Journal des débats 1986-déc-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Gordon: I would like to address my statement to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and ask them to intercede on behalf of technical teachers in this province, who have found that because of the new Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions curriculum guidelines in the high schools and falling enrolment, their jobs are in jeopardy. They are finding it more and more difficult to carry on.

Many of these teachers have sufficient years in the teaching profession that they would like to take the opportunity of the new three-year window of opportunity to retire. Unfortunately, the years they spent acquiring their experience as tradespersons before entering teaching are not counted as pensionable years because they do not belong to a registered retirement savings fund.

We understand that a change to the Income Tax Act would be very helpful in this regard, and I ask both the Treasurer and the Minister of Education to intercede on behalf of these technical teachers. They could not have made the contribution they have made to education in Ontario without that former trade experience. I think we would be serving well people who have served us, our children and the educational system of this province well if we were to intercede on their behalf.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: The Ministry of Labour's inspectors complained early last year about their lack of training. They presented their concerns to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) in May, which prompted the minister to hire McKenzie and Laskin to review the ongoing workings at 400 University Avenue; but before the report has even been released the Ministry of Labour is moving forward with training for the inspectors, which was what led to the original complaint anyway.

The tenders to provide training have been accepted by the ministry. Training will be done by the community colleges, using the Industrial Accident Prevention Association--can members imagine, with its wonderful track record in occupational health and safety?--and the Workers' Compensation Board, which will do a major part of the retraining.

It is interesting that the training is just a piecemeal, Band-Aid solution. Why did the Ministry of Labour not wait until Laskin had concluded the inquiry and reported some time this week? Why did it not consult the union involved? No dice; in fact, the Ministry of Labour, with its in-house training program, has taken the same individuals who have been trying to train the workers before. The two people training the inspectors now are known, by the way, as the dog-and-pony show. The Minister of Labour has continued the dog-and-pony show by simply moving it around, in the face of the Laskin investigation which will report within the next three or four days.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. G. I. Miller: I am delighted to inform the House that an agreement has been reached for the management of the Backus woods. As many members know, the Backus woods near the town of Port Rowan have long been recognized as one of the best, if not the best, remaining examples of Carolinian forest in the country. Nowhere else can you see tulip trees, black gum trees and opossum.

This agreement follows policies similar to those used for provincial nature reserves in Ontario. Basically, it means the Backus woods is to be managed and protected for its natural value, especially the large Carolinian trees and the rare plant and animal species.

One of the stumbling blocks that prevented a management agreement earlier concerned the issue of cutting and salvaging trees. This new plan will allow trees to be cut only if necessary for approved management purposes or to remove damaged trees that may be a hazard along trails and roads. However, wood from such cuttings or from wind-topped trees can only be salvaged if doing so will not hurt the surrounding habitat.

I would like to note the special contribution made by the Ontario Heritage Foundation, which has agreed to establish a trust fund to provide yearly funding to the Long Point Region Conservation Authority for management and maintenance expenses for the woods. I hope other organizations will be encouraged to follow the heritage foundation's lead in this area.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: Every member knows that questions in Orders and Notices are an important tool created so that all members may obtain information rightly owed to the people of Ontario. Questions in Orders and Notices are an important exercise in democracy and are often the only means by which detailed information on various aspects of the government may be obtained by the people of Ontario.

There are currently 117 unanswered questions in Orders and Notices. Although the questions deal with a wide variety of subjects, they all have one thing in common. The answer to every question is a matter of public concern. It seems this government chooses to ignore the public's concern.

My colleague the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) tabled a question in December 1985 regarding government travel using government and charter aircraft. As of today, more than one year later, the people of Ontario have heard nothing. I tabled a question in May regarding government cabinet meetings in various parts of the province. Seven months later, the people of Ontario have heard nothing.

I find the arrogance of this government astonishing. With all the talk about no-walls, no-barrier government, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his cabinet consistently ignore the rights of the people of this province. The free hand of spending so evident in the frequent sojourns of this government does not extend to explaining and accounting to the people who foot the bill.

MUSEUM RENOVATION

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to see the provincial government has approved a $250,000 grant to renovate the Sault Ste. Marie Museum. This is an important project for the local historical society, and it has been worked for long and hard by many in our community. After months of delay, we are finally going to see the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture come on side to fund this project.

Under the second phase of the museum restoration project, the front entrance to the building will be restored to its original state, the second floor will be completely renovated and handicapped access will be improved. The museum will transform a downtown heritage building into a cultural centre.

While I applaud this long-awaited announcement, I must deplore the way in which it was handled. I would like to know why the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) and her staff did not even extend the courtesy of an invitation to myself, as the local elected representative who worked for this project, to be in attendance at the announcement earlier today.

Further, I would like to know the rationale that justified having the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) make the announcement in the absence of the minister. That member does not represent Sault Ste. Marie or an adjacent area and has no role in that ministry. This is clearly blatant political opportunism of the worst kind by this Liberal government.

I sincerely hope the Liberal leadership will review its worst memories of the previous Conservative government and work towards its much-proclaimed open government, which we are not seeing today.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT CENTRES

Mr. Callahan: In the light of all that good news from the opposition side and all those nice statements, I would like to rise and thank the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for allocating some $21,000-plus to the region of Peel for the establishment of rehabilitation centres for alcohol and drug treatment. I would also like to thank them for the $200,000-a-year operating fund.

All too often the members in this House seem to use members' statements time to be critical. I am sure the people in Ontario are picking up on the lack of content and substance of the members opposite when they do nothing but criticize.

TOURISM IN EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Villeneuve: I rise to report the further decline in the Liberal government's efforts to promote tourism in eastern Ontario. For some months, the people of Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and Cornwall have witnessed a deterioration in the government's commitment to tourism in this area. In a continuation of this decline, we learned last week that the St. Lawrence Parkway Commission would be closing the scenic Long Sault Parkway over the winter months. In previous years and under previous governments, this parkway was kept open year round. I say to the members of the government that it is a shame. We should be promoting tourism, not discouraging it.

13:41

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Elston: Our government has no higher priority than to see that every nursing home resident in this province receives the care and attention he or she requires and that the quality of life for all nursing home residents is one that promotes their security and independence.

I am therefore pleased to introduce in the House today the Nursing Homes Amendment Act. The amendments reflect the views and suggestions of many interested individuals and groups following broad consultations. I am also introducing the Health Facilities Special Orders Amendment Act to ensure the provisions in both pieces of legislation are consistent in language and intent.

The Health Facilities Special Orders Act is the legislation which empowers the Minister of Health to suspend a nursing home licence and to take control and operate a home when a licence has been suspended.

The amendments to the Nursing Homes Act cover five major areas: the rights of residents, residents' councils, quality of life, nursing home ownership and financial disclosure.

The fundamental rights of residents will be enshrined in law, and nursing homes will be required to operate in such a manner that all residents are accorded the full dignity and courtesy to which they are entitled.

Paramount among these rights is the principle that a nursing home is, first and foremost, the home of its residents. In fact, this is the fundamental tenet upon which all our amendments are based.

The rights of residents will include proper shelter, food, clothing and care, the right to privacy, the right to participate fully in decisions regarding their medical care and treatment, the right to information and the right to pursue their personal interests.

At the very heart of this initiative is our unwavering commitment to ensure that nursing home residents have not only the best possible care but also the best quality of life. Nursing homes must meet not only the physical needs of residents but also their psychological, social, cultural and spiritual needs.

A copy of the residents' rights will be posted in each nursing home, and each resident, along with his or her representative, will also be given a copy. In addition, contracts signed upon admission will be deemed to include the undertaking that the homes will be operated in accordance with these rights.

In order to give residents a stronger voice in the day-to-day management of their homes, we propose a number of amendments that will represent a significant departure from the past. We want to challenge residents to take more responsibility for their lives and we want to encourage their families and friends in the community to become more active in the affairs of the homes.

As a society, we cannot accept the warehousing of our elderly. We must create an environment that respects their independence and nurtures their involvement. Accordingly, residents' councils will be set up at every nursing home wherever at least three residents or their representatives request one.

Further, in order to provide advice to the residents' councils and safeguard residents' rights, an advisory committee will be established. The residents' council advisory committee will be made up of between three and 10 members. Up to seven members will be selected by the residents' council and up to three members will be appointed by the minister from the local community. The residents' council advisory committee will investigate complaints from residents and will work to resolve any disputes.

The committee will meet regularly with nursing home owners. It will examine the ministry inspection reports and financial statements and review the allocation of money for food, supplies and services. Further, the committee is authorized to report to the minister any concerns or recommendations it may have about the operation of a nursing home and to convey to the minister the views and opinions of the residents' council on such issues.

This legislation also authorizes the minister, with the consent of the advisory committee, to appoint an adviser who will assist the committee in carrying out its responsibilities. This residents' council adviser will report directly to the committee. The adviser will be empowered to enter a nursing home at any time to meet with a resident or a member of the residents' council. The adviser will also be able to review the records of the nursing home, including its financial statements, when instructed by the committee to make an investigation.

These are considerable powers. For the first time, residents will be able to get meaningful financial information about their homes. Through their advisory committees, they will have established forums for reviewing complaints, meeting with nursing home owners and making recommendations to the minister.

Also for the first time, agents of the residents' councils will be given full standing as parties before the Nursing Homes Review Board. In addition, residents or their representatives may make submissions at board hearings. These measures will give residents a strong voice in matters affecting nursing home licences.

Further to enhance the role of councils as spokespersons for residents, I am pleased to announce today my ministry will provide $50,000 in funding to the Ontario Association of Residents' Councils.

Other amendments will improve the residents' quality of life in several important ways and enable the minister to enforce the act more effectively. First, the legislation will authorize the minister to enter into a contract with a specific nursing home to provide funding for additional services where there is a proven need. For example, such necessary services may include hiring additional nursing staff or developing new programs for the care of residents with Alzheimer's disease. This arrangement will allow us to target our resources more efficiently and effectively, to ensure we receive value for every additional dollar spent and to recover or withhold funds when the level of service is inadequate. In short, there will be greater accountability.

Second, the legislation also requires anyone who believes a resident has been harmed, as a result of unlawful conduct, improper or incompetent care or neglect, to report it to the director of the ministry's nursing homes branch. Anyone reporting such incidents will be protected from reprisal. Nursing home owners will also be required to forward all written complaints concerning residents' care to the director.

Staff members from my ministry have met with the Ontario Provincial Police to discuss the issue of reporting criminal incidents in nursing homes. Both parties are now working on setting up a means of responding to such incidents in the most effective way possible. Other options are available in cases that do not involve criminal conduct; for example, prosecution under the act or revocation of a licence may follow. I want to stress that my ministry will take appropriate action on every report it receives.

Third, our proposed legislation provides that if a resident is physically unable to appear in court to give evidence, a justice of the peace may be appointed by a provincial judge to take the evidence from the resident at the nursing home. Residents unable to attend hearings before the Nursing Homes Review Board may also give evidence in their nursing homes. In addition, the liability of a nursing home owner regarding violations of the act is clarified in these amendments. Penalties for noncompliance will be increased to maximums of $5,000 for a first offence and $10,000 for subsequent offences.

Changes in ownership of nursing home licences and management contracts are likely to affect the daily operations of homes and can have a direct bearing on the quality of care therein. Therefore, the proposed amendments will expand and strengthen the ministry's authority to regulate these changes. For the first time, there will be stricter reporting requirements on shareholder ownership, so that the minister will be able to determine not only officers and directors but also who has controlling interest in a nursing home.

In approving or refusing a licence, the ministry will consider the past conduct of those with controlling interest. Their honesty, integrity and competence to operate a home will be assessed. The minister's right to issue or refuse a nursing home licence on the basis of the public interest will also be expanded to take into account criteria such as concentration of ownership and the balance between profit and nonprofit ownership.

A nursing home's financial affairs and quality of care are also linked. Nursing home owners will therefore provide the ministry with annual statements of profit and loss for each home. These financial statements, indicating sources of revenue and how revenue is being spent, will be posted with the annual relicensing inspection reports for the information of residents and their families.

The regulations will prescribe financial disclosure, but clearly our intent is to provide residents with meaningful information. For example, we will require each nursing home to provide a detailed accounting of its expenditures for services and supplies.

Senior citizens living in nursing homes deserve the very best possible care and standard of living. This government will be satisfied with nothing less. I am confident these important amendments will meet our objective.

Mr. Andrewes: With respect to the statement of the Minister of Health, it is rather interesting that such a bold statement of facts as they exist today would require a lockup and all the excitement that went on in the intervening time, particularly since one could quite nicely read the whole report in the Toronto Star this morning.

The minister proposes in his amendments to the Nursing Homes Act to create residents' councils, which exist now in most nursing homes. He proposes to create a residents' council advisory committee; that is simply a transfer of the role of the Nursing Homes Residents' Complaints Committee, which the minister has abandoned. As well, the residents' council advisory committee simply becomes an executive committee of the residents' council that exists now.

Basically, we have a statement of fundamental principles in this legislation. We have what resembles a very weak bill of rights, adding to the fluff the minister has created. If there is any new accountability in this legislation it arises out of a rather greater concern, that the transfer of this accountability is now in the hands of the residents' council advisory committee. It is an abdication of the minister's responsibility for accounting to the residents of nursing homes and to their relatives.

The residents' council adviser, the quasi advocate that the minister proposes in his legislation, has no qualification spelled out. There is no independence from the government for this adviser. We have no new amendments; the amendments are defensive. We have no new program or new dollars. The minister does not address the issue of equality of residents in long-term care facilities across Ontario, whether they are in nursing homes, homes for the aged or any other institution.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I want to take a couple of moments to respond to the Minister of Health. We in this party are very pleased that for the first time in many years a piece of legislation to reform the nursing homes system will be debated in the Ontario Legislature. That is a big step forward.

There are two aspects we are proud of. The original draft bill did not have a bill of rights, but thanks to the pressure that was put on by groups such as Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities and by people such as the leader of my party and other members of our caucus, this bill has a bill of rights it. We are proud that we were part of that process.

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: I remind all visitors in our galleries that they are not to participate in a demonstration in any way.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We are also pleased that a section of the bill refers to financial accountability, something this party has been fighting for for many years. We will want to see that section amended so that instead of all the power being granted to the cabinet and being dealt with in regulations, those powers will be spelled out by the members of the Legislature where they should properly be spelled out.

Other aspects of the bill are incredibly weak. The advocacy procedure in this bill is an absolute disgrace and cannot be called advocacy in any way, shape or form. It will be one of the jobs of this party to make sure that is changed when the bill goes to committee for clause-by-clause. There is no movement in this legislation away from the private-profit system, which I think is at the root of the rotten care many residents receive in the nursing homes of this province, and that has to change.

I am only supposed to take a short time, so I want to finish by saying that one of the real disappointments in this bill is that so much power is granted to the minister through regulation. The fact is that in the lockup his officials could not answer any of our questions with respect to what might happen with the regulations. If the minister wants to have a thorough and fair discussion of the nursing homes bill, he should file those regulations with the committee so we can properly see what the intentions of the minister are. We do not intend just to say we are going to trust the minister. We have been burned too many times in the past and so have the residents of nursing homes in this province. We want it in law and we want to know the government's full intentions.

ADVOCACY SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce today the appointment of Father Sean O' Sullivan to conduct a review of advocacy for vulnerable adults in Ontario.

The impetus for this review comes in part from a submission made last summer by an organization called Concerned Friends of Ontario Residents in Care Facilities and entitled Advocacy Ontario. It was a submission I encouraged the organization to prepare because of my own conviction that there is an unmet need for nonlegal advocacy for vulnerable adults living in institutional care settings and in the community. Vulnerable adult populations include the frail elderly, the developmentally handicapped and the psychiatrically disabled.

In part, also, the impetus for this review comes from the many other organizations that agree on the need for more and better nonlegal advocacy but want careful consideration to be given to ascertaining the best method or methods for delivering advocacy services. These organizations, which also represent vulnerable adults, have put forward a variety of other models for the establishment of independent advocacy services in Ontario.

My colleagues the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Ruprecht) and I share the conviction that vulnerable adults must be heard and that health and social services must respond to their needs.

While we agree on this basic principle, there are still many unanswered questions. It is important to ensure that whatever system of advocacy we put in place will respond to the real needs of the vulnerable adult population. Advocacy must be structured so as to be effective and meaningful. It would be a disservice to everyone to act hastily and to cobble together a solution that failed to address the real problems facing our vulnerable population.

Accordingly, I have asked Father O'Sullivan to conduct a review of independent advocacy for vulnerable adults living in institutional care settings and in the community. He will provide an independent and thorough review of the concept of advocacy and develop various options for the establishment of advocacy services. He will also consider ways in which advocacy might be co-ordinated with existing case management and other service delivery systems and with existing legal and volunteer advocates in the community. Father O'Sullivan will be supported by three advisory groups representing consumers, providers of services and affected ministries.

