

I think that that also goes back to the fact of wearing the many hats, as you call it. I do not see it as wearing many hats because in the Ministry of Citizenship we have multiculturalism. We also have the native affairs branch, and bringing seniors and the disabled community together all comes under one big umbrella. We can see using our background in one area of the ministry to be able to better serve another part of the ministry.

1610

In closing, I think I can say that we certainly have been able to tie those things together, to have an understanding of those various issues and again, with immigration and the new immigrants coming to our community, we certainly have to look at seniors who are not covered under the various aspects of what we do with seniors because they have not been here long enough to be able to get various pensions. So there are many things to be done.

I am glad you share my concerns, I am glad you share my interest in seniors and I want to put on record that it is more than an interest that I have. I will make sure that I carry forth the advocacy role in a very strong way and that seniors will not be overlooked. If anything, they will be really placed in the front arena, not only in the government but in the community and in the public forum. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. Before we go into rotation we have to decide by consensus what format you would like. We have done 15 minutes, we have done 20 and then this morning we did 40-minute rounds. There are four hours and 52 minutes left in the seven hours that we are awarded for the seniors' ministry, so I am open to ideas.

Ms Haslam: I would like to see it done in a block so that if there is a question raised -- for instance, in regard to some of the questions raised in the comments, if I have to wait 80 minutes in order to get my questions on that, I find that a little disconcerting. That is why I would rather stick to blocks of time, like we had originally in this committee, and that was dealing at 15-minute intervals.

Mr Jackson: Since the minister referred to non-partisan, we could do what some committees have done and just allow for a speaking order and no one staying on too long. We could even try that. That is how some estimates are done.

Ms Haslam: I would not even agree to that because I find that I have lots of questions and there have been times when I have been cut short and others have had a longer time.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. It is Ms Haslam's suggestion that we go for 15-minute rotations per caucus. What about the official opposition?

Mr Mahoney: That is fine with us.

The Vice-Chair: All right. Then we will proceed in 15-minute segments and start with the official opposition. Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: First of all, let me just clarify that at no time did I say there was no need for legislation. What I said is that legislation can be time consuming, and let me in that regard lead off with that question. We would be interested in knowing what initiatives you might feel could be put forward that do not require legislation. It does not mean that you throw the legislation out and, as I said in my remarks, indeed we may support all or part or amend or whatever with regard to those pieces of legislation.

What concerns me is the constant reference -- not necessarily by you, but by some of your colleagues -- to further study, etc, on various issues, and the introduction of legislation which can take tremendous time to draft at the staff level and then the legislative counsel gets involved and on and on. In the meantime, I believe I used the phrase "The clock is ticking," and it is necessary to address some of the problems.

What I would like to know is what you are prepared to address perhaps through regulation or through co-operation, be it with other care delivery systems or other stakeholders in this area, in the areas of transportation and housing and equalization of salaries and increases in certain areas, that type of thing. Do you have any plans on what you could do that would not necessarily require legislation and could work within the existing framework?

Hon Ms Ziemba: There are things that can be done without legislation, and you are right. Certainly in the area of building the community support services in place, making sure that communities understand that we want that to happen, to expand services, enhance, that work has started. I understand at the Ministry of Community and Social Services that agencies are developing and making sure that services are being enhanced. The area managers that we met with today have been asked to look at what services are not existent. Because of my background, I can quickly rattle off a whole bunch of areas within Ontario where I know services are lacking, and we can start to address that work and make sure that communities understand that we want to make sure we are moving towards that area.

In a lot of cases, though, when it comes to the protection of vulnerable adults, I really think we have to work quickly on the legislation. We are developing that along with advocacy and health consent and guardianship. It is our ideal that we will have it ready to go before the House at the beginning of April. So we are moving rapidly, and hopefully we can do that without taking up a lot of time. I think we can move rather rapidly on those areas.

Although legislation can get bogged down through committees and through all the various processes, I do not see it as having to do that. I also see that the work on committees, when it comes to legislation, can be very profitable and very helpful to us as a government, to make sure that the legislation is enacted properly and can work out in a very equitable fashion. I am sure that when we do take our bills to committee, your assistance and your help will be very welcome on these various aspects of legislation.

Mr Mahoney: If I could attempt to ask you to be specific. For example, in the area of Community and Social Services' integrated homemaker program, I guess it was your party, not your government, that prior to taking power promised to double the existing budget at the time for the integrated homemaker program. Our estimates are that that would be about $62 million, which would be in excess of the $640 million that was previously allocated. So that is the type of thing that I am talking about. Are you prepared to make a commitment to do what was promised and double that homemaker program budget?

Hon Ms Ziemba: As you know, Mr Mahoney, I can only say that because it is another ministry I will --

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Minister. Hansard is having some difficulty picking you up. If you could sit forward.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am sorry. I realize part of the problem that you have is because I am short and all of these chairs are made for big, tall people.

Mr Mahoney: Actually, if you look around, most of us in this business are short. I do not know why that is.

The Vice-Chair: We were not that way when we started.

Mr Mahoney: It is the Napoleon influence, with a few exceptions.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I will try to remember to sit closer when I am answering.

I will work in my role as an advocate to make sure that the promises that were outlined and also that the work that I had done previously will be put on the table and will be addressed. I cannot answer for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and you would not want me to do that, but in this ministry and our role as an advocate, we will continue to put those issues on the table and to push to make sure that they are addressed.

Mr Mahoney: I asked the question for a reason and it has to do with the issue of the multiple responsibilities and the fighting as an advocate that you would indeed do at the cabinet table. Also, reading up on your past history, I would not expect you to take a passive role and would not accuse you of such.

I do have some difficulty, though, with how you reconcile -- I think Mrs Marland always calls them the cabinet sweepstakes, when they are sitting around the table and you are arm-wrestling with social services -- not in a literal sense obviously; short people would be in trouble winning that arm-wrestle. When you are fighting on behalf of the groups you represent and Mrs Akande has her agenda and Transportation has its agenda and everyone is fighting for it, there are, in fairness, promises that have been put on the table which certain people such as homemakers are anticipating that this government is going to address. I have some concerns, not about your ability -- I have no concerns about that -- but about the position you might find yourself in in attempting to argue on behalf of increased money for areas that affect senior citizens, when you also have other interministerial responsibilities yourself and you have other ministers in the government saying things that are contrary to the stated goals and desires of your ministry. How do you reconcile these different responsibilities?

1620

Hon Ms Ziemba: I can reconcile them, I think, very easily. I think you will see that this will work out quite well. When you talk about integrated homemakers, when you talk about long-term reform, it not only includes seniors, it also includes the community of disabilities and disability issues. They, too, need to have those services, and long-term care includes those two communities, so I will be speaking on behalf of those two communities in a very strong voice and I think that we can do that together.

I do not think it is a matter of arm-wrestling and trying to see whose ideals will work and who will be able to get his or her agenda. There is an overall agenda for this government and for the philosophy of this government, and we are all trying to work towards doing that. It is not a matter of pitting one against the other; it is a matter of making sure that all the services are equitable for all and that everybody has a good and decent life. That is what we are trying to do, and we will continue to do that.

I think the throne speech said that we want to change society and how we look at it, in that everybody will have a fair and equitable voice and that they will be looked after and that we will make sure that their interests are looked into. I think every member of cabinet, all of my caucus members, share those concerns and will be backing me and will be working towards solving those problems, so I cannot see that the problem of reconciling my various pieces of agenda with another minister's is going to be such a conflict.

Mr Mahoney: Madam Chair, I know Mrs McLeod has some questions and I want to share the time that has been allotted. Let me bluntly ask you: Will you fight for that $62 million to increase that budget?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes, I will.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I wanted to take you back to another aspect of long-term care reform, which I am sure each of the caucuses will do at different points in the course of our estimates, recognizing that responsibility you share with other ministries as advocate. We did in fact raise some of the long-term questions in our estimates with the Minister of Community and Social Services. Unfortunately, because there was such a wide range of services to deal with in that estimates package, we were not able to spend nearly enough time on specific details of long-term care reform, so this provides us with a valuable opportunity to come back to some of the details.