I have asked Father O'Sullivan to report within six months so that the government can give timely consideration to his recommendations. This review should be seen as the first step on the road to a more effective and sensitive delivery of services to vulnerable adults in Ontario.

Mr. Andrewes: I congratulate the Attorney General on his selection of Father O'Sullivan to review the role of advocacy. I assure him Father O'Sullivan will have this party's co-operation in doing his work.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Today, the Attorney General, or minister of all things as he has become, along with his sidekick the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), the minister without power for the disabled, seems to have been mugged by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services in his incapacity to come out with what we know was his policy. I had printed for him, on page 21 of Orders and Notices, the act he wished to bring in. Instead, all he has been able to do is produce a review by Sean O'Sullivan of the basic needs for advocacy, which those other two ministers are basically stopping being brought in in Ontario.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am pleased to report that this morning in Toronto federal and provincial ministers reached an agreement that will have positive and far-reaching implications for the occupational health and safety of Canadian workers. Specifically, ministers agreed to establish the work place hazardous materials information system, which is known as WHMIS.

What this means is that workers everywhere in Canada will soon have the right, by law, to clear, contemporary information on potentially hazardous materials in their work places. Linked to that right, manufacturers, distributors and users of the materials will be obliged to provide workers with the information they need to make informed judgements about their work places and informed decisions about the healthiest and safest ways in which to work.

As the members know, this assembly has already given first reading to Bill 101, which provides for both worker and community right to know. In other words, we in Ontario have our own machinery in motion. Today's agreement means we will be able to integrate our worker right-to-know provisions with WHMIS and be part of a national effort rather than having to proceed on our own. I think this has constructive implications for Canadian nationhood and this day therefore can be described quite properly as a historic one.

Once WHMIS is in place, here is what it will provide for workers in Ontario and throughout the country.

First, containers will have to be clearly and understandably labelled so the potential hazards of the substances in them are recognizable at a glance.

Second, producers and distributors of potentially hazardous materials will have to provide complete and comprehensive health and safety information to users. This information will come in the form of material safety data sheets. In addition to providing basic physical and chemical data, the sheets will set out potential health hazards, how to prevent them and how to take effective first aid measures should they materialize. The data sheets will also provide information on fire and explosion hazards, means of extinguishing them and special procedures.

Third, WHMIS will require employers to provide workers with the education and training they may need to apply and interpret the material safety data sheets. Should the providers of materials be concerned that detailed information may lead to a breach of a trade secret, they will be able to apply for an exemption. There will also be an appeals mechanism.

It appears WHMIS will take approximately two years to be fully operating in all pans of the country. I hope our own Bill 101 will be passed by this assembly and receive royal assent before the end of the current session so that as many requirements of WHMIS as possible may be satisfied promptly.

I remind honourable members that in addition to the core national standards for labelling, data sheets and training, the Ontario system set out in Bill 101 prescribes the creation and maintenance of substance inventories for not only the workers but also the community at large through the medical officer of health.

In the long term, the prevention of work place illness and injury is the key to ensuring worker health and safety.

Three things lie at the heart of a preventive occupational health and safety system that works: credible, understandable, pertinent and accessible information; the capacity to make effective use of that information; and an unqualified commitment by the work place parties to their individual and mutual responsibilities.

WHMIS will play a major part in getting good information to workers and helping to ensure they can make effective use of it. In that regard, today's agreement constitutes a benchmark in the fulfilment of workers' rights in Ontario and everywhere in our country.

Mr. Gillies: I fear Christmas must be getting awfully near, because I find myself in the position of having to offer a rare compliment to the Minister of Labour and to congratulate him and his colleagues.

Mr. Ferraro: Even Scrooge has changed.

Mr. Gillies: I might have to turn in my rat ears over this one. I want to congratulate the minister and his federal and provincial colleagues on arriving at the long-awaited WHMIS agreement. It is a very constructive step forward in the area of health and safety in the work place.

As I became aware in discussions several months ago, the minister will be aware that the federal minister was somewhat concerned at one point about the posture Ontario was taking in these discussions. My understanding through my sources is that the input of our provincial ministry into this process was for the most part constructive and probably led to a better agreement than would otherwise have been.

I congratulate all the federal-provincial ministers for arriving at this. I have waited since Bill 101 was introduced for a flood of complaints from industry about its ability to meet the regulations, and that has not happened. Let us hope it works. With the goodwill of the majority of employers and workers it can work.

Mr. Martel: I will not be as kind to the Minister of Labour as my friend to the right. Let me quote Bob Sass, the former Associate Deputy Minister of Labour in Saskatchewan: "Information in itself will not reduce worker risks. Information is not power, power is power, and industry has all the power under occupational health and safety."

Let me give one simple example that the Minister of Labour could have cleared up. A company in St. Catharines had a data sheet. It removed the data sheet and took that section from the data sheet which said, "This substance is possibly carcinogenic." The minister knew that and did nothing about it. With this Minister of Labour, workers do not have a chance of survival, despite the bill.

SHORELINE PROTECTION

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I wish to advise the House that the province will implement a long-term program for the management of shorelines along the Great Lakes.

I am pleased today to table a report by the Shoreline Management Review Committee that recommends long-term solutions for managing the Great Lakes shoreline. The committee, chaired by the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), has made fundamental recommendations in four categories: jurisdiction, prevention, protection and emergency response. We are acting on a number of these recommendations right now, and others will be announced in the coming months.

Our first action has to be prevention. This government will be drafting a provincial policy governing shorelines immediately. We must also ensure that we have the most up-to-date mapping possible. We must be able to provide people planning shoreline development with good advice on protective works, floodproofing and effects on adjacent property. There is some mapping of hazard lands carried out under the Canada-Ontario flood damage agreement, but there must be more.

In addition, the public will have to contribute to the important decisions affecting the shoreline. At the suggestion of the committee, I will appoint a Shoreline Management Advisory Council to regularly solicit public opinion and advise the government.

Also, we must act on the issue of protection for the existing development. I have asked my staff, in conjunction with representatives from the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Treasury and Economics, to report back in three months with a comprehensive means of protecting large, vulnerable stretches of the shoreline.

We must remember that the Great Lakes are an international body of water, involving not only Ontario but also the governments of Canada and the United States. The government of Canada must be our partner in any large-scale capital works program. In fact, Ontario is anxious to consult on this problem with the federal government.

Mr. Pope: Good luck. You guys are batting zero in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have already written to the federal Minister of the Environment to request his support. In the meantime, the government will allocate an additional $700,000 for this fiscal year to expand the technical advisory service program to shoreline property owners and for the provision of sandbags for emergency protection. We will allocate another $1 million to the low-interest loan program. This will bring the total annual level of funding to $4.5 million--and will stem the flow from those people in that corner.

Mr. Warner: What a joke.

Mr. Swart: Thank you, King Canute.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: My colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) has complimented the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). I wish I could do the same for the Minister of Natural Resources, but in all good conscience I cannot, because his so-called long-term solution to a very immediate problem is totally inadequate.

The problem is here now. The minister is well aware that the circumstance we are facing at present is historic highs in terms of water levels, not only with the Great Lakes system but also with inland waterways, as my friends have indicated, particularly my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce).

The amount of money the minister has allocated is virtually an insult when one recognizes the tremendous devastation and damage that is going on in this province. The increase of some $1 million to the municipal program to assist municipalities and home owners to fight high water levels is totally inadequate.

The statements made by his benchmate and colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to the effect that he has not turned down anyone who has requested assistance simply does not bear up in the light of the fact that many municipalities across this province are coming to him on a regular basis, asking for assistance, for funding that is simply not available.

The minister has to get on with the job.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We have not turned anybody down.

Mr. Brandt: They have so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sarnia has completed his response.

Mr. Hayes: I would like to respond to King Canute, the Minister of Natural Resources. It appears that all the minister is doing in this report and long study is designating shoreline property as a hazardous area and doing nothing about the problems, that is dealing with the levels of the Great Lakes. He is not addressing the problem. He is still shirking his duties and continually putting the blame on the federal government. Now that he has taken his head out of the sand, he is in water over his head.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have placed a number of questions under standing order 29(a), on May 27, June 4, June 23, November 4 and November 13. Standing order 29(a) says I am going to get an answer. It is difficult to get answers out of the swamp, so I want to make a presentation to the guardian of the swamp. It can serve as a reminder during the Christmas holidays that he has to find a way to drain the swamp, so that answers will come to the surface.

Mr. Speaker: Not including the presentation, the member has a point of order. I am sure the government House leader will take note of that.

Mr. Harris: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: Briefly, we associate ourselves with the remarks of the member for Sudbury East. We would be glad to contribute out of our caucus funds to the cost of the gift and associate ourselves in any way we can.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not on the point of order.

14:13

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs.

Mr. Foulds: Pick on somebody your own size.

Mr. Grossman: Okay, the second row. Given the rather outrageous recommendation put forward by his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) yesterday, that rather than increasing inspections in homes for the aged, that rather than tightening up procedures as recommended by the Provincial Auditor, he has instead decided to step out of that field, I wonder whether the minister can tell us whether he supports totally the recommendation by his colleague and whether he is satisfied with a situation where only six inspectors are responsible for all the homes for the aged?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I do not think it is any surprise to the Leader of the Opposition that I get along very well with my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services. Moreover, I support the philosophy with which he is running his ministry. When the issue was raised one or two weeks back and questions were put to him, he made very clear what the philosophy of that ministry and our government is.

While we are talking about homes for the aged, we must also talk about the whole spectrum of institutional care. In the early part of 1987, I will be making a rather complete statement indicating the four main areas of work I will be undertaking at that time, including the development of a new extended care act.

Mr. Grossman: The last thing the seniors of this province need is a new announcement from the minister outlining four new studies he is going to undertake in January, almost two years after he came into office.

We have seen the results of one study done by his colleague. The results of that study contradict totally the white paper the minister put out in June of this year. I want to read to him from his own recommendation:

"The central initiative will be the development of new extended care legislation. The intent is to develop a single improved act which will apply to all providers and establish uniform criteria in such areas as inspection services, programming, staffing, quality of care and physical plant standards."

How does the minister reconcile that recommendation, which he made with regard to increasing and standardizing inspection, with the incredible statement made by his colleague yesterday that he is going in exactly the reverse direction and taking all that away?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I do not think that is the case at all. I have indicated we are going to change the system that was developed by that member's government of 42 years and make it a system that will address itself to the needs of the people it serves.

Mr. Grossman: Those grand statements, which were written for the minister a year and a half ago, have to be measured against what his colleague is prepared to do.

Let us get it straight. This afternoon the minister's colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) rose and attempted to portray an increased vigilance over nursing homes. The Minister of Community and Social Services rose yesterday and did not even try to portray increased inspection of homes for the aged; he went in the opposite direction.

Mr. Harris: At least he is honest.

Mr. Grossman: He said he was not interested in it. He thought it should not be his responsibility. He said he thought the provincial government should not inspect the homes for the aged. He said he believed the situation, in which there are no guidelines for food in those homes, no provisions to prosecute violators and no standards for inspection, is quite acceptable.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: He is prepared to walk away from it and leave it to the homes and their boards themselves.

Seriously, how does the minister justify the complete contradiction between his two colleagues and a total contradiction between the position of his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services and his own position?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: First, I take objection to the interjection from the Progressive Conservative House leader, who said, "At least he is honest," the implication being that I am not. I object to that. I think it is a cheap shot.

Second, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) and I have been working very diligently on a program, a package, for the first time ever. We did not come out with a staff paper, as the party opposite did a few years ago. We have come out with a statement of government policy, the first time any government in this dominion has done so.

Beyond that, let us take one example of something we have done that the former government talked about but did not act on. Members opposite have talked about the needs of the Alzheimer's patient in this province. In 1984, the previous government set up one poorly funded demonstration project in Ottawa and no other programs anywhere in the province. We have established 27 programs since January of this year. We are putting our action where our mouths are.

Mr. Grossman: If the minister wants to suggest that less than $2 million for Alzheimer's patients is a major breakthrough, he will have to answer for it.

14:20

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Grossman: My next question is for the Minister of Labour, if he can try to explain the Sunday shopping circumstance. On behalf of the people of Ontario, I would like to seek some guidance from him.

On December 4, the Toronto Star reported this headline: "Store Staff Cannot Be Forced to Work Sunday, Scott Says." I know the minister wants me to ask the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), but he is going to get it.

Mr. Speaker: I hope so.

Mr. Grossman: So do we.

It goes on to quote the Attorney General as saying, "Any employee who does not care to work on Sunday and who is employed in a trade that is registered by the act is not obliged to work on Sunday." So the Attorney General said.

We called the Ministry of Labour this morning and it answered, "Swamp speaking," and said as follows, "If an employee does not accept work on Sunday, the employer has the right to terminate his or her employment with proper notice or pay in lieu of notice."

Mr. Speaker: Question now.

Mr. Grossman: Who is right, the Attorney General or the minister's staff?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think it would be more useful if the Leader of the Opposition--who has apparently discovered something that party never discovered when it was in government, that is, labour issues--would tell us the question that was asked. It is very difficult to try to guess what the question was. The Leader of the Opposition has offered to us what the response was. I would like to suggest it would be important to know the parameters of the question that prompted that response.

Mr. Grossman: With regard to our party in government, I can only refer to the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), whose judgement I never question, who has called this minister the worst Minister of Labour in 11 years. I rest my case.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind members it is not necessary to make personal comments.

Mr. Grossman: In order to ask the same question, so that he cannot try to duck behind that, I have in my hand a quote from the Attorney General saying: "Store staff cannot be forced to work Sunday. Any employee who does not care to work on Sunday and who is employed in a trade that is registered by the act is not obliged to work on Sunday."

Does the minister agree with the Attorney General that under the current legislation an employee cannot be obliged to work on Sunday?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the Attorney General was commenting on the fact that under the act as it now stands the opening of those stores is illegal, workers who would be working on Sunday would be working in a store that would be open illegally and it would be important that the employers not require the employees to do so. The Attorney General has put the issue very clearly. It is important for the House and for those who are watching to remember that on Thursday this week we will hear from the Supreme Court of Canada and then we will know what situation we find ourselves in.

Mr. Grossman: Now we know why he asked me to ask the Attorney General instead of himself. He is responsible for the Employment Standards Act in Ontario. It is this act that determines--

Mr. Martel: Tell him what it says.

Mr. Grossman: He will find it in the Revised Statutes of Ontario right over here.

The Employment Standards Act gives the minister the responsibility to determine what employees can be required to do and what limits should be placed on the circumstances in which they work. The Attorney General, his colleague, has said employees cannot be forced to work on Sunday. Regardless of what happens in court this Thursday, there will be stores open next Sunday, and employees want to know what their rights are.

Will the Minister of Labour give a straight answer to the employees of this province? Can employees be forced by their employers to work on Sunday? If not, what is the legal authority for him to say they cannot be forced to work?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am simply going to repeat that I think the Attorney General, in making his comments, was referring to the provisions of the Retail Business Holidays Act. He was not referring to the provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

The Attorney General has spoken quite correctly. It is important for us to see what will happen on Thursday. At that time, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, we will see what situation exists then and employees will realize what their situation will be this Sunday.

Mr. Rae: I want to stress that the comments of the member for Bellwoods prompted a lot of discussion in our caucus, and it was a very close decision in terms of rating who has been the worst Minister of Labour in the past 11 years. However, the present minister still won the award.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Rae: I wanted to put that information before the House, Mr. Speaker.

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health arising from his announcement today with respect to nursing homes. In prefacing my question, I want to give credit where credit is due to the members of my party and my caucus, who for a generation have raised questions in this House with respect to the nursing homes industry that other parties did not have the courage to face up to. We take pride in the fact that some small steps have been taken in this legislation to correct a situation that is desperately in need of reform and of change. Change has been very slow in coming.

Can the minister assure the House that any infringement of the bill of rights that is set out in the Nursing Homes Amendment Act in a new subsection 2(1a) will be considered a contravention of the act as set out in section 19? In other words, will it be enforceable?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable gentleman for his comments. With respect to responsibility for these reforms, these steps forward in dealing with nursing home residents, this party stands to be counted with regard to improving the lot of people who are living in nursing homes. I do not think the member would want to accept all the credit for that situation.

I even suspect there are people in the official opposition who likewise want to see residents in nursing homes provided with better care. That is why I think these reforms and amendments will receive wide support when they are dealt with in second reading and appear before a legislative committee.

As I said in my statement, the basis upon which these amendments are offered is that the residents are in a nursing home and these statements of principle under which the operation of the home will be carried on will be deemed to be part of contracts, if they are not included specifically in contracts signed by residents when they enter homes, and could be enforceable there.