For the moment, I would like to focus on one of the aspects of the long-term care reform proposal I was particularly excited about: multilevel care funding within the residential setting. I would like to ask you about your commitment to multilevel care funding, whether you continue to see that as being one of the essential steps in reform.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes, I do. There are many aspects of long-term reform that certainly are very important, and I think that when you take a look at our final document and what we hope to do you will see that we have enhanced and broadened what had already been started, but enhanced and improved, not disseminated or taken away. The document and what we are doing with it is not complete and not finally finished, but you have my assurance that the final package is going to be -- I think you are going to be very pleased with it.

Mrs McLeod: I assume from your answer it included a multilevel care funding program. As I understand those proposals, in order for multilevel care funding to be implemented there had to be a classification of residents currently in nursing homes or homes for the aged settings. The original schedule was to have that classification completed by some time within this next year. I wonder if you could comment on the progress of that classification system, whether it is continuing and, if it is, whether it is the Alberta system of classification that is being considered.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I cannot answer that right now. We could check into it, or perhaps one of my staff members could tell you.

Mr Adams: I think we would be in a position to bring back a response tomorrow morning.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Would that be satisfactory?

Mrs McLeod: Yes, that would be fine. Just two other questions, then, and I will yield the floor to Mr Daigeler.

The Vice-Chair: You have four minutes left.

Mrs McLeod: I will ask my questions quickly, knowing we will have another opportunity. Can I make an assumption that as we look at multilevel care funding in the residential setting, that will be applied to nursing homes which are clearly in what would be described as the for-profit sector as well as for homes for the aged and not-for-profit nursing homes?

Hon Ms Ziemba: We will get that answer for you.

Mrs McLeod: I know the original proposals were to apply to all residential settings. I suppose what I am asking is whether your government intends to make that one of the areas of difference.

Hon Ms Ziemba: One of the areas of difference we are looking at is for-profit and commercialization and our philosophy towards commercialization.

Mrs McLeod: So you have not yet determined whether the funding will be provided equitably to the nursing home settings?

Hon Ms Ziemba: It is one aspect we are still dealing with. There will be short- and long-term changes; I would prefer to wait to give you our final response to that.

Mrs McLeod: That may be an issue we come back to, then. My final question for the moment would be in the area of an analysis of the impact of multilevel care funding proposals, given the fact that we know there are long waiting lists for extended-care beds while there may in fact be vacancies in extended-care beds. As we look to a different model of funding quite clearly what will happen is that far more extended-care per diems will be needed. At least I make that assumption. I am wondering whether there has been an effort to do a cost analysis impact of moving to that funding proposal and ensuring that those residents needing extended care are able to receive that.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We will have to check on that for you. I do not have the figures in my head.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Daigeler, there is about a half a minute. Would you like to wait for the next round?

Mr Daigeler: I will wait for the next round. I am patient.

The Vice-Chair: You are, very. We appreciate it.

Mr Jackson: I did not talk about elder abuse very much in my comments. I wanted to deal with it in a little more detail and my time was running out quickly. Could you advise the committee to what extent your ministry is involved with elder abuse? Is it simply a couple of promotional programs and brochures or to what extent are you involved in this issue?

Hon Ms Ziemba: We are extending our involvement, I would think, because of various things that have come out of research. Yes, there are some promotional items, but there is also some very good research being done and handbooks being done at the same time that we are funding to help people in the communities work and assist people. Also, in my own work, in my own background, I have been meeting with groups and talking to them about how this could be implemented in our advocacy commission, certainly looking at how we could expand our role in the advocacy commission as well.

1630

Mr Jackson: I had suspected that the interministerial committee on violence against women had been dropped by your government, and I am surprised to hear that you do not see a spot for elder abuse in that forum. I wonder why you are not putting it at least back up to the priority that the former government had it, albeit it was locked in an interministerial dialogue. I was hoping to hear from you what commitments your ministry was doing with other ministries to combat this in a proactive way. Education is great -- I will talk to education in a moment -- but I am trying to get a sense of its policy priority for you as a minister, and what processes you have in place in order to ensure that this agenda be brought to the surface.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We talked earlier about the work that had been done in the past and the consulting processes. I think the knowledge is there. It is now the way we implement and make sure that elder abuse is addressed and how we can make sure, in the care providers in the advocacy commission, that all of these areas might be a form of addressing elder abuse. Education is a component, obviously, to other ministers, but I think we have to look at it in a little more proactive way so that if we have it within our commission or if we have an elder abuse hotline, all of those various things, I think we are ready to make those moves rather than sitting at committee level.

Mr Jackson: I had hoped that we had evolved beyond simply informing people, that we actually had some protocols in place.

I would like to perhaps move into its implications for nursing homes and homes for the aged. You will be familiar that the laws protect people differently depending on their institutional setting; the staff is protected differently from residents, and residents are protected under the law differently from other residents. There are some very clearly identified deficiencies. I do not wish to document all the cases, but we reviewed them six years ago, of a resident coming in and beating up and nearly killing another resident, and the police deal with different protocol matters in this regard. Police are coming in and saying, "Well, what do you expect me to do with this individual?" They are incontinent but they are violent.

How do you think the families feel when grandma lying in the next bed has just had a broken jaw or had a shoulder blade broken or three ribs caved in? These are not one-in-a-thousand cases. These cases have been reported with increasing regularity. How do you deal with that? You are the minister, you have observed the event. What is it that you are suggesting aside from the publicity and discussing with groups and the other things you have mentioned?

Hon Ms Ziemba: One thing we did after the coroner's report about an incident you just referred to is that we did appoint a commissioner, and the Lightman commission is going to look at the unregulated homes to make sure we do have an understanding and come forward with recommendations that will address those problems; that is in the unregulated sector.

The advocacy commission is going to be able to address that both in the regulated facilities and also in the private homes and unregulated facilities. Elder abuse is certainly going to be able to be addressed in that manner again, due to legislation. That is why we have to move quickly towards the legislation and make sure this goes through all the phases quickly and goes to committee in a fair way, because this matter cannot be just left towards education and talking about it any more but has to be dealt with quickly.

Mr Jackson: In my preamble, I tried to make it abundantly clear that we have these differing sets of rules. We have the regulation in nursing homes, we have a nursing home residents bill of rights, we have the identified situation, but the Ontario Nursing Home Association has written your government and to the Minister of Health with respect to the growing incidence of violence. These are assault charges, common assault. We have documented that the police are unwilling to come and investigate the cases. When they do come, they take these people away to jail or to a psychiatric facility. These are serious matters with respect to something which is already regulated, so to suggest to me, "Be patient. The poor soul, Mr Lightman, we'll give him six months" -- all we are going to do is put them in the position the nursing homes are in. We still have the problem in nursing homes. I have to presume in simple logic that we are still going to have these problems with the formerly unregulated.

I am not getting a sense that you understand the essence of abuse and supervision and its relationship and how they work in this province. Simply having regulated rules is not a great support for families whose grandma has three broken ribs, rather that we have the other suggested strategies in order to reduce, if not eliminate, to the best of our abilities as a government, violence and abuse that occurs in those institutions.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am going to say again that the advocacy commission will certainly address those, but I think we also have to look at other reasons abuse happens and why we do have abuse. It is a very complicated matter, and I would say to the families that we are going to address it by the fact that we are going to provide the services in a more equitable fashion and hope that we are not going to depend -- I guess this is where my philosophy comes through, that when we look at commercialization we often see the fact -- as we did, which is why we appointed Ernie Lightman -- that we do have unregulated facilities that do not have the proper care in place.

Going back to the regulated facilities you were discussing, the advocacy commission and the advocate will be able to go into the regulated and unregulated and private homes to be able to stop that abuse and to be advocating on behalf of not only the family members and the families themselves, but will be able, we hope, to prevent that and to be able to tighten up the laws, that the police would be able to address that in a different fashion.

Also, the systemic barriers which are in place are again what the commission is going to be addressing, to break down those systemic barriers and make sure that elder abuse or abuse of any vulnerable adults, not just seniors but any vulnerable adults, will be broken down.

Mr Jackson: Perhaps my understanding of elder abuse and yours are different. Maybe we should agree on some basic understandings of how it works. People are not inherently violent. It comes out because it is a function of a change in their mental state, a change in their condition that is brought on by Alzheimer's, partial dementia, inappropriate medications which are triggers -- the overmedication of seniors is another whole issue, and I will not dare get into that, because we can go for an hour on that. The advocacy, as I understand it, is going to go in and make sure that the person who has been violent without really being responsible for their violence does not get locked up.