If we find the quality or standards of care to be provided is not in existence, we can enforce them through the pull-back mechanism or in reviewing a request for further licences and other items.

Mr. Rae: The minister has not answered my question directly, which leads me to think the answer is no. It is extremely important.

The minister has put a section in this bill that has been played right across the province in a number of newspapers, including the Toronto Star this morning, saying he has finally been converted on the question of a bill of rights with respect to seniors. What I am trying to find out is whether there is the power to enforce. We know the minister has completely dropped the ball on advocacy, as has already been stated very eloquently this afternoon by my colleagues the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke).

What I am trying to determine is whether, if an inspector finds a resident has not had the opportunity to communicate in confidence, to receive visits or to consult in private with any other person without interference, that in itself amounts to a contravention or a breaking of the act. If it does amount to a breaking of the act, how is it going to be enforced?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Elston: I indicated to the honourable gentleman how some enforcement provisions under the amendments would take place in terms of the flowing of funds and the accountability required under provision of services.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the gentleman with respect to the question of advocacy. He may have a particular position. We are looking at the advocacy position. We have provided a situation in the amendments where we are supporting the development and strengthening of residents' councils to encourage ongoing dialogue between the people who are living in those homes and the representatives of the people in those homes to ensure the complaints are dealt with in an independent fashion.

I can also tell the member that the Minister of Health continues to be extremely involved in the activities within the homes and will continue to pursue the remedies set out in the amendment act and the remedies that are still in existence under the current legislation.

Mr. Rae: I still have not heard an answer to my question and I have asked it twice. This can only lead me to believe the bill of rights is not enforceable, which is precisely the problem. As my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) said, information in itself is not power, power is power.

Can the minister justify for this House the decision not to require the establishment of advocates for every nursing home so residents would be able to raise complaints without fear, not as a matter of his discretion but as a matter of basic right?

As the minister will know, it is fear, concern about reprisal and concern about future care that pervades the atmosphere of a great many nursing homes when it comes to complaints and infects the whole complaint process today in the nursing home system. Can the minister explain why he dropped the ball when it comes to giving power where it belongs?

Hon. Mr. Elston: No ball was dropped. In fact, encouragement and strengthening of the residents' councils is a fine component of recognition of the valuable work done by the residents' councils that have been established and are functioning. We are looking at establishing further councils.

We encourage the complaint procedure by providing some protections under the sections in the amendment act, as he probably has already seen but failed to indicate. These amendments will assist in accommodating those complaints. We will be providing assistance to people who have complaints by a means of providing evidence to a justice of the peace, for instance, to assist anyone who is in a nursing home and might not be able to get out to testify in front of any tribunal that he might wish to be in front of.

It seems to me we have improved considerably the lot of people in those homes. I look forward to the support of the members of the House so we can proceed with further improving the quality of care of the people who reside in nursing homes in this province.

DAY CARE

Mr. Rae: I want to go now to the Minister of Community and Social Services and take up again the question I raised with him yesterday because it is so fundamental. The events of today cast further light on what a critical juncture we are at in this province.

The minister will know that back in 1972 the nursing home system in this province was changed, a new Nursing Homes Act was introduced and funding was introduced for the first time on a universal basis to private-profit centres. He will know that since then the number of nursing home beds in the province has increased by more than 30 per cent. The number of beds in the not-for-profit sector, the nonprofit sector, has increased by a mere eight per cent when it comes to extended care. The balance between the two has been tilted totally by the decision to go to universal funding.

Armed with that kind of information, can the minister explain why the Liberal Party is so determined to move full steam ahead with funding for-profit child care centres when we know perfectly well the result is going to be the growth of chain developments, multinational developments from the United States, just as it has been in the nursing home sector? We are going to have precisely the same problems in the 1980s and 1990s with child care as we had in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s with nursing homes.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not agree with the analysis of the future made by the leader of the New Democratic Party. The point I made in response to his questions on previous days was that we had an existing situation serving more than half of the supervised day care spaces in this province. There are children in those spaces now. There are families who have chosen, for a number of reasons--in some cases because they had no other choice--to use those commercial day care spaces.

The only point we are making is that while that is the situation, it seems to us reasonable, fair and just that we should offer the same kind of economic support to those families as we do to families using the nonprofit sector. It seems unreasonable to me that we should say to families using the nonprofit sector that we are prepared to provide additional funding to keep the rates down, to keep the wages up and to provide for low-middle-income people to be able to afford the service but that we are not prepared to provide the same service and the same support to families who have chosen the commercial sector. I do not think that is fair.

Mr. Rae: In fairness, the minister knows full well the reason families have chosen commercial care in many cases is that they have had no choice in terms of what was being provided to them in their neighbourhoods.

Since we keep hearing the language of fiscal responsibility from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), and since we have limited dollars to spend, I wonder whether the minister can explain to this House why the Liberal Party, when faced with a choice between opening new nonprofit centres and financing commercial centres that already exist, chooses to channel and funnel money to profit operations rather than opening up new nonprofit centres, creating more spaces and more choices for those parents who right now do not have any choice?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In response to a similar question raised by the leader's comment from Ottawa, yesterday I believe it was, I pointed out clearly that the statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and my own statements indicated the position of this government is that new initiatives will be in the nonprofit sector. We have said that clearly. I said it yesterday. I repeat it again. New initiatives will be in the nonprofit sector. That is clear.

Mr. Rae: Let us also be very clear. We have not heard it in the House; we had to listen to the Premier saying it in Vancouver and we had to listen to the remarks of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who apparently was speaking for child care on that day. The minister has also said--let him correct me if I am mistaken--that a new initiative is coming and that the initiative involves direct assistance on a per diem basis for nonprofit operations and for-profit operations.

How can the minister stand in his place and say all the new initiatives are going to be in the nonprofit sector when the major initiative on the part of the Liberal Party, the big-ticket item when it comes to expenses, is going to be a direct subsidy to profit operations in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As part of the previous question, the member referred to scarce dollars. Again, both the Premier and I have said very clearly that because of those scarce dollars, in Ontario and elsewhere, for day care and a whole range of other social programs, I was going to Ottawa--as he had spoken to the Prime Minister to see whether the federal government would be prepared to share with us the cost of that initiative.

I have said very clearly in the House, and I will say it again, that we had great difficulty facing that kind of initiative without traditional federal cost-sharing and that no decision would be made to move forward on those kinds of initiatives, or how we would move forward on those kinds of initiatives, until we knew clearly whether the federal government was going to share in it. When we know that, we will make our decision.

14:40

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

Mr. Andrewes: I want to go back to the Minister of Health on the amendments to the Nursing Homes Act. Section 17 deals with the appointment of a residents' council advisory committee. What statutory powers does this committee have to enforce its findings or determinations?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Through the amendments, the committee will have the ability to search into questions that are of interest to it regarding the carrying on of operations in the facility. It can discuss problems with the owners, and it can report directly to the minister. I have the ability to do some of the things I spoke about earlier in the provision of services before being reimbursed for money.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that I am paying very close attention to supporting those committees in their endeavours, if they ask me to, by appointing an adviser to assist them.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister has given this committee the right to gather information and the power to report to the minister. He has given it less power than his own inspectors have now. What he has really done is to give them responsibility without any power to enforce that responsibility. If a nursing home owner simply says, "No, I will not do what the residents' council advisory committee says to do," how is the minister going to enforce that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The opening remarks by the gentleman in reply to my statement was an indication that I had given my responsibilities away to the residents' council. I can tell him the minister remains responsible for the enforcement of this act; I will continue to do that and monitor it in a manner that is appropriate from the information that is made available to me.

It is very interesting that the gentleman who is the leader of the new Progressive Conservative Party laughs about people's responsibilities. When he had an opportunity to move in this area, there was no particular movement with respect to the nursing home sector. I cannot understand why that gentleman keeps remarking that more should be done when he had such a long time to deal with this problem. The honourable member did not do the things that were required to ensure that people of this province have fine opportunities to enjoy life in a manner to which they should be accustomed.

These amendments will help us deal with the quality of care issues, and I am pleased the people in the third party are willing and hoping to assist us in discussing this issue in the House, as it should be. I look forward to the constructive input of the honourable members, which I hope we will receive in committee. The former minister might want to tell us why he did not do anything during his tenure.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr. Reville: I want to say "Happy birthday" to the Minister of Housing. I will bet he does not have a briefing note on that.

The Minister of Housing was going to come to grips with the housing crisis on December 16, 1985. How did he do? There are more people in hostels, more people on the streets, more people on waiting lists, more disappointed perspective home buyers and fewer vacancies in rental accommodation.

Now that the Assured Housing for Ontario policy has been exposed as empty words, what is the minister going to call next year's housing policy?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the honourable member for recognizing a year of achievement. I think the member is saying that in 1985, when the previous government set out assisted housing, only 7,195 of those were approved. In 1986, this government approved more than 15,000 units, and that does not include the 3,000 we have to put forward again to arrest the decay in affordable rental units.

My honourable friend is quite right. It is a very sad case that we have taken up in this province, but we are coming to grips with it, as he will see. He was very much an active part of Bill 51, which has made those units even more affordable to those tenants.

Mr. Reville: Speaking of affordability and achievements, I have a document called About Rent Review. It has the minister's name on it and it is lovely, well printed, with a lot of words in it. It took about a year for Bill 51 to come to fruition with the support of my colleagues to the right. However, what the instructions say is that in about 60 days the tenants of Ontario can call up and find out what is going on. What kind of government would say you cannot find out what is going on but in the meantime have a happy holiday season? What kind of government would produce jokes like that?

Mr. Speaker: That is not very supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is the type of government that brought in a bill that was approved. We are sending out literature to explain the bill. It is the type of government that has set up a program to explain the bill in 13 languages, not including English or French. It is the type of government that is open and accessible and brings a less controversial and adversarial situation to the rent review process. It is the type of government that has builders and tenants co-operating.

ADVOCACY SERVICES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Can he tell the House specifically why he has chosen to reject, at least for the time being, patient advocates for the nursing homes? Was it the cost of putting in that program? Was it the fact that he believes residents do not need the protection of a patient advocate? Why did he reject that option?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman's comment is not appropriate in either situation. He knows we are studying the psychiatric hospital patient advocacy program now, under the guidance of Professor Allan Manson. We are reviewing the benefits and strengths of that system. In conjunction with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), we are looking at a system across Ontario. It seems to me a thorough analysis of that program is very helpful when we attempt to initiate or introduce new procedures into the province.

Mr. Grossman: If the minister's answer is that the Attorney General of studies wants to have a study instead of moving in the area, we understand.

In 1983, the Ministry of Health chose to implement the patient advocacy program in its own psychiatric institutions without having the benefit of a study, without finding an excuse to delay because it needed Father O'Sullivan or anyone else to study the program. At some stage a politician has to have the courage to step forward and say, "Yes, I would like the benefit of further study," but the patient advocacy program has been in place for three years. A study would be nice to have, but it is better to have immediate protection for for the residents of nursing homes and then see how the program works and adjust it if necessary.

Why has the minister chosen the route of the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) of having study after study instead of stepping forward and having a little bit of political nerve and putting in a patient advocacy program for the residents of those nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have indicated we are putting in place much strengthened residents' council activity which will assist the residents in meeting any concerns in a local home. Not only that, we have put up money to assist those people to develop their skills and have indicated that where a request is made we will provide them with some support people who will assist them in carrying out their function.

I do not know what the member has against the activities of residents' councils, but it seems to me we can assist the people who are living in these homes to deal with the questions of how the homes are operated and we can provide those residents with a manner in which they can deal face to face with the owners and provide us, as a ministry, with information that is required to provide us a way of enforcing in situations where care may not be there.

14:50

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Labour about Ontario steelworkers whose jobs are threatened by the import quotas on Canadian steel currently being proposed by Democrats in the United States Congress. At the same time, these jobs are being threatened by continuing dumping of offshore steel right here in the Toronto area. In the US, where our market share is increasing, Canadian steel is being targeted as the biggest problem facing the US steel industry. Senate spokesmen are saying that legislation on steel trade is very likely.

Can the minister tell us what he and his ministry are doing to protect the thousands of threatened jobs in our Canadian steel industry? Can he assure Ontario steelworkers that they will not be the next concession that will be offered to the Americans to keep us in the free trade talks?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The question would have been more properly addressed to my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) or to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who, as the honourable member knows, has been handling the lead responsibility in the free trade talks. This government's action in the free trade discussions and the role the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology have played make it abundantly clear that Ontario will not stand idly by while any discussions or activities threaten the viability of any industry, including the steel industry.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The Minister of Labour should be one of the strongest spokesmen for the workers of Ontario in protecting their jobs, which are being threatened in the current situation. The minister should also know that those jobs continue to be threatened by unfair trade and the dumping of steel into our Canadian market. Algoma Steel is losing business today to offshore producers, who have discounted heavy structural and plate steel from Denmark, Mexico and Spain currently sitting on docks in the Toronto area. What are the minister and his ministry going to do to protect the workers in the steel industry from unfair trade practices?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The question would be properly placed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, but I will take the question as notice on behalf of the minister and discuss it with him as soon as I can get in touch with him.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: We would again like to try to convince the Attorney General of the wisdom of a judicial inquiry into the Wyda matter, and I would like to put the following thoughts to him. When the Ontario Provincial Police report the results of its ongoing investigation, it will put that report before the Attorney General. He will decide which, if any, part of that report should be brought before this House and before the public.

In view of the circumstances of the case, and particularly in view of its political ramifications, would the Attorney General not agree that the more sage and judicious course of action would be for this matter to go to a third neutral party, a judicial public inquiry, where it could be adjudicated without any suggestion or hint of politics?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for his question. He probably agrees that the important thing is to have a complete and full police investigation and to have that report in hand at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Pope: We have no indication from the Attorney General or from anyone else in the government of the scope of the OPP investigation. He refuses to tell us that. Yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said, "If you do not like the fact that you are not getting any information, take the OPP into your confidence and talk to them." We are talking about a unanimous recommendation of the standing committee on public accounts. We are talking about a request in August for a forensic audit, which this government stalled and refused to co-operate with. We are talking about question after question concerning the Attorney General's involvement. I raised it again last Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is.

Mr. Pope: At first he denied he was at that meeting and then he said he was at that meeting. We are talking about a report being made to him when he was at a meeting with principals involved in the OPP investigation.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Pope: Since he was involved in this matter in July, why will he not get this off his desk and have a full judicial inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Scott: To paraphrase another, the reason the report is being made to us is that we are here and they are there. That is point one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is also to the credit of the New Democratic Party. I recognize that promptly.

To turn to the substance of the question, whatever the practice was during the time my honourable friend was the Attorney General, I want him to understand now there is no restriction whatever imposed by this or any other office on the ambit of the police investigation. They will run the investigation and they will determine exactly what they want to do and the way they think it can be most effectively done.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the plight of the gold and mixed-ore miners in Ontario. My friend the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) wants to hear this one.

Once the Muller report was received by the minister, he referred it, as I understand, to the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, which was to decide the criteria. This panel invited Homer Seguin of the United Steelworkers to appear before it on November 14. On November 12, Homer Seguin received a letter from the minister which stated, "I am informed by my staff that the evidence presented in this study is not sufficient to conclude at this time that the excess rate of stomach cancer is work-related."

Why did the minister appoint the panel of experts when his staff has given him all this expert advice? Why did he undercut the industrial disease panel by already deciding on November 6 that cancer was not work-related?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The Industrial Disease Standards Panel will review the findings of the Muller report. As the honourable gentleman knows, a number of claims by the gold and mixed-ore miners have been accepted in some areas over the years; many claims in many other areas have not. The Muller study findings will be reviewed by the panel, and advice will be given to the Workers' Compensation Board about where new claims and new approvals for work-related claims ought to be given.

Mr. Martel: I did not tell the following to Mr. Seguin in a letter; the minister did. He signed the letter. "I am informed by my staff that the evidence presented in this study is not sufficient to conclude at this time that the excess rate of stomach cancer is work-related."

The results of the Muller study identified a 90 per cent increase in lung cancer and a 138 per cent increase in stomach cancer in gold miners, using the health worker effect comparing gold miners with nickel miners. This information is serious, and one must remember this study speaks only to those who worked in the gold mines between 1955 and 1977.

Why did the minister appoint the Industrial Disease Standards Panel and then undercut it by saying there is not sufficient evidence?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will take a look at the letter. The honourable gentleman has read one sentence from it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have spent the past while listening to a lot of nonsense from that side. I have heard a lot of nonsensical so-called facts.

15:00

Mr. Martel: You cannot dispute one fact, nor have you tried.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member asked his question and he is going to get a response. When they are reviewed, they turn out not to be the facts.

Mr. Martel: That is not true and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the members take their seats?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is very clear from what the minister just said that he has accused my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) of presenting incorrect information to this Legislature. I ask you to review the transcript. It was clear that the inference, the insinuation was that my colleague was not telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard a dispute of facts.