I am trying to talk to you about grandma who has just been asleep, lying in the bed next to this person in a four-person ward or a two-bed room and has just had four or five ribs broken. The questions that arise then are: Why did the police only call on the phone and not attend? Why is it that we are funding this institution? Why is this person in this institution if we are only funding one hour of attendant care a day and one person is left to be responsible for 30 people during the course of an evening?

These are the substantive issues which are a function of this form of assault and this form of violence which is occurring in these institutions. These are not havens for inherently bad people. This is a complex issue that occurs for a complex set of reasons. I certainly know the institutions have been writing the former government and your government for the last six years as we see the acuity rate grow at such a dramatic rate. Twenty years ago we never dreamed we would have Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes. That was never the intention. They were to go to a specific type of institution; everybody is backed up. But they have every right to be given a certain amount of attention and support, but also for the protection of other residents who are in the same facility. They have every right to do that. They are relying on us to fund and establish policies for their protection also.

An advocate is only going to come in and say: "Look, do not put that person behind bars because he was really out of control. It was not his fault that he was violent." We are at fault because we are putting a violent person in the bed next to a person who is there for care.

1640

I am sorry, but that is the real nature of the institutionalized abuse we are experiencing and hearing about, not that seniors are somehow inherently abusive. I have not even got into the whole issue of residents attacking workers, some of the abusive language, some of our Third World cultural groups who work in these institutions and some of the absolute abuse that I hear they are put to. Those are the kinds of things that I want to hear you are understanding and are dealing with and not leaving it to Mr Lightman to deal with in regulation.

I am sorry; perhaps we can leave it at that. I just was hoping that we would have a deeper understanding from the interministerial level. First of all, it was not a priority in the general violence issue. We had to fight to get it moved up the table in the interministerial committee. We even had to fight to get seniors in as part of the original umbrella group. So I wanted to see if that was still on the table or if you are starting at square one in terms of elder abuse, and Mr Lightman in terms of an agenda that we are able to push and promote in a non-partisan way in this province.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think I tried to assure you before that Mr Lightman is working on the past experience and that is why he has only got six months to work on this report and come back with his recommendations.

Elder abuse is very complicated and is many different forms. You have highlighted some that happen in institutions, but there are other forms of elder abuse as well that we cannot overlook, whether it is psychological abuse of family members because of not having enough income or not enough respite, as you understand and have spoken of it in the past. It is many issues and it is a very complicated issue.

The other thing about elder abuse is the fact that very few seniors will want to admit and come forward. It has been an issue that only has come in the foreground in the very near past. People did not want to address it as they did not want to address family violence. They did not want to talk about elder abuse either. It is an ugly subject. People do not want to admit to it or to discuss it. So it is an issue that is very sensitive and it is not an issue that we are putting on the back burner.

I would want to say instead that we are highlighting it and pushing it forward, and we will be addressing all the concerns and the needs and the very many aspects of elder abuse, whether it happens in an institution or whether it happens in a private home and whether it happens to another patient or to another senior, or whether it happens to staff members.

I do want to mention Alzheimer's. I guess it is partially from the work that I did and also partially because of my own mother. I think the scenarios that you talked about, making sure that we have proper facilities for Alzheimer's patients, have to be addressed and have to be addressed quickly.

There are many facilities in Ontario that do care for Alzheimer's patients in a way that not only protects themselves because of the wandering element, but also protects other patients and also protects other staff, and it is done in a very humane way and in a very humane direction. That is what we have to look at and make sure that more services are there and that we are not putting --

Mr Jackson: I am advised by the Chair that my time has expired, and if I wanted to get into Alzheimer's, I would have asked you, but that is fine; I will eventually.

Ms Haslam: On the first page of your estimates book, under vote 3401 and in the overview statement -- I understand that a number of the overview statements from the estimates were also in your address -- I want to look at the fifth one down, under the mandate. It says, "To promote the recognition of seniors' contribution to society," and I know that in particular I was thinking about this publication Are You Listening? I believe that is one of your publications and fits well into this. I like it, it is great and I am using it in some areas in my own riding, but I wanted to know if I could find out what it costs and where in the estimates it is covered.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I will ask my staff for that answer since this happens to be done prior to my becoming minister.

Ms Haslam: I have some other questions. Would they like to look for that answer?

The Vice-Chair: Would you like the answer back tomorrow morning or would you like it right now?

Mr Norberg: Could I suggest that if you have a number of questions like that, you put them out on the table?

Ms Haslam: Sure.

Mr Norberg: We will gather the information together for you overnight and we would be pleased to provide the answers first thing in the morning.

The Vice-Chair: Then the information would be available for all members of the committee, which I am sure they would appreciate.

Ms Haslam: There are a few throughout the book. I will go through a couple of other questions. You maybe could answer a couple now and if I come across another one I will certainly draw them out. I do have some questions. For instance, in the opening statement you mentioned that in all we are offering 100 workshops in this fiscal year. I would like to know where they are being offered and the dates of those workshops. That perhaps could be brought in. Then on page 16 you mentioned 39 projects across the province from the access fund, and also in December awarded 16 grants from the regular access fund budget. Excuse me for not knowing all of the ins and outs here, but what is the difference between the special access fund and the regular fund budget?

Mr Mahoney: One's a slush fund.

Mr Haslam: No, you're not in there any more, Mr Maloney.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Ms Haslam, the special fund is an anti-recession initiative that we were doing in answer to creating jobs but also to doing other good works as well. So it was a double type of initiative that we were creating work and we were also helping access.

Ms Haslam: Okay, that was another one. I had maybe a whole list of things. I wanted to go to page 2 in your estimates now. I see that there is a discrepancy in the reconciliation statement, a rather large discrepancy in spending and estimates. Is this an underspending? In particular we are looking at 1989-90 estimates and the actual between $9 million and $5 million. Is this an underspending, and is this in service delivery?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am going to have to ask the staff to answer that question since I did not happen to be here at that time.

Mr Mahoney: You are having more trouble with your own caucus than you are having with us.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Not at all. I have specific things I want to --

Interjection: Wait until I get at her.

Mr Adams: My name is Philip Adams. I am a special adviser at Senior Citizens' Affairs. Looking at the figures there, in 1988-89 there were included in the estimates for the office in that year an amount of money which was to be used for funding four pilot projects for one-stop access and that was $1.5 million. Then there is also another sum of money which was to be used for geriatric training in five teaching hospitals and these moneys were not expended in that year which accounts for the larger part of the discrepancy you are looking at.

Ms Haslam: It is still underspent?

Mr Adams: Those moneys, the $1.5 million, were subsequently removed from our estimates at the end of 1989-90.

1650

Interjections.

Ms Haslam: I think I will just say how much I appreciate the input from all of the gentlemen facing me and how I agree with -- well, some of the gentlemen facing me and how I agree that it is a non-partisan subject and that we all have ridings, like you, Mr Maloney -- I keep calling you Maloney; I am sorry -- we all have ridings with elder people in them and we all have ridings with 20% who are senior or disabled. I am so glad to hear this is going to be a non-partisan time in this committee. That will be different.

Mr Mahoney: It was up until now.

Ms Haslam: It is really nice. It is going to be nice to see it today. I would like to go back then to something else you said in your opening statement and that was that on average today seniors are well-off by historic standards. I think this is a commonly held belief, that seniors are well looked after or are well-off. Then you get down into the next paragraph where you say the fact is 34% of all senior citizens qualify for a guaranteed income supplement and I understand, if I am correct, that most of those 34% are women.

Hon Ms Ziemba: The majority would be women, yes.

Ms Haslam: I am wondering why it is that so many seniors, in particular women, are still below the poverty line. You mentioned a couple of things. What do you see that needs to be done and how can we help in that situation, in particular women, because I know from some of my research that women in poverty are a major factor here?

Hon Ms Ziemba: There are two things we have to do. Obviously we have to address the women who are facing poverty. now and are over the age of 65, but there is another, broader issue too, and that is to make sure it does not happen to women who are under 65. So obviously by paying women equitably and making sure that our salary levels are equal to male salary levels, that there are pensions in place for all people and not just for a few, and private pensions as well, that there is portability with pensions, that there is a whole pension reform that we have to look at, and making sure that there is income security, that we look at seeing that income security goes across the board for all levels -- I would then say too it is also a male issue when we come to income security, that we raise the minimum wage, and that is one of the promises we are going to do. Minimum wage cannot be left at what it is. It has to be increased. So it is a very broad issue.