Mr. Martel: Oh, no.

Mr. Speaker: I heard another member state deliberately, "That is not true." I think we are getting a little carried away.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have to show some respect.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking you to review the transcript.

Mr. Speaker: I am willing to do that, but we have to try to calm ourselves, and I say that to all members. I will take a look at it but I particularly--

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, I will not make further comment at this time.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Did the minister or his ministry staff promise financial support for the 1986 crop to the growers supplying Natural Fry?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That is not what I would call an accurate statement. This minister was prepared to go before cabinet with a submission to render assistance to the potato producers who had marketed their potatoes to Natural Fry, which recently went into receivership, pending a third-party equity investor in Natural Fry. The third party that had indicated an interest decided at the last minute that it was no longer interested and the banks immediately put Natural Fry into receivership.

I have since taken steps to advise the potato board that I will consider establishing a financial protection program for the potato producers if that is the wish of the potato growers. If it is their wish, then I think we can work something out through the financial protection program for the potato producers who sent their potatoes to Natural Fry.

Natural Fry has been purchased by a company. Although we have been trying to find an opportunity to meet with the owner or to discuss the matter with the owner, he is in New Zealand and we do not know at this time what the owner's intentions are for Natural Fry. We suspect he is going to continue to operate Natural Fry in the province.

Mr. Stevenson: We have statements from Walter Davidson, Brian Cornish, Rudy Heijman and one Ross Whiteside clearly indicating that there were promises by Brian Slemko, George Collin and the minister's deputy clearly indicating that financial assistance would be forthcoming. Furthermore, there were statements from Campbell Soup and a bank manager, who is prepared to state he had calls from the ministry staff saying financial assistance would be forthcoming and therefore to go ahead and advance loans for the 1986 crop to those growers.

Is the minister going to come forward now and assist the growers his ministry hung out to dry on the 1986 potato crop?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: My ministry did not hang anyone out to dry. I am prepared to dispute the statements the honourable gentleman just made in this House. I tell my honourable friend that no member of my staff--no member--indicated to any potato grower that this minister was going to get financial assistance for him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: My, oh my. Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unbelievable. New question. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has been standing for some time and he would like to ask a question.

Interjections.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development, who I understand is to meet shortly with the minister from Ottawa who is responsible for the Canadian Jobs Strategy, Benoît Bouchard. At that meeting, will the minister attempt to get the $130 million which the federal government has not spent in Ontario and apparently is obliged to spend in Ontario in job training?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is right; I am meeting the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration on Thursday morning to discuss these very matters. He points out, or at least he alludes to the fact, that the federal government has not been spending the funds it made a commitment to spend under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I do not want to confirm the precise figure, but $130 million is rather close. The federal ministry has not spent those funds and Ontario suffers accordingly.

I am going to be raising that issue with M. Bouchard on Thursday morning, along with a number of other concerns that we in Ontario have about the Canadian Jobs Strategy, as well as concerns other provinces right across the country have.

Mr. Warner: That mushy answer is not acceptable.

Mr. Hennessy: There is a tiger for you.

Mr. Warner: Thank you. It is strange where you get support from, even from those who do not understand the issue.

The minister entered into the agreement and we have been gypped out of $130 million. He knows the Canadian Jobs Strategy is not much more than a slush fund for private industry, one of the results of which is that immigrant women do not get the kind of skills training help they deserve. I want to know what the minister is going to do to enforce the agreement which, unfortunately, he signed.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I really had the impression initially that my friend from Scarborough-Ellesmere understood something about the Canadian Jobs Strategy and some of its problems, but the fact is that through his supplementary he has indicated he does not understand what he is talking about.

15:10

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I entered into an agreement between myself as Minister of Skills Development and Flora MacDonald, the then minister, for a regime of training under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. It did not represent an endorsement of the entire strategy, which goes well beyond training and which is spending for job creation right across Canada.

The Canada-Ontario agreement on training has specific provisions dealing with training that may be done under this larger policy called the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I am not going to apologize on behalf of the federal government because under its Canadian Jobs Strategy it has failed to undertake the project it said it would undertake. I will raise it with the minister on behalf of this government.

LIABILITY INSURANCE

Mr. Callahan: My question is addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and deals with the report prepared for the minister in November 1986 by the Advisory Committee on Municipal Insurance in Ontario. It is of particular significance to my riding of Brampton, even though the members opposite do not think it is important

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Callahan: There will be a decision shortly with reference to a rather large liability case in Brampton. One of the recommendations made by the advisory committee was:

"The committee also recommends that subsection 4(4) of the Occupiers' Liability Act be expanded to include the following premises as being subject to the lesser duty of care as set out in subsection 4(1) of that act...vacant, undeveloped premises owned by a municipality or local board thereof, as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please; quickly.

Mr. Callahan: In lieu of going through the roundabout process of amending the act, will the minister consider raising the liability for municipalities for acts that occur on their vacant land to that of gross negligence as opposed to simple negligence?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The honourable member knows the report is in the hands of area municipalities throughout this province. We are supposed to get their responses and their statements by the end of 1986. In January, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) will be introducing the report.

PETITIONS

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Cousens: I beg leave to present a petition from several hundred condominium owners in the riding of York Centre residing in Thornhill:

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

"The undersigned beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario strongly urging the government to review the current treatment of condominiums with regard to assessment so that condominiums will be assessed on the same basis as owner-occupied, single-family residences."

At present, the government is allowing discrimination to take place against condominium owners and this should change immediately. The people from my riding ask that the government act on it promptly.

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Brandt: I beg leave to present a petition signed by 923 constituents from the riding of Sarnia:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario." The petitioners are indicating their opposition to Bill 7.

COURTHOUSE

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Last Thursday, at the close of question period, I asked the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) what he was doing to clear up the ongoing misunderstanding between himself and the legal community in Ottawa regarding the number of courtrooms required.

At that time, the Attorney General said, in a somewhat peevish and impatient manner, that if I had been in the Legislature several weeks earlier, I would have heard his total and complete explanation about this problem. It was at the close of question period last week, and because it was at the very end, I did not have an opportunity to state for the record that I was in the Legislature several weeks earlier; and not only that but also that I had raised the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suppose that is a point of information. As members all know, they can correct their own statements. I think you were trying to correct someone else's statement; therefore, it is not a point of order.

Mr. Baetz: It is a point of explanation.

Mr. Speaker: I see.

MOTION

REFERRAL OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the supplementary estimates of the Office of the Assembly be considered in the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly following routine proceedings on Wednesday, December 17, 1986, and reported to the House on Thursday, December 18, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved first reading of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Nursing Homes Act. Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have no comments but I have a companion bill to introduce.

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved first reading of Bill 177, An Act to amend the Health Facilities Special Orders Act.

Motion agreed to.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT / LOI DE 1986 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE COMTÉ D'OXFORD

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 178, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître propose la première lecture du projet de loi 178, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur le comté d'Oxford.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The legislation will alter the boundary between the township of Norfolk and the town of Tillsonburg. This will implement an agreement negotiated by the two affected local municipalities and their respective upper-tier municipalities, the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and the county of Oxford. The legislation will also make a number of minor housekeeping amendments to the County of Oxford Act.

15:20

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT / LOI DE 1986 MODIFIANT DES LOIS SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 179, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to Municipalities.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître propose la première lecture du projet de loi 179, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les municipalités et de certaines autres lois relatives aux municipalités.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Ce texte législatif propose une vaste gamme de modifications fort utiles à la Loi sur les municipalités. Par exemple, il vise à permettre à tous les conseils municipaux d'accorder des prestations supplémentaires à des employés en retraite. Les conseils pourraient également choisir la désignation de leurs membres, soit échevin, soit conseiller municipal.

Le projet de loi propose aussi un certain nombre de modifications connexes ou complémentaires à plusieurs autres lois, dont la Loi sur les aménagements locaux et la Loi sur les élections municipales.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved third reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Scott has moved third reading of Bill 7. All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will say please "nay." In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 167, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The bill will remove the need to amend the Assessment Act each year to prevent the automatic introduction of full market value assessment across the province.

As the members of this House well know, the provincial takeover of property assessment in 1970 was accompanied with the promise of province-wide implementation of market value assessment. Each year for the past 12 years, province-wide market value reassessment has been postponed. In 1978, it was deferred indefinitely because of a lack of consensus among municipalities on appropriate and necessary tax reform measures to accompany its implementation.

It is not the intention of the government to impose province-wide reassessment at market value. For this reason, the bill will amend the Assessment Act to remove the automatic requirement that assessment rolls for every municipality in Ontario must be returned at full market value. In summary, the bill will provide for the return of assessment rolls at current levels to ensure stability in the local tax base. The government will continue to offer, as a local option, three major reassessment programs: full market value under section 70, an approach taken in 138 municipalities since 1970; equalization of assessment based on market value under section 63, voluntarily implemented in 468 municipalities since 1979; and region- or county-wide reassessment, implemented for the first time in 1986 in the regional municipality of Sudbury and involving seven municipalities.

As well, we are presenting 100 impact studies this month to municipalities considering reassessment under these programs for 1987 taxation. Included are the county of Brant and the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk.

Second, Bill 167 deals with condominium assessments. As a result of a Supreme Court of Ontario decision in 1984, approximately 190,000 condominium assessments are reviewed each year in relation to current market value. Last year, about 25 per cent received increases or decreases in their assessments. Condominium households are the only property group treated in this way for property tax purposes.

The bill provides that condominium assessments, like all other property assessments, will not be adjusted each year. The bill will also direct the courts and appeals tribunals in the matter of condominium appeals to adjust the assessment of the condominium so it is at the same level of market value as that of all other single-family homes and condominiums in the neighbourhood. In this way, the bill will ensure that condominium owners are placed on an equal footing for property tax purposes with all other home owners.

Mr. McCague: We will be supporting Bill 167 from the Minister of Revenue. I welcome the section on condominiums. I think the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) tried to persuade the minister to do this last year, and even though it did take a year we are pleased to see it in there.

The minister will be pleased that we are supporting this. As I recall, the honourable member who is now the Minister of Revenue et al would never let other governments pass this bill for any more than one year because he wanted a yearly reporting of this. He was always saying: "You are doing the wrong thing. Change the process." The member has not been able to change the process, as he found out to his chagrin.

In the region of Sudbury, we welcome the section 63 reassessments, the impact studies and so forth. They were all good programs brought in by the previous government.

Mr. Foulds: I appreciate the Minister of Revenue's comments. I wonder if the meeting to my right--

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not normally do this, but I would like to hear this speech. I would like not to hear the three speeches that are going on over here.

Mr. Shymko: Tell the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) to sit down and not disturb us.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to tell the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) to sit down and not disturb us.

Mr. Foulds: I have some very brief comments on this bill. It is actually a truly Liberal bill. In the tradition of William Lyon Mackenzie King, this bill achieves a kind of Liberal perfection, as they see it; that is, market value if necessary but not necessarily market value assessment. That used to be the credo of the Progressive Conservative government, but it went too far to the right and lost the last election.

This bill, if it does not deserve enthusiastic support, certainly does not deserve opposition. First of all, it removes the annual embarrassment to all legislators of having to postpone the implementation of market value assessment on a yearly basis. Let us be frank about it, that has been an embarrassment to all legislators in all parties. This minister wants to get off the petard that the Tories hoisted themselves with, and I have a considerable amount of sympathy for that.

More seriously, I think this bill and this amendment indicate just how difficult it is not merely to bring in tax reform, whatever field it is in, but actually to define what tax reform is. There is no doubt that when market value assessment was first implemented or first thought of and when it was thought of as being brought in on a province-wide basis, it was originally seen as a progressive move. However, we found some of the implications of the practicality of implementing it were not so progressive; that is, residential property would be assuming an increasing amount of the local tax base. I want to point that out to the Legislature and the province.

15:30

One aspect of the bill that I think receives universal approval is that there is no reason in the world why condominiums, especially individually owned condominiums, should be treated any differently from any other private residential property. In the strict sense of the word, they have been discriminated against in the legislation up to this point. It is a very healthy sign that at least we are getting condominiums synchronized with the taxation for residential property otherwise owned by individuals in individual dwellings. That is a healthy step, because it recognizes that condominiums are going to be with us in the future and will probably represent an increasing share of our housing mix.

Since this is a debate on second reading and the principle, I want to spend a few moments on what these amendments to the Assessment Act fail to do. I want to deal with one case.

There is no doubt that my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) was very pleased with the statement by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) last week about the provincial government picking up some of the lost revenue for the township of Marathon. Communities such as Marathon--in this case, Manitouwadge and White River--have to service mines outside their jurisdiction and do not get a share of what should be the property tax assessed on those enterprises.

I would like the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue to give very serious consideration to making sure that whenever a mining development such as Hemlo is started, it is designated as part of the municipalities that have to serve it.

We did that in this province by enlarging the city of Timmins to the largest geographic municipality in Ontario so that it would incorporate the mines that town serves in its geographic boundaries and therefore make them subject to local assessment. After literally decades of struggle, the city of Sudbury was enlarged to incorporate the mines of Falconbridge and Inco.

Although it would be difficult in the Hemlo situation, because it is served by three different municipalities, there must be within the Ministry of Revenue and the Treasury the ingenuity and the wit to find a way to declare that property part of the municipalities that service the men and women who work in those enterprises.

The reason this suggestion I am putting forward is so important is twofold. First, it gives the local municipalities the control and the assessment over the local enterprise; therefore, it is not dependent on an annual handout by the provincial government.

The second reason it is very important is so that enterprises such as mining are not subsidized by the taxpayers of Ontario as a whole when the provincial government grant goes to those municipalities in lieu of those enterprises paying taxes.

After all, in northern towns almost every pulp and paper mill--in fact, I believe every pulp and paper mill--which is part of a resource-based and resource-dependent community, is within the municipal boundaries of those municipalities and therefore is taxed. The mining sector should be treated the same way. That would accomplish two things. First, it would give the local municipalities more of a tax base. Second, it would relieve the provincial government of having to subsidize those municipalities annually or letting them swing in the wind without the tax base they deserve, which was the case until the announcement by the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue a week ago.

I very much regret that the Treasurer did not take the opportunity to amend the Assessment Act in that way with this bill. It is a bill that does more than one thing. There are three or four clauses in it, and he could easily have done that.

In conclusion, what the bill does is not a great deal, but it does save us some political embarrassment. Where it removes the threat of residential properties taking up an increasing share of the local tax base, we support it.

Finally, it is a shame that an increasing burden is being placed upon property tax. This government has not been able to reverse the trend started under the previous administration, particularly in the last 10 years of its governance, that forced more and more of the social costs and the costs that should be borne by the provincial and federal revenues on to local municipalities.

I was reminded of this very forcefully last week when I made a presentation to the social assistance review in Thunder Bay. Because Thunder Bay is an isolated, large community 400 miles from Winnipeg and roughly 400 miles from Sault Ste. Marie, it receives a number of so-called transients who apply for social assistance. Under the provincial legislation, such people should be deemed to be resident in the municipality in which they make the application, but that does not happen. Often, they are offered a tank of gas and told to get out of town.

That is a shameful way for those people to be treated. People in our society requiring assistance should be treated with humanity and dignity. I need not go through all the arguments for doing that, but one of them is that it is our responsibility to be our brothers' and sisters' keepers. The situations I have described happen at the local administrative level because the local administrators look good to the local councillors if their budgets are underspent, particularly in social services.

Services such as that should be funded 100 per cent by the province. We should remove those kinds of services from a municipal tax base that is based on property. Although we have limited tax revenues available to us in comparison with the federal government, the municipalities have even fewer tax revenues and a lower tax base available to them. Property tax should be reserved for those basic things that service property, such as lighting, sewers, snowploughing, garbage collection, police enforcement and so on.

With those remarks, I conclude my contribution on second reading but indicate support for the bill.

Mr. O'Connor: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words with respect to Bill 167, An Act to amend the Assessment Act, and indicate I can support the bill in all its clauses.

The principle enunciated in section 1, that we need not go through this process annually, is an admirable one that perhaps should have been set out in the past. I would also like to make some comments with respect to section 2.

15:40

I can recall almost exactly a year ago today, in December 1985, rising in my place in this House for a debate on the predecessor bill to this one, which was passed. We have needed to pass one in December of each of the last 10, 11 or 12 years. At this time last year, I pointed out to the Treasurer, who was then in his place, as he is now, the difficulty and inequity the Assessment Act dealt to condominium owners, who under subsection 65(2) of that act were subject to market value assessment, notwithstanding that the municipality in which they were located may not have opted yet for a market value assessment program. Thus, they were reassessed annually on a basis that, in many cases, was unfair.

I urged upon the minister at that time that some step be taken to redress that inequity and to repeal the provisions of section 65. I am delighted that the bill before us today repeals subsection 65(2) and substitutes therefor a section which, in effect, freezes condominium market value assessment until such time as the municipality in which those condos are located opts for a full market value program.

This is particularly applicable to my riding, the town of Oakville, where there are a number of condominiums that have for the most part been subjected to significant increases in taxation annually because of the old subsection 65(2) and where the town is in the process of moving towards market value assessment in that our impact study has been completed, the results of which will be presented at a public meeting on January 8, 1987. It may be only a short time before all of Oakville will be assessed under a market value scheme, and thus fairness will prevail throughout the system to all property owners as well as condominium owners.

I compliment the Treasurer for this section and for his sensitivity towards the plight of condominium owners, at least with respect to this problem they are enduring.

I regret he did not have the foresight and show similar sensitivity towards condo owners last week when we were dealing with the question of adults-only buildings and the very reasonable exemption I proposed for condominium owners in respect to doing away with adults-only buildings generally in the province. However, most condominium owners in the province know that I and this party attempted to assist them in regard to that problem and that it was the other two parties of this House that saw fit to ignore their plea in this regard.

I will therefore be supporting this bill in second reading and thereafter in its passage through this House.

Mr. Philip: It will come as no surprise that I rise to congratulate the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue on his learning experience. I can recall in very vivid terms how the minister argued with me during his first set of estimates against the very proposals he is now implementing.

In spite of the extensive research I tabled on the inequities in the city of Etobicoke and the city of Toronto to condominium owners, and in spite of the fact there were absolutely no arguments against the fact that under that system condominiums were being discriminated against, he refused at that point even to consider the kinds of reforms he is implementing at present. For whatever peculiar reason, he could not understand that the yearly reassessment in a hot market was creating a grave inequity to condominium owners in comparison to owners of other forms of housing.

As a result of this, I expect a majority of condominium owners in my area--based on research that was done, albeit a couple of years ago--should pay proportionately less in taxes compared to other home owners than in the past. This means that over the years they have actually paid higher than they should have.

I take a certain amount of satisfaction in saying it has finally come. At least this Minister of Revenue did not require, as the previous minister did, a major court case to bring in some kind of reform. At least this minister, unlike the previous minister, did not have to be dragged into it. He at least finally came to his senses and is implementing what we have been asking for, not just of him but for several years of the previous government.

It is good to see the Liberals for once on the side of the condominium owners. I am pleased with the conversion. I hope he will be similarly on side with some other issues, such as bringing forward the new Condominium Act, which is long overdue.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the indications from both opposition parties that they intend to support the bill in principle.

I simply want to make some reference to the fact that for the last 12 years we have had a repeated bill which enabled the assessment rolls to be returned at something other than market value assessment as is required under the Assessment Act.

I certainly did not stand in the way, as the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) has indicated, of the previous government changing what became a totally inane process. It was more or less a bending of the knee to the wisdom of St. Darcy McKeough, who had introduced the concept of market value. With his influence in the cabinet and across the province, he felt he would have no difficulty in imposing market value assessment without any delay and that three or four years would be sufficient; therefore, the Assessment Act that was brought in would make it mandatory that market value assessment be returned in the rolls.

They had a good deal of difficulty in this. Members may recall that the same predecessor, who really had municipal affairs bound into his ministry, Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, was also very much in the way of imposing regional government right across the province as well. While he was successful in imposing it on a great number of our population, that was finally stopped. Premier Davis had the good judgement to announce that there would be no further regionalization. The market value assessment program got stopped too.

I recall Willis Blair, well known to all members of the House in a number of capacities, was set up as a special hearing officer, chairman of a review committee to listen to the views of municipalities and others on how assessment might be extended at market value in a way that would be acceptable to all concerned. His recommendation indicated to the government that the difficulties would continue and the whole program was put in abeyance for a time in the 1970s.

In recent years it has picked up speed again and many municipalities have seen the wisdom of accepting market value assessment. Under my predecessors, the Ministry of Revenue implemented a process of impact studies, which allowed the elected members of the municipal council to look at what the actual effect would be, if not on individual properties at least in areas and communities. They could indicate whether some communities would have a larger proportion of increased taxation as opposed to others. In rural communities, the big question was, what would the effect be on the farmers?

The impact study enabled the municipal councillors to assess the community response, and in many instances the ratepayers themselves would at least have access to the information in general terms so that their responses would be made either more acute or more moderate, depending on the effects they felt would occur in relation to their own properties.

15:50

This concept and policy of establishing impact studies was and continues to be extremely helpful. In many instances, market value assessment decisions would not have been arrived at without impact studies, which more or less indicated the results would not be so traumatic and far-reaching as was thought by some people, who were rather nervous whenever they thought about these matters, particularly those people who continued to attempt to put some sort of political complexion on reassessment. I think that is a very detrimental approach to the benefit of the taxpayers and the good of the community as a whole.

In the days when I was expressing moderate reservation, the approach of an impact study had not been taken to the pinnacle of perfection that honourable members can observe at present, but because of this process, some rather reluctant municipalities were persuaded to go forward at considerable political risk to themselves, and I repeatedly extended as much of my personal congratulations to them as I could.

I think of the council and mayor of Mississauga, who went forward with market value assessment, and I believe the results have been generally acceptable, although from time to time the volcano of public opinion erupts in a rather moderate way. It seems to me that if there was ever a good example of how it can be done effectively by the assessors--who are professional and well directed--in a major municipality, with all the difficulties inherent in its size and economic complexion, and be reasonably well accepted by the ratepayers on the basis of overall fairness, that was a good example.

We have also gone on to allow regional reassessments, as in the special case of Sudbury, and we have delivered an impact study to the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. They are considering whether to proceed. Of the 838 municipalities in the province, all but 200 have now had the advantage, in my view, of market value assessment under section 63 or section 70.

Of course, some major urban areas are not yet reassessed. Metropolitan Toronto is the most important and largest one. I am glad to remind members that Metro council has indicated at least a reasonable support for market value assessment to occur in the next two or three years. There were reports in the local press in the past few days based on the wording of a letter I sent to Metro Chairman Flynn about the upgrading of the impact study, which is going to be brought up to 1984 values and made available by June 1987 to assist the Metro councillors in making their decision.

I am quite confident that having had the resolution passed by Metro council and being prepared to discuss with it the development of responsibilities for this matter and an understanding of the provisions already in the Municipal Act and the Assessment Act that will permit local and regional municipalities to adjust the impact on individuals, particularly those on fixed and low incomes, it can go forward in a way that will be understandable, accessible, fair and supportable to any reasonable person.

I appreciate the comments on condominium assessment made by the honourable members. I hesitate to agree very much with the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip). He has a way with words that makes it difficult for me to agree with him. He indicated there was a certain learning process as far as I was concerned, and I am not prepared to say he is totally incorrect in that observation. Condominiums are not extensively utilized in my part of the world. Many of my constituents are not sure of the meaning of that word and have so indicated to me. However, even in Brant county we are rapidly catching up with the times. People are realizing that the concept of condominium ownership is a useful one that is rapidly extending right across Ontario.

I recall when the word was first used in this assembly. When the legislation was brought forward, the assessment of these living arrangements was based on a multi-unit building like an apartment building. It seemed to make sense, until it became apparent that the assessment in an urban area would be at least double that of an individual house. Court actions were entered into, and from a variety of judicial decisions there has been growing complexity and confusion in this matter.

Now the value of the average condominium unit is accelerating very rapidly. Without the freeze proposed in the amendment, condominium owners would experience substantial increases in assessment and therefore pay a larger share of the tax in any municipality. We agree with the comments made by opposition members and by many letter writers that the freeze should be extended to condominium properties identical with other properties, with specific advice given to the courts of revision and the courts in general. I am glad this change has been received enthusiastically and hope it will be seen as substantially improving and increasing fairness in the taxing of real property.

The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) mentioned the problems of taxation in areas of the north where the source of employment is outside the boundary of the municipality. I was very glad to make an ad hoc statement dealing with Marathon and indicating a specific transfer of $500,000 in the immediate future. We will be consulting with the councils of Manitouwadge and White River if they want to participate as well.

We have to come up with a more understandable and reasonable solution. I am not at all sure that extending municipal boundaries to include some gold mining property within some miles of the municipality is the best solution, although that may be the one that would be entered into. It is also possible that a formula for a special grant could be worked out that would be fair and equitable. Some sort of northern municipal support fund could be established, to be allocated in a way that would be seen to be responsive and sensitive to the changing needs of northern communities.

I do not know what the answer will be. The honourable member said very properly that with the very capable advisers available to me in the Treasury, the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and in consultation with the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is also Minister of Northern

Development and Mines, we will surely be able to come up with something, probably to be announced in the next budget, some time in May or whenever.

The member also indicated something in which I am very interested, that property taxes should be considered in the context of more general tax reform. It is obvious, with Michael Wilson and the government of Canada taking the lead and responding to initiatives taken in the United States, that most of our tax revenue sources are being reconsidered, rebalanced and rejigged, including personal income tax, corporation income tax and sales tax as well as federal sales tax.

We ought to be looking at the role of property tax in this and I hope this will be seen to be done as we move forward in tax reform. I appreciate the support of the members. I hope this will go forward since it is somewhat late even now. There will be no difficulty. I am assured by the experts in the field who have done this for the past 12 years that the property tax rolls will go forward to the municipalities in a fair and equitable form. We will continue in our commitment to improving the quality of property taxation in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

16:00

ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bradley moved second reading of Bill 112, An Act respecting the Enforcement of Statues related to the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am pleased today to speak in support of legislation that dramatically restructures the existing enforcement provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act.

The legislation will provide the courts with a wider range of appropriate effective sentences. It will reduce the cost and length of trials by making it easier to introduce uncontroversial evidence. It will remove barriers to conviction of corporation offenders. It will place a duty of care on top corporate officials. It will improve the efficiency of enforcement by ensuring that straightforward, simple requirements to improve environmental quality can be imposed by the court that convicts polluters.

Stiffer sentences are intended to deter convicted offenders from future violations and to strip them of the profits of their illegal activities, while innovative alternatives to fines will be available, including orders to clean up pollution and to take steps to prevent a repetition of the offence. The judicial process will be streamlined to avoid unnecessary expense and delay without interfering with the fundamental right of defendants to a full and fair trial.

The legislation will also reduce the opportunity for corporations to shift the blame for violations to employees and agents of the company. Indeed, the duty-of-care provision places pollution prevention responsibility where it rightfully belongs, at the top of the corporate ladder.

As Minister of the Environment, I intend to enforce the laws vigorously and even-handedly. This legislation, together with the uniform enforcement policy recently implemented by my ministry, will assist the ministry and the courts to apply the appropriate level of sanction to unlawful conduct. Minor infractions can be recognized as such and punished appropriately, while the courts will have the power to bring down the full weight of the law on flagrant polluters.

The key provisions of the legislation then are as follows: higher fines and imprisonment for serious offences; innovative alternatives to fines and imprisonment to ensure cleanup of pollution and prevent the repetition of the offence; the removal of some evidentiary barriers to conviction of offenders; provisions to ensure that fines levied by the courts are paid promptly and that court orders are carried out; the authority to require that financial security be put up for the abatement projects; and an unequivocal statement that executives and directors have a duty to take all reasonable care to avoid an unlawful pollution incident.

Some Ontario polluters have been profiting by polluting and impoverishing our environment, making us all suffer the consequences of acidic air, dirty recreational waters, contaminated fish, unpotable ground water and despoiled natural landscapes. Paying minor fines has been far less costly for some offenders than paying for effective pollution abatement equipment, implementing more careful operating practices and carrying out preventive maintenance to protect the environment. This new legislation will make it more expensive to violate the antipollution laws than to comply with them.

The new legislation must recognize the special place of corporations in society. The former fine structure failed to reflect the much larger financial resources available to corporations and the greater ability of their activities to cause widespread harm to the environment and to human health.

By incorporating their businesses, individuals obtain privileges they would not otherwise have, including more favourable rates of taxation. It is only fair they should also accept reasonable burdens of incorporation. Higher fines will also help to remove any unfair advantage that may result from this special treatment. Individuals do not generally carry on business on a scale capable of causing massive pollution. These noncorporate polluters are generally unable to pay extremely high fines for major pollution offences.

Inflation has also dramatically reduced the impact of fines, especially for corporations. The fines will be raised not only to reflect the effects of inflation but also to reflect advances in scientific knowledge and, most of all, society's greater awareness of the importance of protecting environmental quality.

We now recognize that individual pollution incidents, believed years ago to have minimal environmental impact, can have serious consequences, especially when considered as part of a pattern. The destruction of the ecosystem is gradual, cumulative and synergistic. We now realize that each emission contributes to the gradual destruction of the ecosystem and each such blow must be taken seriously. Fines for improper waste management are a classic example of this.

When the Environmental Protection Act was passed in 1971, the maximum fine set for improper waste disposal offences was $2,000. That was before Love Canal and Times Beach. Accordingly, the provisions creating the fines for waste management offences have been repealed. These offences will now be subject to the same fines as most other offences under the Environmental Protection Act. In fact, the most stringent penalties available under this new legislation will be for improper handling of hazardous waste which causes actual harm to human health or the environment; there are fines of up to $225,000 a day and up to a year in jail.

We have retained the same fine structure for most offences for individuals but now have a separate structure for corporations involving much higher fines. For corporations, maximum fines for the most serious offences, those involving polluting and violating Ministry of the Environment stop orders, will be $50,000 per day for first convictions and $100,000 per day for subsequent convictions.

The option to imprison flagrant offenders will also be extended to the most serious offences, those involving pollution, violation of a stop order and mishandling of hauled liquid industrial and hazardous waste. Where corporation directors, employees and agents are closely involved with the commission of the corporation's offence, they can be personally charged and convicted as parties to the offence. As individuals, they can be fined a maximum of $5,000 per day for first convictions and $10,000 per day for subsequent convictions. For the most serious offences, they can also be imprisoned for up to one year.

Furthermore, Bill 112 recognizes that although corporations are abstract entities, they are run by individuals. As the first Baron Thurlow put it, corporations have "no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked."

Today I am introducing an amendment to state unequivocally that each and every director and officer of every corporation that carries on activities that create a risk to the environment or to human health has a duty, commensurate with his or her responsibilities within the corporation, to do everything possible to ensure that the corporation establishes and fully implements the appropriate pollution prevention systems. The failure of officers and directors to take all reasonable steps available to them to prevent offences will in itself be a violation of the legislation.

The courts will also have the power to impose additional fines to ensure that lawbreakers are deprived of any financial gain achieved by polluting Ontario's environment. Thus the maximum fine for a corporation that pollutes for profit will be the full amount of the benefits obtained from committing the offence as well as a fine of up to $50,000 for a first offence. Individuals will now be fined up to $500 on a first conviction for littering and up to $1,000 for subsequent convictions. Corporations will be subject to fines twice as high.

16:10

Higher fines will be available for violations of the ministry's container regulations. Up to now, these violations have been subject to the same fines as littering. The new legislation recognizes the greater gravity and more substantial environmental impact of violations of the container regulations and that these violations are likely to be committed by corporations.

In addition, a person who is convicted of an offence will be subject to higher fines for a second conviction of any of the environmental statutes, not just a violation of the same statute. For example, a corporation that is convicted of an offence under the Environmental Protection Act and subsequently convicted of a different offence under the Pesticides Act will be liable to a maximum fine of $100,000 not $50,000 per day.

The maximum fines under the old legislation failed to accomplish a satisfactory level of deterrence. Former maximum penalties for most violations of the Environmental Protection Act and the Pesticides Act were $5,000 for a first conviction and $10,000 for subsequent convictions.

The Ontario Water Resources Act formerly contained a maximum fine of $5,000 a day for polluting or failing to report pollution. However, the majority of offences under this act were penalized by $100, $200 or $500 fines. This fine structure could not help but telegraph a potent message to the community at large: it paid to pollute in Ontario.

The government intends the new legislation to forge a new awareness in Ontario that it is not only more responsible to obey pollution laws, but it is also cheaper. Bill 112 will also give the courts more flexibility and broader options to fashion appropriate remedies. This will improve both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the enforcement process.

In addition to fines and imprisonment, the courts will also have the power to impose orders similar to a probation order, requiring offenders to take steps to prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence. These orders can also require offenders to rectify the harm caused by the illegal activity. This is necessary because the probation provisions available under other legislation may apply only to individuals. Some provision is needed to ensure that substantial environmental offenders, most of which are corporations, are also subject to appropriate supervision by the courts.

In addition to the penalties a court can impose, or instead of penalizing the offender in appropriate cases, the court will have the power to order straightforward steps that can be taken within a short time frame to abate and clean up pollution resulting from the offence. This will protect the environment and the victims of the offence.