Unfortunately when we look at wages and salaries, we often look at people who are unionized, but only 39% of our wage earners are actually in a position that they are unionized and have pensions, where you look at 61% who are not protected and fall out of those realms of protection and we have to make sure that 61% is looked into.

We also have the issue of immigrant women who have come here to help their families with baby-sitting and then are dependent upon them and cannot go to pensions because they are not eligible and have lived here less than 10 years. That is another issue we have to address and we have to look at that very seriously, because again it goes into abuse and elder abuse because of people being dependent.

Ms Haslam: I have one more quick question. I understand there is a list of people. With the changes that are being brought in, do you see the demographics changing in the future? I am sorry. I cannot read my writing. Will the levels of poverty remain the same? For instance, you are talking about some things that we can do and minimum wage and more. There are more women working now, albeit a lot of them are in the service industries. Do you see the demographics changing or do you feel that this is a problem that is going to be with us for a number of years?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I hope we can change that. Unfortunately, we cannot change it all overnight, but even in wearing my other hat, employment equity is going to change the demographics and the fact that visible minorities, persons with disabilities, women, our native people will have the opportunity for a fairer chance at fair and equal employment, which would then of course make sure they have fair and equitable pensions and that they will be working towards having a life in dignity after the age of 65. So all of these things are going to make sure that we overcome these problems in the future. There are some short-term things, though, that we do have to address and those are things that we are working on for the future.

Ms Haslam: Thank you. I will pass.

The Acting Chair (Mr Villeneuve): Thank you, Ms Haslam. We have Mr Owens next on the list from the government side and you have about three minutes in this round.

Mr Owens: My question is with respect to flexibility of service. In the other committees that my colleagues in the opposition have sat on, we have talked about the localization of service in and around the delivery and the standards of care. I am wondering, as an advocate on behalf of seniors going forward to the other ministries, what kind of role you are playing with respect to advocating that type of flexibility so that the services that are appropriate to the client are delivered, as opposed to meeting a systemic need. I had three minutes. That is the end of the two.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We have to look at flexibility in terms of culturally interpreted services too, so that the flexibility and the delivery of service has to be available to groups of people that are culturally sensitive to their needs as well. I think that is part of what you are saying in the delivery of service. I think this has become very complicated in the delivery of services with both MCSS and the Ministry of Health, that sometimes the service comes out of Health and sometimes it comes out of Comsoc, and then of course it depends on your age, where you get the service, and it is all over the map.

We have to really break down those systemic barriers and have to start to look at a more integrated approach and perhaps starting to work towards a process of -- this is where the Premier's Council on Health Strategy has come forward with some very good recommendations on how that can be done and how we look at the person, not his age, not where he lives, but how that service can be delivered to the one individual and not be concerned about whether it is coming from one ministry or another. So we do have to look at those issues.

Mr Owens: Strategies for Change mentions that approximately 90% of the informal care giving is provided by family, friends and volunteers, particularly women. I would like to ask the minister to share her view on this issue of women as primary care givers and the type of services and programming that you are hoping to put into place to help these folks.

Hon Ms Ziemba: There would be many things that we have to do. Some that are very visible, in fact, in giving respite help so that people can have the opportunity to use services to relieve their own tasks and duties. But we also have to make sure that we look at the fact that people are not losing their opportunity to have pensions as they become older, that they are not losing their homes because they have had to pay for so much in services. So there are many broad issues that we have to look at in that delivery of service and how we compensate people who are saving us a lot of money and who are providing much better care for their families, because they know the type of care that is needed and they can deliver that service in a much better service and a much more humane way and a loving fashion.

But we have to make sure that we address -- I saw that in my work -- elder abuse, because of family members being so overburdened, so overtaxed, having to give up their own lives and the cost factor as well. We have to address those issues and that is something Strategies for Change had not addressed but had left it, saying that we would make sure that the concerns of primary care givers and family care givers were addressed. But how are we going to do that is one of the topics we have been trying to address in our weekly meetings and we are looking at it. I hope to bring forward very shortly with my colleagues our plan for addressing those needs.

1700

The Acting Chair: Mr Owens, we will be going back to you when the government round comes back. We now go to the official opposition, Mr Daigeler, and the official opposition will have 15 minutes again in this round.

Mr Daigeler: Before I get into perhaps more substantive questions, I would like to raise an issue that really struck me when you made your remarks. It is a bit of a peripheral point, but nevertheless could be an important one in the overall operation of the government. You made reference to three corporate sponsors for a publicity program that you have, the Good Neighbours program. You said the Royal Bank, Shoppers Drug Mart and Today's Seniors magazine have donated funds to assist with the purchase of promotional materials.

Let me ask, first, how did you find those sponsors? Second, is this a practice that other ministries are doing as well? By the way, I hope it is. Third, is it possible to know the amounts? I do not need to know which sponsor gave what amount, but approximately what ballpark figure are we looking at, because I find this rather interesting in terms of co-operation between the private sector and the government. If you have some information on that either now or later on, I would appreciate that.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Okay. The funds in the actual dollars would have to be addressed later. I could get our staff to look at that. The way the corporate sponsors came to be was really by the communities themselves, and it really worked out in a very positive way. But we can give you the answers in more detail tomorrow if that would be possible. Is that fine?

Mr Daigeler: Is this done in other ministries as well? It is just I have never noticed that. Mind you, I have been here only three years.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Mr Adams can address that answer now.

Mr Adams: Good Neighbours was about two years in the making as a concept, and in the course of doing that, the staff ran a number of pilot projects. We found that as we ran this in eight pilot communities, there were two institutions in the communities that were very interested in serving seniors too. One was the Royal Bank, which had developed a concept called grey panthers. They had also established some branches to relate solely to seniors and set them up with, instead of the usual stand-up things, sit-down things and more mature tellers who could relate perhaps better to the seniors and so on. They were one group among a lot of people who expressed interest in collaborating with us on Good Neighbours.

Then there was Shoppers Drug Mart, which was always running specials for seniors. They are particularly interested in seniors viewing them as their drugstore, obviously because they wanted the custom, but also they were prepared to accommodate seniors. They expressed interest in the program and said that they would be prepared to assist with Good Neighbours, and we are always anxious to find ways and means to extend our available dollars.

Then Today's Seniors, which is a very vital sort of magazine for seniors that is distributed free in Ontario and now increasingly across the country, had expressed interest too and had written a very supportive article for it. We thought that we could use these resources to our advantage so it was agreed that for this one year each of the two chains, that is, the Royal Bank and Shoppers Drug Mart, would contribute $10,000 to a trust fund and that Today's Seniors would donate advertising, goods in kind. In other words, like most media things, they do not give you money but they do run articles and ads free of charge.

This was their joint contribution, and with that money we are able to buy promotional materials that are made available to the communities to use in their start-ups of Good Neighbours. It is a joint account so everybody knows exactly where the money goes and where it is signed off to. It is very closely watched. We are interested in adding more corporate sponsors because we think it is a good thing; perhaps a food chain or something of that nature too, a place where seniors go.

The other big contribution that these corporate sponsors make is they help in the communities. I was just down in Windsor last Wednesday for the kickoff of the Good Neighbours program in Windsor and it was hosted in the local Royal Bank branch. It was after banking hours and they had all the community people in there and a little reception and the media and so on. They really throw their support against it. Shoppers Drug Mart similarly is going to help in Windsor. What we ask for in every community is that the corporate sponsors, in addition to offering some money to buy promotional materials with, which is nice in itself, get actively involved back at the community level and support it.

So that is the story on Good Neighbours. Within several months we will have 20 communities that will be Good Neighbours communities.

Mr Daigeler: I appreciate that information. Now, you said, "We support this corporate sponsorship." Were you talking for the previous government or for the current government? Perhaps the minister ought to answer that question.

Mr Adams: I think every government is interested in people with goodwill who put their money towards a good cause. That was the case with the previous government, and I know it is the case with this government.

Mr Mahoney: Well said.

Mr Daigeler: We hope this will come to fruition in other dimensions as well, yes. I will pass it on to Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: Minister, I would like to talk to you about mandatory retirement. There has been a lot of talk since the Supreme Court --

Mr Jackson: She just got the job.