To ensure that these orders are not unduly onerous and are limited to relatively simple procedures that can be carried out with minimum supervision by the court, the order will be restricted to actions requested by the ministry. These will have been reviewed for their practicability and effectiveness and be able to be carried out within one year. If practical problems arise in carrying out the terms of the order or the offender later discovers a more effective or inexpensive way of accomplishing the results, an application can be made to the courts at any time to vary the order.

If fines are not paid, the court will be able to suspend licences, permits and approvals issued under the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act until the fines are paid in full. This provision will not apply to all approvals issued by the ministry. Some approvals are issued to install pollution abatement equipment and systems designed to prevent pollution. It will be counterproductive to withhold approval to carry out such measures.

The legislation will expand the power of the court to accept certain routine documents and certificates setting out uncontroversial facts of evidence without the need to establish this by calling witnesses. It will allow the ministry or the defendant in a prosecution and the parties at administrative hearings to produce documents such as orders, licences and approvals without calling the person who issued them. The ministry will also be able to submit a certificate stating that certain documents are not found in the ministry's files.

Also, the ministry will be able to submit a certificate stating that the ministry has not been notified of spills or other discharges. This will not interfere with the defendant's right to a full and fair trial, since these documents and certificates as to the state of affairs will be conclusive only where there is no evidence to the contrary. It is also consistent with the rule of law that generally the crown need not prove a negative or an exception. This will streamline trials and reduce unnecessary expense. Ministry officials will no longer need to travel hundreds of miles to give evidence on matters that are not in dispute.

The provision will also expand the contents of a laboratory analysis report that are admissible without calling the laboratory analyst. The legislation will clarify the circumstances under which corporations are responsible for the conduct of their employees and agents.

One popular line of defence for large corporations is to argue they have no legal responsibility for the conduct of their employees and agents. This has made it necessary to prosecute employees and contractors who are in a poor position to defend themselves against such allegations. The purposes of prosecution, such as deterrents, are poorly served when the brunt of legal responsibility falls on people with little power within a corporation.

The requirement that corporations take responsibility for the conduct of employees and agents, unless they can show they have taken all reasonable care to discourage such conduct, will provide a strong incentive to the management of corporations to ensure that the corporation set up proper pollution prevention systems, properly trains and supervises employees and provides in contracts with contractors that activities on behalf of the corporation must be carried out in an environmentally sound manner. The legislation is necessary to discourage corporations from placing the blame for violations on their employees as a way of avoiding corporate responsibility.

The legislation will also facilitate the pledge in the ministry's uniform environmental enforcement policy to prosecute in an evenhanded, nondiscriminatory and fair manner by removing anomalous exemptions for municipalities in the Ontario Water Resources Act. Many offences in that act were punishable unless committed by a municipality. Such immunity from the law is not consistent with our belief in evenhanded enforcement and is not acceptable. Crown immunity is also removed.

I believe the new legislation will accomplish the prime objective of enforcement, which is deterrence. Its general thrust accurately reflects the direction recommended by the Law Reform Commission of Canada. In recent reports, this respected body has viewed environmental protection as a fundamental human value and has advocated more effective sentencing options and tougher environmental laws.

This legislation will accomplish in Ontario the goal of these law reform commission reports, which is to ensure that environmental offences are given the serious weight they deserve, prosecuted vigorously and made subject to appropriate sanctions. The new enforcement structures introduced today, I believe, will suitably recognize and provide appropriate deterrents for offences against the environment in Ontario.

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question of the minister. Would he confirm to this House that this bill is his first piece of legislation to be brought forward to the House? In fact, it was brought forward exactly one year after he first promised it. It confirms what we in this party have been saying for some time, that this minister has been running his ministry by pronouncement, by announcement, by press releases, but by little or no action until now with the bringing forward of this very modest piece of legislation. There has been little or no action in his ministry. Will he confirm that to us?

16:20

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Oakville is not being very charitable this afternoon. I thought he would be hailing this as a landmark piece of legislation. The former Minister of the Environment, the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), would probably understand and recognize better than the member for Oakville that the provisions available through regulations and other activities that the ministry can undertake can be very effective and that the programs we have carried out, such as the countdown acid rain program, were brought in by regulation.

The Environmental Protection Act as it exists now, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act all provide an excellent framework from which we may choose to place in effect regulations that can be very tough. This is a clear indication that the activities we have undertaken have been action-oriented and that the ministry has been action-oriented. I know the member for Oakville is pleased with that.

In terms of the length of time related to this bill, which the member has asked questions about, initially I wanted to see the legislation dealt with in two stages: a bill that would have been dealt with in the spring session and a bill that would be dealt with in the fall session. We had a lot of legislation that got down to the wire at the end of the spring session. The House leaders met and decided upon those pieces of legislation that should proceed and all parties agreed to those provisions, although we would like to have seen everything proceed. As a result of that

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The member knows full well that the government House leader, and only the government House leader, decides which bills will be ordered for debate in this House. To say otherwise is completely and totally false.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Speaking on that point of order, I have never been in the esteemed position of House leader, but my understanding of the process is that the House leaders meet and discuss potential pieces of legislation. The opposition can say, "We will not allow this session to close until such time as certain pieces of legislation have passed," and that is the way the process goes. I was not trying to be cantankerous about this.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The discussion here is about procedures. It is not a proper point of order.

Ms. Fish: I am pleased to rise and participate in the second-reading debate on Bill 112. My principal regret has been the time it has taken for this bill to come forward. I know well that the work was under way by staff in the Ministry of the Environment on a form of legislation very similar to what has come forward here in Bill 112, at the time I, with some regret, found myself stepping down from that very fine and interesting portfolio at the close of June. That was a year and a half ago, in 1985.

I am mindful of the many statements, comments, speeches and news releases the minister has given or issued that spoke of this legislation as being promised and promising it to come forward with particular dispatch, indeed by the close of the calendar year 1985.

One year later, the close of the calendar year 1986, is better than nothing, although I hope we will move rather quickly through the second reading debate, the formal part of the discussion we are having now. The minister himself, in the course of time it has taken to move from first reading of this bill on July 3, 1986, to this decision by the government House leader to call the bill for second reading, has a number of amendments he would like to put to the bill, which will require some committee discussion. We on this side of the House also have a few thoughts to offer the minister in a fashion that we feel will improve the bill.

I will conclude my brief remarks by saying I am pleased this minister has continued the work I was able to initiate in the ministry and I look forward to seeing adoption of an improved bill shortly.

Mr. Newman: The minister is aware of the comments I made in the House concerning transboundary pollution.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It has to be questions of the member for St. George. Questions and comments? There being none, debate?

Mrs. Grier: As did those ahead of me, I welcome the fact that now, for whatever reason, the delays on Bill 112 have been overcome and we finally have it before us. With any luck, we might get an even better version passed into law before too long.

The gestation period has been long, but the bill has certainly been improved by virtue of that. Had we, as the minister indicated he wished to do, moved earlier in the year with the first version of the bill, we would have been shortchanging the environment of this province. The comments that were received on that bill have been heard, I am glad to say, and we now have a stronger bill. I hope the comments the member for St. George and I plan to make when we get to amendments will make it an even better bill than it is at this point.

Our object all sublime is to make the punishment fit the crime. I do not think the punishments in this bill are yet suitable. The principle enshrined in the bill is that the polluter should pay. That principle was written into the accord that was signed 18 months ago. I am glad it bears fruit in this legislation. The polluter must pay, and pollution must no longer be a crime that pays. The principle in this bill has to be that it is now a crime to pollute.

Ironically, back in the 14th century, the crime of air pollution was a capital offence. We seemed to go on a downslide. Until very recently, one got merely a slap on the wrist or a minimal fine for serious pollution offences. Today it is important that we recognize that penalties for degradation of our environment have to match not only the cost of installing equipment that will prevent further pollution but also the cost to the community at large of cleaning up much of the pollution that exists.

When we think that the cost of the cleanup of the Dow spill of perchlorethylene into the St. Clair River was more than $600,000 to the Ministry of the Environment and more than $300,000 to the Department of the Environment, we recognize that the maximum fines in the bill as presented are not nearly high enough to make it worth while for large corporations to be more careful than they have been in the past.

As well, when we get down to the details of debate on this bill, it is important that we install some minimum fine. We have to send a very clear message to the courts that a fine of $100 or $200 is not good enough. There has to be some minimum that sends the message that we in this Legislature recognize that pollution is a crime and that fines have to be significant.

I also hope the minister will accept an amendment to the whole question of the prohibition orders on which he enlarged in his remarks. It is unfortunate that in the bill as it now stands those prohibition orders can be asked for only by the ministry. That seriously weakens the bill. I will be moving an amendment in that regard.

In total, I support the principle in the bill. I welcome it and I hope we can get on to the details of the various clauses and make it a bill of which this province will be proud.

16:30

Mr. McClellan: I have been provoked into making a brief contribution to this debate by the minister's earlier remarks. I want to stress again that the only reason it was December 1986 before this bill was called for debate was that this was the earliest single moment that the government indicated it was ready to proceed with the bill. That is simply the fact. If the minister wants to dispute that, I challenge him to do so but I do not think he will.

The legislation in front of us appears to give the minister the power, for the first time in the history of this province, actually to enforce environmental protection measures and programs. It remains to be seen whether the act will be administered in that spirit.

I am the representative of a riding that has the misfortune to have been polluted with airborne lead contamination from the Toronto Refiners and Smelters for the past 15 or 20 years. The Ministry of the Environment has failed miserably, utterly and abjectly to deal with the problem of pollution by Toronto Refiners and Smelters. The ministry's failure has been so complete, its cop-out so abject and thorough that not only has it allowed Toronto Refiners and Smelters to continue to pollute despite the imposition of control orders in the 1970s, but it has also stood back idly and incompetently while a private citizens' organization went to the courts to try to enforce the laws of Ontario and to stop Toronto Refiners and Smelters once and for all from polluting our community.

I do not know what could be a more damning indictment of the Ministry of the Environment than the fact that private citizens were forced to take a notorious and proved polluter to court in an attempt to stop the pollution of their homes, schools and backyards while the Ministry of the Environment for the past 15 years has done less than nothing.

I raise this because the minister, who now has been in office for 18 months, has so far done even less than his predecessor George Kerr did before he was removed from office because of his attempt to get serious in that portfolio. The previous government--I have no illusions--was not interested in enforcement of environmental protection legislation. When Mr. Kerr made the serious political mistake of appearing to be serious, he was dismissed.

However, this minister has not solved the problem. As I have said a number of times in this assembly, ministry officials have provided inaccurate, misleading and false information to people in my community about the extent of lead contamination over the course of the past five years; that is a matter of documented record. I believe the ministry withheld soil-testing data from the most recent lead study that was commissioned and released this fall. I believe the ministry withheld data from that study.

Once this bill has passed, I will wait with interest to see whether this minister will match his words with actions. We have been listening to his words now for 18 months.

As I stand here speaking in this debate, there is lead-contaminated soil in the Niagara Street neighbourhood of Bellwoods riding that has been sitting there under the noses of the Ministry of the Environment for the past three years, and the ministry has done nothing about it except to tell the residents there was no evidence of soil contamination in residential properties. That information they told to the community was false.

Toronto Refiners and Smelters continues to pollute. A citizens' group continues its endeavours to bring the polluter to heel by a private prosecution. I invite the minister, not necessarily this afternoon but before very long, to tell the people of this beleaguered community what he intends to do to stop the pollution, to remove the contaminated soil and to give our neighbours in the south end of central Toronto an assurance that they can live in their homes without the danger of lead poisoning.

Mr. Haggerty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable gentleman said the minister misled the House. I am sure he said that.

Mr. McClellan: I did not say that at all. For the record--and it is important that I make this clear--I did not say the minister misled, and the minister has not misled. I said officials who work in the Ministry of the environment had provided false and misleading information to people in my community. I have said that now on four separate occasions in this House. I believe it to be true. I would never impute that to the minister.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): That is what the member for Bellwoods said. I heard him very clearly.

Mr. Newman: I have a few comments concerning this legislation. I know everyone in the House is aware of the situation we have in the Windsor area, where our pollution comes in from the United States rather than originating in Windsor. I wonder what plans the minister has, and whom he has approached from the US jurisdiction, that is, the state of Michigan, about seeing that the state provides pollution control devices on incinerators in Michigan. We in the Windsor area are sick and tired of breathing polluted Detroit air, which is adversely affecting many of the individuals in Windsor. I would like some remarks from the minister concerning what his ministry has done in this situation.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further questions and comments? Would the minister like to reply?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try to relate it to the bill itself by saying that we in Ontario want to ensure through this kind of legislation that anyone in violation of those laws will be subject to the greatest of penalties.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry; it is my mistake. I should have asked for questions and comments on the statement of the member for Bellwoods.

Mr. McClellan: I will not take advantage of the situation.

The Acting Speaker: Does the member for Oshawa wish to comment?

Mr. Breaugh: Briefly, since the member for Bellwoods so eloquently put his case, I had thought the minister would want to respond to the very clear allegation that members of his staff gave out wrong information, and I await with some anticipation the minister's defence of his staff.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further questions and comments on the statement by the member for Bellwoods?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is sometimes difficult to relate the bill to some of the questions coming through. The member himself indicated he was not requesting that I engage in debate at this time over that matter. He has raised it in the House through a question. He has directed a letter to me. I am gathering evidence to provide a suitable reply to him. Perhaps in question period or at some other time I can deal with this matter, as the member has suggested I need not deal with it as this time. Having provoked the member once, I do not want to provoke him again to extend the length of time it takes to deal with this bill.

16:40

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? If not, the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I found the comments from both opposition critics and other members of the House who have made a contribution to be very useful. These comments have been helpful all along, not just this afternoon but throughout the length of time it has taken to develop the kind of bill we all want to see in the House. The contributions made by opposition members and members on this side of the House, along with our ministry staff and environmental groups, individuals and the general public, have been most helpful. I will take into consideration the comments made by the opposition members as we proceed to clause-by-clause discussion of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 112, An Act respecting the Enforcement of Statutes related to the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: With the permission of the opposition, could we have the officials of the legal department of the Ministry of the Environment on the floor to provide counsel and advice to the minister?

Mr. Chairman: The minister has asked permission of the committee to have members of the staff in front of him. Does that have unanimous approval? No?

All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." Permission has been given.

We have in front of us Bill 112, An Act respecting the Enforcement of Statutes related to the Environment. Are there any honourable members who wish to comment, question or move amendments? If so, to what sections?

Ms. Fish: I have placed on the table a series of amendments to the bill, beginning with section 10, section 12, section 34, section 36, section 41 and section 43. I believe the Clerk has those amendments before him.

Mr. Chairman: How about section 10?

Ms. Fish: That is the first section I noted.

Mr. Chairman: If I am to believe the paper in front of me, there are two amendments to section 12 and two to section 41.

Ms. Fish: That is right.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have an amendment to section 1 and several other amendments as well. I do not know whether you want to have the opposition notified of all the amendments I have coming, or do you want us to proceed by section?

Mr. Chairman: I want a list of the sections you wish to amend at this point.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Section 1, defining adverse effects used in--

Mr. Chairman: I do not need the content, just the section, please.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Section 5a, section 5b, section 8a, subsection 11(1), subsection 11(3), section 12, subsection 13(1), subsection 13(2), section 13a, section 14a, section 25, section 30, section 36, section 36a, two in section 41 and section 41a. I have 18 amendments to the bill.

Mr. Chairman: That is according to the list I have. Do any other members have amendments?

Mrs. Grier: I plan to move an amendment to section 10, two amendments to subsection 12(3), one each to subsection 13(2) and section 34, three to section 36, three to section 41 and one to section 43.

Mr. Chairman: For the help of the members and the table, might we have copies of those amendments?

Are there any other members who have comments, questions or amendments to the bill? If so, to what sections? There being none, let us stay in an orderly fashion, since there are probably 35 or 40 amendments.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"1(1) Subsection 1(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, being chapter 141 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1983, chapter 52, section 1, is further amended,

"(a) by relettering clause (a) as (aa);

"(b) by adding thereto the following clauses:

"(a) `adverse effects' means one or more of:

"(i) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it,

"(ii) injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life,

"(iii) harm or material discomfort to any person,

"(iv) an adverse effect on the health of any person,

"(v) impairment of the safety of any person,

"(vi) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for use by man,

"(vii) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property, and

"(viii) interference with the normal conduct of business;

"(ab)`analyst' means an analyst appointed under this act;

"(cb)`document' includes a sound recording, videotape, film, photograph, chart, graph, map, plan, survey, book of account and information recorded or stored by means of any device.

"(c) in clause 1 by inserting after `municipality' in the first line `as defined in this subsection.'

"(2) Section 1 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(3) A municipality that is convicted of an offence under this act is liable to the penalty provided for a corporation convicted of the offence."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Do you want me to go on to the next one, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: No. Will you please speak to the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I found it compelling as it was.