Mr Mahoney: I was not suggesting that the minister should be retired.

Mr Daigeler: Not yet.

Mr Mahoney: It will take a little bit of time.

Mr Jackson: If his constituents have not seen the light, how do you expect us to?

Mr Mahoney: You can fool some of the people some of the time. Are you finished? What was I asking about?

The Acting Chair: It had something to do with mandatory retirement.

Mr Mahoney: I know exactly what it had to do with.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We are not too sure if it was yours or other people's.

Mr Mahoney: I can guarantee you it is not mine. Not yet anyway.

Members of your government are quoted, and I assume it to be true -- it is in the Toronto Star, so it must be true -- they are quoted all over the map on the issue, and it again comes back to the responsibilities at the cabinet table when you read that the Honourable Bob Mackenzie, an ardent trade unionist, says he has traditionally supported the idea of mandatory retirement but now he is hearing good arguments from the other side. The Honourable Anne Swarbrick, Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues, personally favours mandatory retirement. The Premier ducked very quickly when asked the question. You have been quoted as saying that you are opposed to discrimination based on age, and there clearly is not a decision being rendered.

I again go back to the concept and the principle of your multiple responsibilities. You are also responsible for the Human Rights Code. In a sense it really should not matter, although obviously you would need the support and the votes, and I assume the blessing, of the Premier. But in essence you are the minister responsible not only for human rights, but for seniors. I ask you directly, are you prepared to place before your cabinet colleagues an amendment to the Human Rights Code that would eliminate discrimination based on age?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I would like to answer it simply but, gee, I cannot miss this opportunity to talk so I am going to.

Mr Mahoney: I was not going to say I have noticed that, but --

Hon Ms Ziemba: It is a great opportunity, is it not? I have noticed that from everybody else too.

Mr Mahoney: It is okay; it is in the job description.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think it is, yes. That is why we are all here.

Yes, I am interested in amending the Human Rights Code. The code does not reflect today's society in many cases and in many areas, and we have to look at all areas in the Human Rights Code. I know that is not the question you asked, but I cannot help but expand. Mr Jackson sort of went like this when you talked about what Mr Mackenzie, one of my colleagues around the cabinet table, has said. Perhaps my advocacy role is working if I am able to bend the ears and to have people look at different arguments for mandatory retirement, so bear with me.

1710

Mr Mahoney: If you can swing Mackenzie, you might make me a believer, I will tell you.

Hon Ms Ziemba: But I think we have to look at mandatory retirement very seriously. We have been kind of flip in talking about it now, and I do not want to be flip about it, because it is a very important issue. The issue is that we do not want people to have to work, because they are living in poverty now, over the age of 65. We have to address that issue, and it is a very, very serious issue. What is happening is that people need to work because they are living in poverty over 65. That issue has to be addressed immediately, and that is my concern.

When polled, only 1% of persons over 65 really want to work after 65, because they enjoy their work or because they are politicians, because they have been appointed to the. Senate, whatever. On the other hand, the majority of the population would like to be able to retire with dignity and live in dignity, and I think that is an issue that has to be addressed. We talked about that with rent controls and we talked about that with income security and with pension reform and with the Fair Tax Commission. It is a very broad issue, and I did not mean to be light when I answered you in another way.

Mr Mahoney: That is fine. The concern I have is that I think there is a tendency for people to say basically what you just said. I do not know where that statistic comes from, 1% -- if the polling was done in the areas of political spheres, as you suggested, I do not know. But one of the things that bothers me is that you see people -- I saw it in the case of my own father -- retired with quite an adequate pension, and in five, six, seven years he went downhill so fast because there was just nothing left to challenge the mind.

While it clearly is an economic issue, I think the economics tends to cloud the issue of human rights. The reality is it is a choice issue. Your party, of course, has been pro-choice in many, many areas, and it becomes an issue that says that -- mandatory retirement would mean, I suppose, that Mayor McCallion would have to retire, and I mean, you tell her. I am sure not going to.

As you well know, as the advocate for seniors, I am sure you run into senior citizens every day who are a lot sharper than a lot of 40-year-olds you might run into and have an awful lot left to give and contribute. In putting it together with the pension issue, with the poverty issue, those are clearly issues of significance, and I do not dispute that for a minute. But I think it becomes an easy out to say: "We can't have people living in poverty. Never mind mandatory retirement. Let's deal with pensions and let's deal with the economic situation these folks live in."

But the reality is that we are currently discriminating, based on a totally arbitrary figure. It is unacceptable in my view that it be there. I think, for example, that employers should be encouraged to condition their employees to work towards retirement with a positive outlook, perhaps some additional consulting that might go on depending on what the job is, depending on the options that are available, so that they do not wake up some Monday morning after their 65th birthday and go: "Gee whiz, I have nothing to do, nowhere to go. I'm not focused, I'm lost, I'm depressed."

Hon Ms Ziemba: "I don't want to enter politics."

Mr Mahoney: Yes, that is right. "I sit around and watch soap operas." I think it is just the human issue of the right to choose to be able to continue, for a company to put some emphasis -- not just a pension, not just say, "We're going to ensure that you are financially well off," because many, many seniors are financially fine but are having a terrible time adjusting to the mental strain of no longer being relevant, of no longer having someone ask them their advice or their opinion, other than perhaps a spouse or a child. I think that is such a critical thing.

What I would like to hear from you is that (a) you are prepared to amend the Human Rights Code and (b) you think that there could be and should be programs -- you talk interministerial a lot -- instituted with Mr Mackenzie in his ministry to encourage companies, large employers, to ready people for retirement, indeed encourage them to retire in a sense that makes it a positive step in the unfolding of their lives. I wonder if you have any comments on that.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I do have some comments, and I think what you have brought up is very interesting and very well said. Some unions -- and I was asked many times, before being elected, to be a consultant and also to do workshops and seminars -- are already doing that with their members and actually going out on the shop floor and helping people prepare and get ready for retirement.

When I used to do my little seminars, I used to say that people should start to prepare for their retirement as soon as they can think about retirement, whether it was six or seven years of age, or 10 or 11. It should be a preparation all through life, and we have to do that at the educational component, the school level, university level, because it should be a wonderful experience. There are so many things to do in life, other than just going to work, beneficial things to do in life. You do not have to give up being a fruitful and useful person. There are so many other aspects to life that you can do that benefit society and benefit other people if you want to be involved and do those things. I think you are right that employers should be encouraged to promote those activities as the union movement has been doing, and it should be expanded to other areas as well.

I think the one thing we have done in our school system is -- and perhaps that happened over many years, but I noticed that it happened with my son when he went through high school. We were so concerned about getting him ready for university that we forgot the broader aspects of his horizons, about just enjoying music or enjoying doing other things, recreation and being useful in another way.

Some schools do community activity. In the work that I did in my agency, we used a school to help us deliver Meals on Wheels. We were actually helping the young people learn about how you can help your community and other aspects, by coming in and volunteering and helping people. It does not necessarily mean that you have to get paid to be of useful service to your community and to society. You can do a useful service in many other ways without having to get reimbursed at the end of the week. There are many things we can do, and it is a human rights issue. Yes, I am going to be looking at the whole Human Rights Code because there is a lot of --

Mr Mahoney: Can you give us a time frame?

The Acting Chair: We are already into overtime in this round and you will be on the next round. You have got a very interesting topic. On to the rest of the Conservative Party. Mr Jackson, please.

Mr Jackson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Now you know why 20-minute segments work a little better, because you start to cut them off at 15.

Ms Haslam: I am enjoying this time. Thank you, Mr Jackson, for taking notes.

Mr Jackson: That was not the question.

Ms Haslam: It never is.

Mr Jackson: It is your role as a government member to enjoy yourself.

Ms Haslam: Please, Mr Jackson, stop telling me my role as the government rep.

The Acting Chair: Could you address your questions to the Chair, Mr Jackson, please.

Mr Jackson: I did not want to return to elder abuse, but I am somewhat concerned and, I will admit, a bit alarmed at the response I am getting, so I would like to ask the deputy if he can tell me if the interministerial committee is still sitting, and if it is, who is representing your director.

Mr Norberg: I am going to ask Phil Adams to respond to that. He is more directly involved with it.

Mr Jackson: It is the interministerial committee on family violence.

Mr Adams: I am not familiar with that committee, unfortunately.

Mr Jackson: You do not know anyone in your ministry who has been attending those meetings?

Mr Adams: No one from the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs.

Hon Ms Ziemba: You have never heard of them?

Mr Adams: I have never heard of the committee.

Mr Jackson: I raised three ministries that were deficient in the original round and increased it from 10 to 13 ministries who are participating. I would be very distressed to learn that those three were never invited, since we fought so hard to get them at the table. However, it is sufficient that previously -- well, I will leave open the question that we no longer have an interministerial committee dealing with violence, but it is fair to assume that at this point the ministry is unaware that it has been participating, if at all, on the issue of violence with respect to seniors. You may wish to report back before the seniors estimates are completed.

1720

Mr Norberg: If I could add, I believe that within the broader Ministry of Citizenship, our citizenship development branch people are involved with a group looking at family violence. The role of seniors in that is another issue, and we will certainly get back to you tomorrow, just to do some back-checking to see if there is a history to the presence or lack of it.

Mr Jackson: The unfortunate testament to family violence in this province is that everybody can agree to get to the stage of talking about it as being a crime, but nobody wants to get into its deeper roots with respect to discrimination in our judicial system, through the Solicitor General's office, with respect to the treatment by police and so on and so forth. I do not wish to deal with that at length

However, I will share with the minister that we have developed our own brochure on elder abuse which distinguishes itself for three reasons, and the reason I will share it with you: (1) It was developed by my seniors advisory committee in my constituency which I have had operating for the last five years; (2) it is in larger print so that my seniors can read it; and (3) it is extensively distributed as an educational tool for the police forces, not only in our region but externally, because that was considered part of the problem. Fourth, if I can give it one more, it deals with the fuller range of abuse: financial, physical, emotional and criminal.

I would like to give that to the minister in hope that, to the extent you are promoting it as an issue that requires fuller and frank discussion, perhaps the pamphlet could be a vehicle for a fuller and franker discussion. That was our experience. We received materials from all across North America before we produced this. There has been extensive research put into the one I produced, and that is at no expense to any minister.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Thank you very much for sharing that with me. I certainly will make sure I take a better look at it.

Mr Jackson: I notice your staff has brought over materials from the ministry. I want to commend whoever came up with that idea. I think it is a terrific idea. In the six years I have been here, nobody has done it, so whoever is to be credited --

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think Mr Adams should take the credit.

Mr Jackson: I just hope you did not get a hernia getting it here. Okay, my next question. I want to thank Ms Haslam for bringing up the funding cuts in the estimates book. I think you are spot-on if you are concerned about cuts in this area.

Your response, Mr Adams, initially, was that there were -- correct me -- four or six one-stop access projects. I understand there were at least 12 projects or eight projects originally funded under the Liberals for an examination, just the research, then it was stopped at a certain level. I just want, for the committee's and my own benefit, to take us back to that. I understand where we are now with it, but the background of it was that eight communities were identified by the then minister for seniors, pilot studies were done, the ministry did the assessment, we were never given the reports publicly, and then the moneys to proceed with some projects, not the total, were then cancelled. Can you help me to get a better handle on that?

Mr Adams: There were five sites that were identified to go ahead with actual implementation of one-stop access; those were the pilots for the province.

Mr Jackson: How many were in the original study group, though? Twelve and eight ring in my head.

Mr Adams: I do not know the answer to that.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: Hansard would not pick this up, but a member of staff indicates that there were only five originally. That is fine. When was the decision made not to proceed any further?

Mr Adams: The decision would have been taken in the fall of 1988.

Mr Jackson: So it stayed on the books through 1988-89 and resurfaced again in 1989-90.

Mr Adams: It came off at the end of 1988-89.

Mr Jackson: What about the geriatric research programs? First of all, the minister can respond to the one-window access programs, where they fit now, but I would like a sense of how many of the geriatric research programs were funded and how many were cancelled.

Mr Adams: None of them got under way.

Mr Jackson: Even the one at McMaster?

Mr Adams: That was a different thing. We had $500,000 distinct from that. The McMaster one did proceed, but then there was $500,000 to go to the teaching hospitals for geriatric training, and that did not flow.

Mr Jackson: Was that part of the interministerial memo for cuts, or was that --

Mr Adams: That money was constrained --

Mr Jackson: It was part of the cabinet --

Mr Adams: One-stop access was stopped, and that is why the $1.5 million was recovered. Then the $500,000, there was a constraint levied against that.

Mr Jackson: I was given a copy of one of the reports, and we were in the neighbourhood of $12 million or $13 million for implementation -- that really well killed that -- for the five sites. But the teaching hospitals never proceeded. The McMaster plan: Was that a multi-year plan and are we still funding it?

Mr Adams: I could call upon Mr Youtz, who was very involved in the McMaster plan and can give us in-depth on that.

Mr Youtz: I am Bob Youtz and I am the manager of economic policy and research.

The McMaster funding was a grant of $12 million that was given in 1987. That money will continue to be paid out over the 10 years of that grant; I believe that would make it up to 1996-97. They are just running forward and developing programs and materials and working, to the extent they can, with the other health science centres to develop their own initiatives. But that was outside of the geriatric training initiative you are speaking about.

Mr Jackson: Are there any other programs you are currently funding in this area of general geriatric research and development?

Mr Youtz: No. We have a small research fund in the office that funds sort of ad hoc projects, but we are not funding any geriatric training.

Mr Jackson: If I might ask you, then, Minister, given that we are getting clear evidence of a shrinking mandate in terms of research and development, which is separate and distinct from what you refer to as a team approach and your participation, are you comfortable with that, that we are actually seeing fewer dollars allocated for you directly to push your agenda, that you are basically left to work it out at the table with several other partners?

Hon Ms Ziemba: No, but this was initiated before I took office, and one of the things I really want to emphasize is that the ministry office was diminishing in strength and in responsibilities way before our government was elected. This was a policy that had been brought in by the former government. So the questions you are asking my staff and that I could not answer were implemented and decided upon by a previous government.

Mr Jackson: I made that clear. I was indicating that the evidence is clear that we are in this shrinking mode. I was agreeing and observing it as an event.

Hon Ms Ziemba: That does not mean it will continue to shrink and does not mean that we will not be moving forward.

Mr Jackson: Fair ball, except that you will be responsible for six months of these estimates -- not a third of them, not a small portion of them; six months of them -- and six months of the spending since September, so that we are dealing with substantive matters --

Hon Ms Ziemba: Since October.

Mr Jackson: Since October. The point I am getting at is that I want to get a sense from you of the extent to which you define your ministry and your responsibilities. We have seen ministers who want to build their authority so that they have the independence to promote focused geriatric training, and other ministers who do not. I am just trying to get a sense from you, because you are going to need the additional dollars with which to do it. As you did mention staffing, perhaps you could table -- not address this at the moment but table -- what the staff complement was for this ministry on or about August of this year and what the staff complement and strength is at this moment. I realize my time is up, but if you could respond to that.

1730

Hon Ms Ziemba: If I could just very quickly respond to your question, we will give you the answer on the staffing size, but I do want to tell you that since we have taken government and since I have taken responsibility for the office on 1 October, we have increased and added responsibility to this particular office. One of them, of course, is advocacy; the commission will be within that regime. So we are expanding its role and increasing its mandate and making it a stronger ministry.

Mr Jackson: Seniors or Citizenship? The deputy seems to be suggesting it might be different.

Hon Ms Ziemba: It was never a ministry, the seniors' office. It was given to a minister with responsibility.

Mr Norberg: I would add to what the minister is saying, simply in terms of investment of the new government. There has been a significant investment announced which will impact directly on seniors and which will be attached to the ministry. The advocacy commission is an example of that.

Mr Jackson: Which ministry, though? That is my question. I am sorry, Mr Chairman.

Mr Norberg: The advocacy commission will report to the minister as a commission with an independent status.

Mr Jackson: The Minister of Citizenship or the minister responsible for seniors? In the old government we had a separate Minister of Citizenship. If this were the Liberal government today, with this mandate, we would have a different person dealing with advocacy.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We would not have a person dealing with advocacy. Sorry; that was very partisan.

Mr Jackson: I cannot understand your difficulty in answering a straight question.