The motion replaces section 1 of the bill. The definitions of "analyst" and "document" remain the same. "Analyst" is used in section 4, which concerns the authority to appoint, and section 135, the official documents section in the act, which are re-enacted by sections 2 and 8 of the bill. "Document" is used in section 135 of the act, re-enacted by this bill. I should mention the parallel provisions of the Ontario Water Resources Act in section 14 of the bill, which applies to section 1 of the act, and the Pesticides Act, section 37 of the bill, section 1 of the act.

The new definition of "adverse effects," which parallels the definition of "contaminant," is added for use in a subsequent motion dealing with part X-A, Financial Assurance. The definition of "person" in subsection 1(1) of the act is amended to make it clear that regional municipalities are persons for all purposes of the act. Metro Toronto, for instance, was concerned that it was not a person for the purpose of part IX of the spills bill. Subsection 1(3) is added to remove any doubt that municipalities are subject to the corporate penalties and not the individual penalties.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

16:50

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to deal with all of the changes the original bill presented for the House or just the amendments?

Mr. Chairman: Just the amendments, please, and we will carry other sections as we go. Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We should include section 5.

Section 5 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We have a new section 5a. Mr. Bradley moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"5a. Clause 79(1)(a) of the said act is repealed."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The definition of "adverse effects" in part IX of the spills bill, as we call it, is repealed, as it would be duplicated by the new definition in section 1 of the act, which was made necessary by the use of the term in the new part X-A, Financial Assurance.

Motion agreed to. Section 5a agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The next amendment is a new section 5b, according to my record.

Mr. Bradley moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"5b. The said act is amended by adding thereto the following part:

"Part X-A, Financial Assurance.

"119a. In this part,

"`Approval' means program approval, certificate of approval or provisional certificate of approval, and includes a permit or approval issued by a director under the Ontario Water Resources Act, but does not include an approval under part IX of this act;

"`bank' means a bank named in schedule A or schedule B to the Bank Act (Canada);

"`environmental measures' means one or more of the measures set out in clauses 119b(1)(a) to (c);

"`financial assurance' means one or more of:

"(a) cash, in the amount specified in the approval or order,

"(b) a letter of credit from a bank, in the amount and term specified in the approval or order,

"(c) negotiable securities issued or guaranteed by the government of Ontario or the government of Canada in the amount specified in the approval or order,

"(d) a personal bond accompanied by collateral security, each in the form, terms and amount specified in the approval or order,

"(e) a bond of a guaranty company approved under the Guaranty Companies Securities Act in the form, terms and amount specified in the approval or order,

"(f) a bond of a guarantor, other than a guaranty company, accompanied by collateral security, each in the form, terms and amount specified in the approval or order,

"(g) an agreement in the form and terms specified in the approval or order, and

"(h) an agreement in the form and terms prescribed by the regulations;

"`Order' means an order by the director under this act, and includes an order, notice, direction, requirement or report made by a director under the Ontario Water Resources Act, but does not include an order under section 119c, which is an order for performance of environmental measures of this act;

"`Works' means an activity, facility, thing, undertaking or site in respect of which an approval or order is issued.

"119b(1) The director may include in an approval or order in respect of a works a requirement that the person to whom the approval is issued or the order is directed provide financial assurance to the crown in right of Ontario for any one or more of,

"(a) the performance of any action specified in the approval or order;

"(b) the provision of alternate water supplies to replace those that the director has reasonable and probable grounds to believe are or are likely to be contaminated or otherwise interfered with by the works to which the approval or order is related; and,

"(c) measures appropriate to prevent adverse effects upon and following the cessation or closing of the works.

"(2) A requirement under subsection 1 may provide that the financial assurance may be provided, reduced or released in stages specified in the approval or order.

"(3) The director may amend an approval or order to change a requirement as to financial assurance contained in the approval or order.

"119c(1) Failure to provide financial assurance specified in an approval or in accordance with a stage specified in an approval is grounds for revocation of the approval and for an order in writing by the director prohibiting or restricting the carrying on, operation or use of the works in respect to which the financial assurance is required.

"(2) Failure to provide financial assurance specified in an order or in accordance with a stage specified in an order is grounds for an order in writing by the director prohibiting or restricting the carrying on, operation or use of the works in respect of which a financial assurance is required.

"119d(1) Upon request, part or all of the financial assurance given in respect of a works may be returned or released pursuant to an order in writing by the director.

"(2) The director may make an order mentioned in subsection 1 if satisfied that the financial assurance returned or released is not required in respect of the works.

"119e. The director may convert a financial assurance to cash to be held by the crown to the same purposes as the financial assurance or otherwise realize the financial assurance unless the financial assurance is renewed at least 30 days before it would otherwise expire.

"119f(1) In the circumstances set out in subsection 2, the director by order may require the performance of environmental measures for which the crown holds financial assurance and may require the use of the financial assurance for the performance of the environmental measures.

"(2) The director may make an order mentioned in subsection 1 if the director has reasonable and probable ground to believe that any environmental measure required by the approval or order in respect of which the financial assurance was given has not been or will not be carried out in accordance with the requirement.

"(3) An order under this section shall be directed to the person to whom the approval or order under section 119b (financial assurance) was issued or directed and to any person that to the knowledge of the director has provided the financial assurance for or on behalf of the person to whom the approval or order was issued, or shall be directed to the successor or assignee of any such person.

"(4) Upon the issuance of an order by the director under subsection 1 , the crown may,

"(a) use any cash;

"(b) realize any bond or other form of security, and use the money derived therefrom; and

"(c) enforce any agreement, provided or obtained as the financial assurance for the performance of the environmental measures and may carry out the environmental measures."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This part enables a director, when issuing an order for approval under the Environmental Protection Act or the Ontario Water Resources Act, to require the person to whom the order or approval is issued to post financial assurance to ensure that specified actions are taken.

17:00

Financial assurance may take one or more of a variety of forms, including cash, letters of credit, negotiable securities, bonds or other agreements. The specified actions could include the provision of alternative water supplies or post-closure cleanup or maintenance, as well as anything else that could be provided for in an order or approval under the Environmental Protection Act or the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Section 119a is simply definitions. Section 119b is an authority to require financial assurance. Section 119c states that failure to provide financial assurance can result in revoking an approval or prohibiting or restricting carrying out or continuing with the works or other operation. Section 119d sets out that financial assurance my be returned in whole or in part where no longer required.

Section 119e states that where documentary financial assurance is not renewed, the director may convert it into a cash deposit. Section 119f provides that if the director determines that the matters for which the financial assurance has been received are not being carried out, he may order that they be carried out and use all or part of the financial assurance for such purposes.

I am told that is sufficient explanation.

Motion agreed to.

Section 5b agreed to.

Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the minister has a new section 8a.

On section 8a:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"8a. Section 136 of the said act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1983, chapter 52, section 23, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(9): The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations relating to part X-A prescribing requirements for financial assurance in respect of the classes of approvals or orders specified in the regulations."

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The new subsection 136(9) of the act authorizes regulations prescribing requirements for financial assurance under part X-A, Financial Assurance, enacted by section 5b above with respect to particular types of approvals or orders.

Motion agreed to.

Section 8a agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Fish moves that subsection 144(2) of the Environmental Protection Act as set out in section 10 of the bill be amended by striking out "upon application by counsel or agent for the minister" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "upon its own initiative or upon application by counsel for the prosecutor."

Perhaps I should mention that the amendment to section 10 of the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) reads the same. It is apparently a joint amendment.

Ms. Fish: This is the first of several identical amendments it is my intention to move to various sections of the bill. They are all targeted to the same basic principle, which is to remove the requirement for ministerial approval for prosecutions and to make it possible, as the wording indicates, for an action to be taken under the act by other than the ministry.

The amendment is very straightforward. I am pleased with the support already indicated by my colleague in the third party and sincerely hope the minister will join us in supporting this amendment.

I note in passing that a similar amendment was brought forward many years ago by the former government, having had some experience with the more limited requirement of ministerial approval prior to prosecution, to provide just such an opportunity.

Mrs. Grier: I would like to explain to the members the effect of not adopting the amendment proposed by the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) and supported by myself. As the bill now reads, or as the minister would have it read, a prohibition order to cease and desist the action against which a conviction has been registered could be asked for only by the ministry. The courts on their own initiative could not issue such an order.

An individual citizen who had brought a prosecution by virtue of the fact of pollution and who had obtained a conviction would not be in a position to ask the court to order the polluter to stop his actions. That seriously undermines the principle of the bill.

In the second reading debate, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) cited the Toronto Refiners and Smelters case, in which a citizen had to bring an action. Under this legislation, that citizen would not be able to ask the court to issue an order urging prohibition of any further pollution. He would be dependent upon the ministry seeking such a prohibition order. Surely a citizen would have taken the action of initiating a prosecution only if the ministry was proving derelict. It thus seems to be contradictory to say that the power to ask for prohibition orders lies only with the ministry.

In 1971, when the first Environmental Protection Act was brought in, the government of the day initially tried to write it in such a way as to prevent municipalities or individuals from initiating prosecutions. The adverse reaction was such that the government reversed itself, and that act now allows the municipality or an individual to initiate a prosecution.

The effect of what the minister is doing today would be to prevent that person from carrying that prosecution to its final conclusion. It would make any party other than the ministry a second-class party in such court actions. It is significant that the suggestion that this amendment be moved came from those who were asked to comment on the bill as originally drafted by the minister. The minister has made much of the fact that he listened to the comments and criticisms. He happens to have ignored this particular one, which is why we are bringing it to his attention today.

The Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the Fisheries Act all allow an individual to ask for prohibition orders. It is important that the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act, which are before us today, follow the same route.

The minister is probably going to say the citizen is not aware of the practicality of the implications of what he is suggesting. The minister is attempting to leave it in the framework of negotiation, as control orders are now negotiated, and taking the position that only the ministry knows enough to ask for these prohibition orders. I cannot accept that. This amendment would prevent that from being the case. I hope the minister will see the error of his ways and allow us to be unanimous on this section as we are on so many of the amendments he is moving.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The members want to know why we did not include this in the original bill or in the amendments we brought forward. There are some reasons.

17:10

The members have made some interesting comments about the potential for private action by individuals in Ontario. However, concerns have been raised that some of the suggestions that could be made in dealing with this--I recognize the court ultimately must rule on them--could be unpractical. They might not be the most cost-effective provisions that might be implemented, yet a court might accept them. By taking one form of action, they might create another more difficult problem.

People might say the chances that this would happen are remote, but for instance, it could take some form of water pollution and there could be certain activity that would produce an air emission that could have an adverse impact on air quality. It is a complicated, technical situation. In those circumstances, we could end up worse off.

It would also allow successful prosecution in some cases to shut down a company in certain circumstances. The ministry is not averse to that if the circumstances require it. There is also the provision that people could make representations to ministry officials in cases where the ministry is involved, asking that they give consideration to requesting the court to take certain actions.

I understand why the members have put this forward and I know there have been some representations. The member for Lakeshore suggested I ignored this. I assure her I ignored none of the representations made to me; I tried to weigh them in the view of what was most effective in carrying out the provisions of this bill. In no case do I want to err on the side of not being most effective. My officials have indicated to me there are dangers that the action we might take might not be as effective as we would like. It is not a matter of the opposite way. Some of the suggestions, as I have indicated, could be impractical or totally cost-ineffective, create another problem or even be counterproductive.

Those were the concerns raised about it. I recognize that both members have made a case that is popular in some respected quarters. Perhaps there will be further comments from other members of the House in this regard.

I can tell the members we will be dealing in section 12 with specific requirements referring to abatement. Perhaps we can provide some further clarification at that time; for instance, prohibitions against repetition. We will be discussing this as we go along. I do not know whether others have comments, particularly those with a legal background.

Ms. Fish: I think the minister is expressing the undue caution and over protectiveness that the excellent legal staff in the ministry is occasionally wont to offer by way of advice to the minister.

I do not think the illustrations he has given on this first of a series of amendments, which none the less is the primary one for discussing the purpose of moving them, really stand up. He said himself the matter would be dealt with and decided by a court. I have every confidence in the officials of his ministry, as I am sure he does himself, that they would come forward should any such action be brought into play.

I consider that the moves to broaden the coverage and to strengthen and make more stringent the penalties to be applied are only natural in having as their complement an opening of opportunity and a logical extension of opportunity to take action for those other than the minister or the minister's direct agent. With the greatest confidence in his staff to be able properly to advise him or any successor in any such action to come forward, I hope he will show some confidence in the public of Ontario and permit it the opportunity to participate as well.

Mrs. Grier: The minister has painted the worst-case scenario if ever there was one. The burden of his argument seems to come down to the fact that his officials have warned him against this section of the bill. I suspect there are many things the minister has done that his officials have warned him against and many sections of this bill that might not have had the full support of his ministry. Presumably if the ministry had been in full support of all the minister is trying to do, we would not have had to wait until today. Frankly, I do not accept that kind of argument.

It is also cogent to note that presumably the officials from his ministry would be in court when the request was made to the court to issue this kind of prohibition and at that time could present their arguments that the injunction being sought would have some side-effects even more onerous than the shutting down of the pollution the conviction has been registered against. I find the minister's arguments rather hollow.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to indicate to the member for Lakeshore that if private actions were being taken, the ministry would not necessarily be in the court at that time. That is one of the concerns.

Members have made a compelling argument on section 10. Perhaps it would be reasonable that we amend this to ensure there was notice to the ministry so that ministry staff could be in court when this happened. Perhaps that will solve the problem. The member for St. George said it would be highly unlikely that in a specific case the ministry would not be available for court, but if we could ensure in an amendment that the ministry had notice, that would be quite helpful.

In fact, because section 10 deals with issuing a restraining "order prohibiting the continuation or repetition" of the offence, it is acceptable to me that this amendment should go through. I would like, however, to put in a provision to ensure that notice is given to the ministry.

Ms. Fish: I am pleased to hear the minister has agreed to adopt this amendment. Surely the minister's staff in its entirety or, at the very minimum, those fine minds within the legal section, are capable of monitoring actions in the court and reading legal notices.

Mr. McClellan: I am sure the most compelling argument is that the minister realizes this amendment is going to pass because it is supported by the two opposition parties, which have a majority in the assembly.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We have loud voices over here, though.

Mr. McClellan: There are other ways of voting if push comes to shove.

It seems to me the point the member for St. George makes is self-evident. Surely even ministry officials have the wit to be aware of private prosecutions of polluters in the provincial court system. Again, it is absolutely essential that this amendment carry in order that the kind of fiasco that has taken place around Toronto Refiners and Smelters never recurs. Because of its performance during the past 10 years, his ministry has forfeited the kind of trust that many other regulatory agencies take for granted.

I caution again about any amendment requiring notice, lest the notice--I know the minister is getting a blizzard of advice from his officials and it is difficult for him to follow the debate, but the notice provisions must not permit the Ministry of the Environment to postpone or delay litigation in order that it be accommodated in terms of its own schedules.

If the minister and his officials are attempting to draft an amendment to the amendment that would permit the ministry to torpedo private prosecution by virtue of its inability to schedule its attendance, the minister can forget it. If he is saying his officials are sufficiently out of touch that they require special notice, he can draft something and put it into the amendment.

17:20

Mrs. Grier: I agree with the member for St. George. The notice is very public. Other sections of the bill provide for ample notice to the public and to any interested party. I would assume that if a private citizen had brought an action in a matter concerning the environment, the Ministry of the Environment officials would be aware of it and would monitor the court case. The amendment should stand as is.

Motion agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that subsection 146(1c) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in subsection 11(1) of the bill, be struck out.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Subsection 146(1c) of the act, the general offence provision, is replaced by three subsections setting out the general offences under the act; that is, contravention of the act or the regulation. Subsection 1a covers failure to comply with an order and subsection 16 covers failure to comply with terms and conditions and approvals, licences and permits.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that subsection 146(4) and (5) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in subsection 11(3) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(4) Where a corporation is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (1a) or (1b), the maximum fine that may be imposed for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues is $25,000 on a first conviction and $50,000 on each subsequent conviction and not as provided in subsection (3)."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The new subsections 146(4) and 146(5) of the act are struck out of subsection 11(3) of the bill and replaced with a higher corporate penalty. Currently, it is $5,000 and $10,000. In the July 1986 version, that proposal was $10,000 and $20,000. Under the new proposal, it is $25,000 on a first conviction and $50,000 on a subsequent conviction. The subsequent conviction provision originally in subsection 146(5) is dealt with in the next section as section 146aa of the act. It is simply increasing numbers.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that section 146a of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 12 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"146a(1) Every corporation convicted of a contravention of subsection 13(1) or 119(1) is liable on conviction for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues to a fine of not more than $50,000 on a first conviction and not more than $100,000 on each subsequent conviction and not as provided in section 146.

"(2) Every person convicted of a contravention of subsection 13(1) or 119(1) is liable, in addition to or in substitution for the penalties set out in subsection 146(3), to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year.

"(3) Subsection (2) does not apply unless the court is satisfied that the person was notified, before entering his or her plea, that a penalty would be sought under subsection (2).

"146aa. For the purposes of determining the penalty to which a person is liable under subsection 146(3) or (4) or under subsection 146a(1), a conviction of the person for an offence under this act is a subsequent conviction if the person has previously been convicted of an offence under,

"(a) this act, other than for an offence related to part VII (Sewage Systems) or part VIII (Litter);

"(b) the Ontario Water Resources Act, other than for an offence related to subsection 44(2) or sections 45 to 48 (plumbing) of that act; or

"(c) the Pesticides Act."

Mrs. Grier: I have a further amendment to this section.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that subsection 146a(1) be amended by striking out the words "not more than $50,000 on a first conviction and not more than $100,000 on each subsequent conviction" in the fifth, sixth and seventh lines and inserting in lieu thereof, "not less than $2,000 and not more than $50,000 on a first conviction and not less than $4,000 and not more than $100,000 on each subsequent conviction."

Will the committee please recognize that this is an amendment to the minister's amendment. We will deal first with the amendment to the amendment.

Mrs. Grier: My purpose in making this amendment is to insert a minimum fine into the legislation. I have similar amendments for the other two pieces. The amounts I have chosen of $2,000 and $4,000, on a second offence, are similar to the minimums that are already in the bill for offences in the case of liquid industrial hazardous waste. I insert them only into the section provided for corporations. The effect would be to make the minimum fines that are in other sections of the legislation common to those sections where corporations are involved.

The purpose is to make sure the courts get a very clear message that a nominal fine is not good enough. I do not think the amount of $2,000 is excessive when, let us remember, we are talking about (a) a corporation and (b) an offence involving hazardous liquid industrial waste. There has to be a very clear recognition that this is a serious offence. A minimum fine does that, and I hope it may find support.

17:30

Hon. Mr. Bradley: One of the matters raised by more than one individual or organization at the time of the original bill was the concern about the lack of minimums. I canvassed the Ministry of the Environment legal staff and tried to determine what would be most effective in getting convictions in the courts. One of the cautions placed before me was that judges generally dislike minimum fines. Maximum fines do not seem to pose a problem for them, but minimum fines do.

A concern was raised as well that if a person had violated a law in a minor way and there were a minimum fine, the judge might tend not to register a conviction. Therefore, the next time around--and I was thinking of United States cases.

Mr. McClellan: It is a comment on our judicial system.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It may well be, as the member points out, a comment on the judicial system. I can think of cases, for instance, where possession of marijuana in various jurisdictions was considered a seven-year minimum sentence.

Mr. O'Connor: Never.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Was that not the case in the United States? Society in that jurisdiction decided the offence did not merit that sentence. For that reason, judges, reflecting society, would not register a conviction against a person.

That concern arises in certain environmental cases where the person is in violation, and it may be a relatively minor violation, but we would, nevertheless, like to see a conviction registered. If the judge chose not to register a conviction because it was a minor violation, then the second time that person committed an offence, in our opinion as the ministry and prosecution, if he was not convicted the first time, he would be subject to only the first-time-around fines, whereas if he had been convicted for the minor offence, without that minimum in there, he would be subject to the second-time-around conviction, the subsequent conviction, in other words.

This was one of the reasons that, when faced with this, we wanted to be most effective. As a layperson, I was always under the impression that it was great to have minimums in there because it would force the courts to register convictions and to provide at least a minimum fine. The legal experts I talked to, who were involved in prosecutions, said the opposite might be the effect. That was one of the compelling reasons we did not include it in the original legislation.

Some suggest that the requirement for a minimum fine is, in effect, a vote of no confidence in the courts. That is what many in the legal field put forward as an argument. It suggests that the courts are now imposing fines that are less than the offence is worth. We do not agree that this is the case except where the maximum is too low. That opinion is advanced by people who have to deal on a daily basis with prosecutions.

Minimum fines also do not take into account the totality principle. Where there are convictions for several offences, it is not the fine on each offence that matters but the total amount levied. As I have pointed out, the courts resent minimum fines, as judges feel they are in the best position to judge the appropriate penalty. They may even acquit rather than be bound by minimum finds, as I have indicated.

We are always into the Charter of Rights now. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the opposition critics in the justice area probably understand the Charter of Rights well enough to know, but every time we turn around, something is being challenged under the Charter of Rights. One argument that has been put forward is that if one applies the minimum fines only to corporations, they may claim this is discrimination under the Charter of Rights. It seems anything is subject to the Charter of Rights.

However, I am interested in hearing what members have to say in this matter. I am intrigued that the member has advanced the case for minimums only in specified areas, as opposed to across the board, which I think is less inclined to provoke the kind of reaction I have suggested. Members of this House may well decide the amendments are worthy of support.

Mrs. Grier: I have a question of the minister. Having heard his very eloquent argument in opposition to minimum fines, can I ask him to turn ahead not to the next but to the amendment after that, which he will be moving, and look at the wording in subsection 2?

It says, "Where a corporation is convicted of an offence referred to in subsection 1 ...to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $50,000 on a first conviction and not less than $4,000 and not more than $100,000 on a second conviction."

Given all the arguments he has just advanced in opposition to minimums, why is the minister moving for them in that section?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In those cases, there is an existing minimum, and it would be a wrong signal to the courts if one were to cut out an existing minimum. The member will understand that. If a minimum is already contained in the legislation and one moves to take it out, then in that case, the courts might get the wrong signal. That is the reason for that provision.

As I say, I am interested. The member says I make a sterling defence of no minimums. What I have done is expressed to the House the reasons that have been brought to my attention on why, across the board, minimums might not be as beneficial as we would like. I commend the member on confining the minimums to specific areas. I think the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), who will speak herself, will agree confining it to certain areas makes it much more palatable and sensible than if it had been applied across the board.

Ms. Fish: I share some of the concerns that have been advanced in certain pieces of legislation about automatic minimum fines or, in certain other areas, automatic minimum sentences. I have heard the cautions the minister shared with us this afternoon, if not in that precise form, then in similar wording and similar ways.

However, the minister has anticipated my remarks, because in bringing forward this motion to deal with minimum fines, the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) has done exactly what I think makes it quite acceptable and compatible with what is already in the bill, and that is to confine those minimums to a fairly narrow selection of cases. That makes considerable good sense and would complement those other sections of the bill that already have a minimum in them.

I should also note that when we speak about some narrow cases where the focus is on corporate polluters, where we are particularly dealing with dangerous and hazardous materials, as we are with liquid industrial waste, the courts are well able to appreciate not only the severity of the offence, but would also receive strong submissions from the ministry and other interested parties on any such charges that might be brought forward. In this sort of case, the minimum proposed by the member for Lakeshore would be appropriate, and we would be pleased to support it.

Motion agreed to.

17:40

The Deputy Chairman: Will there be further discussion on the minister's amendment as amended?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No. It is fairly clear, Mr. Chairman, and if the members do not require any further clarification, I agree that we could proceed with it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Fish moves that subsection 146c(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 12 of the bill, be amended by striking out "upon application by counsel or agent for the minister" in the first and second lines and inserting in lieu thereof "upon its own initiative or upon application by counsel for the prosecutor."

Ms. Fish: I simply note that this is the next in the series of amendments I had indicated it was my intention to move. We already discussed the basic content in dealing with an identical amendment to section 10 of the bill. Therefore, I will not take the committee's time to repeat the arguments now. The basic set of arguments that I advanced at that time still stand.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Whereas in section 10 I think it is much less complicated, the concern I expressed in section 10 was more directed to section 12 than to section 10. Again, when we get into the specifics that we see in 12, it is a little different circumstance. We see situations where actions could be asked of the courts, and if the courts were to follow those actions, they might well be detrimental.

I know in section 10 it was a matter of prohibitions and a cease-and-desist type of situation, so it was more straightforward and clear-cut. There is a concern here that some of these stipulations could be put in by a court and just be totally impractical in view of the options that are available there.

I know the Attorney General has expressed some concern about this, and perhaps I will let him elaborate on this matter.

Mrs. Grier: I find the minister's argument difficult to believe. I assumed that, having accepted the principle in section 10, any person party to an action could upon conviction ask for a prohibition order and that the principle had been enshrined in all the legislation before us today.

I point out to the committee that the section we are now dealing with allows somebody to call for an order to protect and restore the natural environment. It would seem to me it is even more important in this section that anyone who is party to the action, and who has gone to the trouble of issuing a prosecution and getting a conviction, should be able to ask for a court order. How it could be impractical to protect and restore the natural environment, I find it difficult to see.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Again acknowledging that my interest in this issue is relatively recent, what the proposed amendment does, as I understand it, is that without reference to the ministry it permits the application to be made by counsel or agent for essentially an abatement order; that is, an order directing the person to take action to prevent, decrease or eliminate the effects on the natural environment of the offence and to restore the natural environment within the period or time specified in the order.

Leaving aside the restoration order, which is in the nature of a repair order and about which the point of the member for Lakeshore may be well taken, the first part of that order permits the direction of an abatement to prevent, decrease or eliminate the effects on the natural environment. That could, for example, permit a private prosecutor to apply to a judge for an order to build a tall smokestack, to tear down a factory or to do a number of things, all without reference to the ministry, which would not be a party to the proceedings.

Honourable members are confident, perhaps more confident than I, that courts do not make those kinds of silly orders. I invite any member to come and look at my catalogue of recent court orders before drawing a fixed conclusion on that subject. The reality is members are inviting our courts to make orders, presumably in the public interest, of the most significant kind.

For example, it would be open for a court to make an order under this section to close down a business and fire or release its employees, to construct premises or to tear down premises if those things have the effect of preventing, decreasing or eliminating the effects on the natural environment. The trouble is, once an order is made that the following work at the following factory can no longer be done, it is no longer in the power of the Legislature to change that around, because the only way it can be changed around is by appeal.

That is what this amendment is allowing the court to do on the request of an individual without reference to the ministry. The interesting thing is that members are proposing to allow a court to do it without giving the court any expertise with which to make the judgement. The court does not have available the scientific or other expertise of the ministry, of Pollution Probe or of any of those things. All the court has available is the information provided by the informant, his counsel or agent and the accused.

When we are looking at orders of a permanent nature that cannot be modified by the ministry or the Legislature, that can be modified only by a subsequent court proceeding but that can have major effects in economic and in environmental terms, that should be done only when the ministry is, at the very least, party to the proceedings, to allow the public view of what is appropriate to be advanced.

Honourable members will know, for example, that at a certain time in Sudbury there were those who thought Inco should be closed down; that is, stopped from producing nickel until some solution for the environmental impact of what it was doing was developed. The people who thought Inco should be closed down for five years at one time I think included the then member for Sudbury, now unhappily deceased. The judgement about whether the industry should be closed down or the abatement order made in that form has major implications for the economy of the community. That kind of decision should be made, not by a judge--even the best intentioned and most scholarly judge--but by political ministers and legislative assemblies.

If one wants to punish polluters--and I have no problem with that; I support the modest fines and imprisonment the minister has directed--

Mrs. Grier: Modest?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am being facetious; l think they are exactly right. If you want to punish polluters, I have no problem with that, but are the members going to allow the courts to decide the standards of abatement? The honourable members may have that kind of confidence in an uninstructed court without expertise; I do not. Frankly, I think it is a very dangerous precedent and, if passed, the Legislative Assembly will sooner or later rue the day it gave to a court this extraordinary power, which will then be very difficult to recall.

17:50

Mr. McClellan: The Attorney General may see this as giving the court power. Some of us see it as giving the community and citizens the opportunity to take action when the ministry fails to do so. I come from a community in which is located Toronto Refiners and Smelters, which I have said for the third time had to be prosecuted privately by a group of citizens because of the utter, abject failure of the Ministry of the Environment to assume its responsibilities.

The problem is that there is no history of trust that can be drawn on to assure us or our constituents that the Ministry of the Environment will accept its responsibilities. I say to the Attorney General and to the government that until that trust is demonstrated with vigorous prosecutions, I am afraid the government is going to have to give our constituents an opportunity to exercise their rights. Because of the visible public record that stands as a warning to many communities that government and bureaucracies have failed and cannot and should not be given the unique trust, I see no alternative.

Mr. O'Connor: In his inimitable fashion, the Attorney General has painted the worst scenario, the-sky-is-falling situation, to convince us of the inappropriateness of this amendment. I find surprising, coming from the Attorney General, the chief law officer of the crown in Ontario, the abject lack of faith he is demonstrating in our judges and our court system.

Does he not understand that judges will listen to evidence, will listen to the facts in a particular circumstance, are well able to interpret sections of the statutes that we pass and will be fair, just and equitable in imposing penalties, fines or abatement orders as the case may warrant? He should have more faith in our system than to dismiss out of hand, in the way he has done, the possibility of drastic results coming from the fact that the almighty ministry is not there to properly instruct our poor, woebegone, ignorant judges of their duties and responsibilities in this regard.

The Attorney General will also know that should a decision be made that has drastic consequences, perhaps beyond what was anticipated by any of the litigants, there is available to them very quickly the appeal process. There are available to them on several days' notice, if it is that drastic, rights of appeal and rights of intervener by the ministry and officials of the Ministry of the Attorney General to attempt to redress the so-called wrong that has been imposed by an uninstructed judge.

On balance, the much greater effect and good to come of this is as indicated by the member for Bellwoods. It far outweighs the possibility of the drastic scenario portrayed by the Attorney General.

In cases where there are large corporate interests or significant polluters involved in a case that has been brought by a private citizen, the ministry is going to be well aware of those circumstances. If we are going to be dealing with the stack at Sudbury or a plant producing lead in the west end of Toronto, the ministry will already be aware of that circumstance and will have monitored the situation and the charge to that point and will have had its input into the process.

The scenario he portrays of some judge acting on his own without the ministry knowing and producing the drastic results he forecasts is highly unlikely to happen. If it does happen, we have the appeal process, which has worked effectively. I suggest the minister should have more faith in the courts of our province to adjudicate these matters in a responsible, fair manner.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to respond to the member for Bellwoods and, in passing, also to the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor). This is not a failure of confidence in the courts. This is a recognition, born of hard experience, of what things the courts do well and what things they do particularly badly. The courts do not do everything and they do not do all things well. Within an ambit that is traditional for them, they perform admirably. They are neither equipped nor trained to deal with essentially social, political and economic issues. Under the charter, we are learning how difficult it can be for judges who have no expertise and no training to deal with issues such as mandatory retirement which have not only civil rights connotations but also economic connotations.

My view about the role of the courts is not that I lack confidence in them, but that I lack confidence in what they are trained and able to do. I would not ask them to do things, and would fear if they were authorized to tread, where they had no experience, training or expertise. That is the first point.

Second, the member for Bellwoods makes the point very compellingly that in the past--he may even bring it up to the present--the ministry has been not responsive to the concerns of his constituents. Let me for the moment assume that is the case. I do not know enough about the merits of the issue to make a judgement, but let us assume that, because that is the evil he wants us to deal with.

When there is a failure in the political system, which is the failure he describes--an unresponsive ministry, or perhaps an unresponsive minister in certain instances--one does not respond to that by giving the power to a court. One responds to that in the traditional political way. In my respectful view, one of the greatest dangers we face in our political responses is that as we see the weaknesses of the political system, instead of repairing the political system, particularly in Ontario, we tend to say, "We will let a court do it." Whether the issue be conflict of interest or what have you, the response to all our problems is, "Let a lifetime-appointed judge do it."

I want to tell the members how many letters I get every day from citizens in the province who have confronted the fact that judges have been allowed to do it. In cases where the judge is operating within his traditional territory, the level of performance is very high. I have great confidence in them, but as we impose on them obligations they are not equipped to fulfil, they respond as if they are not equipped to fulfil them.

It seems to me the solution is relatively simple. If an application is made, why is it not possible to have the application made upon notice to the ministry? We recognize that the ministry should be able to make the very application and tell the judge why. Why do we not say, "This application shall be made on notice to the ministry"?

I think, as a matter of principle, that a serious difficulty is before us. I would be uncomfortable enacting as a piece of legislation this major grant of power to a court, which we will not be able to reverse.

Mrs. Grier: Having listened to the Attorney General, I wonder why we have the courage to have a bill at all. We are going to be leaving it to the courts to make some decisions about the environment. I submit that if we had been happy with what the courts had done in the past, perhaps we would not have needed this legislation today. I fail to understand the great concern on this section of the bill. The Attorney General is ignoring the fact that there are some safeguards.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

16 décembre 1986