Mr Norberg: The answer to the question is that the advocacy commission will report to the minister responsible for seniors. The minister is also responsible for people with disabilities, as we know, and for other citizenship issues, but it is one individual, that is, the minister. I think that is the most straightforward answer I could give to that.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Jackson. You will still have the floor when the PCs' turn comes around in the next round. Mr Owens had the floor for the government. Mr Owens, you are on again.

Mr Owens: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will pass my time to the next person on the list.

Mr B. Ward: Before I ask my question, this is the first estimates committee I have sat on in my career as MPP. Minister, I think it is your first estimates as well, and I think you are doing a very good job of answering the questions to the best of your ability. I know some of the questions have been very tough, but you keep up the good work.

Mr Mahoney: You will get a little extra something in your pay packet.

Hon Ms Ziemba: You have been watching Mr Mahoney, Mr Ward.

Mr B. Ward: Learning from the old pro. He is trying to move up that mandatory retirement.

My community, the city of Brantford and the surrounding area of Brant county, which is in Bob Nixon's territory, has a higher percentage of seniors compared to the national average. In fact, there are plans for a retirement village to be located in the Brantford area which eventually would house approximately 10,000 to 15,000 seniors -- just to give you a little background about the concern I have for seniors. They are quite a large contingent of the population in Brantford, so I am very aware of their concerns. As our baby boom ages, obviously it is going to be a greater concern for future governments.

I would like to focus on the appointment that was made shortly into your term as minister of the commissioner to investigate the rest, retirement and boarding homes. In Brantford we have approximately, to the best of my knowledge, around 700 residents who utilize these type of facilities. Obviously, I have a great concern for the fact that to date they have not been regulated and there is potential for abuse of the system by these facilities' owners or managers. There is interest in the city of Brantford for this commission to hopefully make some appropriate recommendations towards establishing provincial standards as far as the rest, retirement, boarding homes are concerned.

The owner-operators I have talked to run very respectable establishments, and they are encouraged that there may be eventually some standards set which would allow them to operate in a very uncontroversial manner, because right now there is perhaps a perception that this particular area may be tainted because of what happened in Orillia, I believe it was. They are pleased to see that this commission is finally on the road, willing to consult throughout the province. We hope it will come to Brantford so there can be opportunity for discussion in my community towards what should be respectable standards and regulations.

I was just wondering if you could perhaps expand on the role the commissioner will play, as far as having him and the commission tour the province is concerned. I believe you stated that a draft report will be received by yourself in early April, at which time, as far as your direction is concerned, you can see if it is heading in the proper way, with the final report due in July. I would appreciate it if we could expand a bit on the concept for this commission. And do you feel confident that the time lines can be met, recognizing that some intangibles occur from time to time?

Hon Ms Ziemba: It is a great concern also to people who operate unregulated homes. I have spoken to their organization a number of times and had delegations and attended their conference, and they too want us to move towards regulation and clear up the mess that is there. They feel very strongly about setting standards and guidelines in place, and I commend them for that. It must be very difficult to operate an honest facility when other people are dragging their name in the mud, so we do encourage that and I am pleased they are on board with what we are doing.

The commission has a lot of information that the office for seniors and the office for disability issues has already in their hands, so we know where some of those facilities are and we know how many people are using them. We do have some of that information, so I feel we can meet those time frames in the six months we have given to Mr Lightman. We know it is a very heavy time frame but we have the confidence that he will be able to do that, and he will be going around meeting in various areas of the province to make sure he does hear from a number of groups of people. He is accepting written briefs, but he has expanded that to verbal briefs, because a number of people who wanted to express their concern and who had ideas might not feel as comfortable in presenting a written brief, so we expanded that as well.

His mandate covers making sure that we get the information of what is out in Ontario: how many people are using these facilities, what the types are, the definition, and taking -- I hate to use this word -- but a census of what we are faced with, and then coming back with very clear ideas on how we can change that.

1740

We do have some information, so that will facilitate the speed of his commission. But also by being able to get out into the community who have also done work along that line, and sharing their experiences and their ideas with him, we believe we can come together at the end of six months. Now we did put in the option of giving a preliminary report to me in April, so we do have some understanding how the work is going. We can either speed it up or change the direction or whatever has to be done.

That was very important, I think, and the fact that I am in contact with him on a weekly basis also gives me an indication of how far advanced his work is going. If he needs more assistance, whether it is staff, more time, we can do that for him. So I am feeling quite confident we are going to complete it by July.

Mr B. Ward: I have other questions, but we have plenty of time, tomorrow I guess.

The Acting Chair: You still have some time in this round, if you want to use it.

Mr B. Ward: I believe my colleague has some.

Mr Hansen: My area gets into the Ministry of Transportation. I do not know how much your ministry is dealing with the Ministry of Transportation. I know it is with Health and Housing. I come from a rural area with very little, if any, public transportation. I have had quite a few complaints from seniors in my particular area on the retesting of drivers, yearly. I can tell you that the ones who wrote me letters might not run like a hare, and might be closer to a turtle as it is right now, under speed, but I can tell you they are sharp enough.

They are complaining to me that some 17-year-old or 18-year-old who gets his licence does not have to get retested, "But I am 75 and have to be retested." The thing is this: "I attend at the doctor about once a month to get checked up on my health. My health has not deteriorated, yet I still have to take the test."

The other thing is that in a small sleepy town like Vineland there is not much traffic, but where they make him go to take his test is in downtown Hamilton. He is not used to the traffic and everything else. I have had quite a few of them come to my office. They feel it is unfair. They are being discriminated against because of age, and it is not because of their ability to drive. I do not know whether your ministry has got to this area. I think an answer from you today could satisfy a lot of the seniors I have in my area. What we do is, it is a rural area; there are a lot of farmers and they are retiring. They are out. Quite of few of them are really retiring in the next couple of years, so it is an important issue to them.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I share your concern. I think medical technology has actually advanced the age and helped people live longer lives and more productive lives. We have to review some of the things that have been in place for a long time. That is something that we will be reviewing and looking at, and seeing how we can look at that and make it more equitable.

But I understand their concerns, especially if they are driving in one area of the province and having to take their driving test in another. That is something I will make sure I look into. I had not realized that people from Vineland had to go to Hamilton to be retested, so I am glad you have shared that information with me. I really feel it is important, in this type of dialogue we are having today, that I hear these little stories and have that information.

If we do not have the time, then I certainly wish people would stop me in the hall or whatever, and tell and share with me, rather than even worrying about writing letters that might get lost on other desks.

Mr Adams wanted to add something to that.

Mr Adams: Just three little points that may be of relevance here: First of all, we are collaborating with the Ministry of Transportation in running a sensitization course for their driver examiners so that they can relate better to seniors, because after the last voluntary exit opportunity, they found that for all their examiners the average age was 31 and a 31-year-old does not necessarily know how to relate very well to an 84-year-old person who is very nervous and so on about trying a driver's examination. We have been running those courses with some success in the past couple of months.

The second thing for which we have a proposal before the Ministry of Transportation is that we would collaborate with them in the development of a special kit to be sent to everybody when he turns 80. The computer would kick out the indicator, and this would prepare seniors especially for their driver's examination. Some of them have never been tested in their lives. It was possible 50 and 60 and 70 years ago to get a driver's licence without ever having been examined, so you have somebody now coming up who has never taken a driver's examination and that can be a very fearful thing. We particularly want to get a kit in front of them that will tell them in a very positive way what to expect and how to prepare for it.

The third thing -- it is just a proposition we are exploring -- is to raise the idea with the Ministry of Transportation that seniors could be tested at seniors' centres and that the driver examiners could come and do it in a friendly location at a place convenient to them. That is one we have just raised with them very recently and we are pursuing that.

Mr Hansen: That sounds great. I think seniors in my riding will appreciate hearing that. This is what they are asking for, somebody to come in part-time into Grimsby or Beamsville for a couple of hours to be tested.

On another question, I have read in other places and I have not seen it here, but we get to the point -- we are talking about women on pay equality and employment equality and we talked about 39% of women who are unionized here in the province. I have heard in the past that women are becoming more wealthy as time goes on in the sense that they live longer than men and control most of the wealth.

Hon Ms Ziemba: It is a myth.

Mr Hansen: Okay, I have been reading the wrong paper.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Substantiated by males.

Interjection: Could it be rectified?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Actually, I would like to respond to that because NAC, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, came out with some findings and women are actually falling behind the last few years. It used to be that we would throw around a stat that women made 66% to 68% of what males make and it turns out that they have gone down to 61% and in some categories; for visible minority women it is down to 21% and for native people it is down to 12%. So we are seeing a really wide variance and discrepancy and women are really falling behind.

Mr Hansen: So with immigration it is falling.

Hon Ms Ziemba: It really has in the last number of years. Women have fallen behind again.

Mr Hansen: I will have to get different papers to read.

The Acting Chair: Back to the official opposition. In a very interesting question period a while ago you used up 19 minutes, Mr Mahoney, on mandatory retirement age and what have you. We now have 11 minutes left. We will all be back into our 15-minute rounds if you will use up the 11 minutes, Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you. I thought we used it up collectively between me and the minister.

Mr Jackson: The minister and I.

The Acting Chair: This is not an English lesson. You can go ahead and state your case.

Mr Mahoney: Just to finish up, actually, on that, if I could, because I know Mrs McLeod has a question and I want to leave her time to do that. You had stated you were interested in bringing forth an amendment to the Human Rights Code to deal with age discrimination. A couple of things and maybe the staff have to answer this: Does that require legislation or can it be done by regulation? That is number one. Can you tell me that?

Mr Norberg: The Human Rights Code presently protects people up to the age of 65 only, so we would have to amend the code to make an adjustment to that.

Mr Mahoney: By legislation?

Mr Norberg: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: Can you give us a commitment as to when you will introduce such legislation in the House?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Shortly.

Mr Mahoney: Shortly this coming term, this coming session?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Probably not this term, probably the next term.

Mr Mahoney: So you are saying the next fall-winter sitting of the Legislature it will be coming forward?

Hon Ms Ziemba: It would depend on how long we debate all the other issues that we bring forward.

Mr Jackson: As the Liberals used to say, in the fullness of time and there are many things not immediate.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We have picked up these lessons, Mr Jackson. Thank you.

Mr Mahoney: I am not necessarily looking for how quickly it would subsequently be passed, etc. I am looking for an introduction as to when you are prepared as the minister -- you have said you support it. When are you prepared as the minister to introduce it?

Hon Ms Ziemba: As soon as I can, in the fullness of time.

Mr Mahoney: I thought your first answer was better than that, actually.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I like that.

Interjection: It works.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes, they are training me well.

Mr Mahoney: I almost had you down to at least the fall.

Hon Ms Ziemba: By the end of this five-year mandate.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, yes, that one I have heard from the Premier till he is blue in the face. You know, "We will do it within the term and life of the government." I would hope that on behalf of seniors, you would introduce it quickly and expeditiously, because frankly I think it is going to result in a lot of debate.

I think we have to recognize that as much as there are some of us who fully support the concept of choice in this situation, there are a lot of people who will argue against it, so it could require some committee hearings and some debate and maybe even some acrimony before it is all done. l would suggest that it would be in the best interests of supporting the statement that you have made that you indeed are in support of that amendment that you introduce it as quickly as possible. l will turn it over to Mrs McLeod and if there is time, I have something else.

Mrs McLeod: I just want to add a supplementary to this line of questioning. I am also pleased to hear your commitment to looking at the issue of mandatory retirement and amending the Human Rights Code. I think that it requires doing more than an amendment to the code, although that is obviously a very important and positive step. But to avoid the kind of resistance and acrimony that Mr Mahoney just referred to, it seems to me that there has to be a very proactive approach taken to dealing with some of the concerns that may impact seniors as mandatory retirement is ended.

You indicated the pension issue, the economic issues, which can be a barrier to people choosing retirement and continuing to choose retirement if mandatory retirement ends. Obviously that is one of the issues that has to be addressed.

You have also talked about alternatives and helping people to develop recreational alternatives, career choice alternatives at earlier stages in their careers, and I think that those are important issues not just to talk about, but to begin some consultation and development on.

The other one I would like to ask you is whether or not you have considered or would consider some extension of what is now considered early retirement options. One of the positive aspects of what developed as an early retirement option is that people did not have to make an all-or-none choice, that they could retire but continue to have access to the workplace one day a week or two days a week so that they were able to phase out, but still keep that contact. I wonder if, as you consider ending mandatory retirement, you would look at the development and the encouragement of flexible semiretirement options.

Hon Ms Ziemba: The Minister of Labour, I believe, is addressing those issues at the present time and I will be discussing that further with him as well. I think those are things that are being addressed in that particular ministry at the present time. If you like, I could look into it further and see how far advanced they are, what work they are doing on that. But that is under that jurisdiction of that particular ministry.

Mr Mahoney: I think rather than go into new discussion, maybe I will just finish off in the last five minutes with a couple of points on the mandatory retirement. There is lots more we can talk about tomorrow. Do you, Minister, know the position of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens with regard to the mandatory retirement issue?

Hon Ms Ziemba: We could ask Mr Hughes.

Mr Mahoney: Are you aware of their position?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes, but would you like to have Mr Hughes respond to you right now?

Mr Mahoney: Minister, if that is what you would like, that is fine.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Well, I know. Yes, l understand --

Mr Mahoney: Then why do you not tell me what their position is?

Hon Ms Ziemba: But I do feel that Mr Hughes is sitting here.

Mr Mahoney: That is fine. I have no objection to that. He would have to come forward to the microphone.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Please come, Mr Hughes. He is sitting here all afternoon. I think it is a good opportunity to --

Mr Mahoney: A little exercise?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Mr Hughes is the vice-chair of the advisory council.

Mr Hughes: Sounds like a great buildup, Mr Mahoney. I am sorry I cannot give you our position. I know we wrote to the minister and we expressed views, but I do not know what they are. I am sorry.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Okay. The view that I received from the advisory council was that the preference would be to abolish mandatory retirement and to look at various other aspects. They looked at it more as a human rights issue.

Mr Hughes: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: Is that in a report form or in some written form that perhaps our committee could be provided with?

Hon Ms Ziemba: We could get that for you, if you would like, tomorrow. I will have lots of information tomorrow.

Mr Mahoney: I think it would be helpful, because even if time is marching on, your amendment, I assume from your comments earlier, would not be coming in the next sitting of the Legislature, so at the very earliest it would be in the winter sitting.

Hon Ms Ziemba: To amend the Human Rights Code requires a lot of work. It just cannot be brought forward in a very quick way, and once you start amending the Human Rights Code there are many amendments that might be brought forward and we are not going to bring one piece at a time. I think we want to do it in a very broad way and bring many different changes to the Human Rights Code. At least I would like to.

Mr Mahoney: You see, that is part of the problem that I have and that is where I see the conflict between your role in relationship to the Human Rights Code and your role as an advocate for seniors. We clearly have identified an injustice in the area of senior citizens' affairs. You have agreed with it. Clearly there will be others who do not. But at least the issue has been identified.

What I started out saying in my opening remarks today is that I am concerned that issues of just fundamental importance to the group that you advocate on behalf of, the seniors, will get lost in the shuffle of all kinds of additional amendments that are required and the complications.

We have identified that there is an injustice in the area of human rights by discriminating against people based on a magical figure of 65 years of age. You have agreed with that. Why do we need to throw it into the spaghetti pot to come up with some amendment that could indeed take years? Why can we not deal with it unilaterally and have it brought forward? If you are not prepared to bring forward an amendment -- I understand it would have to be done properly so that it could survive a court challenge or any of that type of thing, and I support that.

Will you at least begin the discussion on the item in some public way so that we can work towards a format where we would have an opportunity to get the various opinions? There may be members of your caucus and mine who do not agree with you or me on this particular issue.

Just sort of saying the motherhood statement, "Yes, I agree that it is unfair," but not putting into place something to actually get the issues on the table, bothers me. I am afraid that seniors are getting lost in citizenship issues, rather than having their advocacy put forward in a clear, effective way.

Hon Ms Ziemba: But just think, Mr Mahoney, if I was just an advocate for seniors and I had to go and convince another minister about this issue, he might even disagree with me. Then we would really be far behind, but at least I am sharing the concerns and I have both hats so I think I can move a little bit farther and faster ahead.

The Acting Chair: On that note of agreement, it is now 6 o'clock. I want to thank the minister. I now declare this committee adjourned to reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in this room, at which time the Progressive Conservative Party will have a 15-minute bout, the government will have a 15-minute bout, and we will return to the normal sequence.

The committee adjourned at 1754.