Question Period Rewind - April 10 1990

Hi everyone, welcome to Question Period Rewind. I'm Donna Skellyy, speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Let's take a look at 1990. A lot of iconic TV shows and movies were being released. Home Alone was number one at the box office. The first Law and Order premiered on NBC. And across the pond, the TV cooking show Master Chef first airs in the UK. But here at home, our MPPPs had other issues to deal with. >> Oral questions. Speaker, I uh I have one question for the premier, but I'll stand down my question to the premier and I'll ask one question to the treasur as a lead off. Uh Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the treasure uh taking note of the remarkable uh degree of public opposition to the GST being expressed by citizens in this province and across Canada. I wonder if he can explain uh the decision on the part of his government to add the provincial sales tax to the GST if and when the GST comes in. Uh Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the treasurer can justify that kind of a decision because I'm sure he would agree with me that it certainly leaves one with the impression that the province of Ontario is living off the avails of the goods and services tax. Well, uh, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition puts it in his own inimitable pros and in his own ineitable way. He is, uh, misinformed. The, uh, the, um, retail sales tax is levied on top of whatever the cost of the good that we tax happens to be. And that includes at the present time the manufacturer sales tax. know that the province has been collecting tax on tax uh since the tax was in inaugurated about 1961. The honorable member would know that uh if the goods and services tax proceeds that there will be a much broader base and uh much of the uh base will not be taxed by our sales tax at all. But if we were to forego putting the provincial tax on top of the federal tax, we would u lose in revenue about $500 to $600 million. The honorable member may have some alternative for making that up, such as increasing our rate of tax or decreasing the support for the opposition party, something like that. Uh but in fact, it is a serious matter. uh when the honorable member would indicate that uh by changing our policy we would forego about half a billion dollars. It's uh not our intention to do that. >> Mr. Speaker, uh the treasurer has often used that figure. I wonder if he would be kind enough to tell the house since he has such an accurate accounting. I wonder if he'd be kind enough to tell the House how much Ontario stands to gain in strict revenue terms by adding the retail sales tax to the GST. You must have that calculation. Can you please tell us what it is? >> Mr. Speaker, I've already told the honorable member that putting the question the other way, how much we would lose if we did not proceed with our policy, which is the same policy that has prevailed in the province since 1961. And the answer is just under $600 million. >> Last supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the treasurer still stands by the figure which he gave to uh or at least officials in his ministry since he's not willing to share this number with with the people of Ontario. Perhaps he would confirm the figure that came out last August 1989. And that is that on the most conservative figures provided by the Treasury of Ontario, Ontario's Treasury stands to gain some $170 million, $170 million, which can be described as living off the avails of the GST by the Ontario government, adding a tax on a tax. By adding your tax on to this tax, you are increasing your revenues by $170 million according to figures you used back in 1989. I want to ask the treasur specifically this question. Is that figure still the figure which you're using? If not, what is the figure that you're using? And can you deny that the effect of what the provincial government is doing is that for all its formal protestations, you are going to help the federal government collect the sales tax where it's where it it parallels the retail sales tax in Ontario. That's the first thing you're going to do for the GST. And the next thing you're going to get from the GST off the avails of the GST is increase your own revenues by at least $170 million. Speaker, the effect will be largely neutral and when it will it it will there will be no extra income. But if we do not if well I've told it I've told the honorable gentleman as clearly as I possibly can and he refuses to accept that that if we were to change our policy we would have to increase the rate of the taxation by about 3/4 of a percent. Now, if he is if he is urging me to increase the sales tax, and I know that all of the millions of taxpayers in the province who watch this program carefully uh would be concerned about that. If the leader of the NDP is urging me to increase the sales tax, then perhaps those people who are interested in the tax base in the province should know about it right now that the NDP favors an increase in sales tax. And certainly we don't want to do that. I think we should also make it clear. We should also make it clear since we are both talking with a certain degree of hyperbole >> that we have >> to provide some assistance with this tax. The federal government has indicated clearly that they're going it alone. >> No question. >> Member for Cernia. >> Mr. Speaker, uh my uh my first question is also for the premier and in view of the fact that he has not yet arrived. I will stand down the first leader's question. I would ask that I be allowed to give the second leader's question to the member for Perry Sound. >> Member for Perry Sound. >> A question of the Minister of Health. Could the minister tell us what she knows about a confidential initiative that her deputy minister is participating in to merge the ministries of health and community and social services. >> Minister, >> uh Mr. Speaker, uh I would say to the member opposite that as he knows uh we've undertaken uh discussions on long-term care reform, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Office for Disabled Persons, and Office for Senior Citizens are discussing implementation of a significant initiative >> supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession a a memo dated February the 19th, 1990, marked confidential, signed by both deputy ministers. You may think this is a laughing matter, the attorney general. We're talking about half of the provincial treasury here. I would like to read to you from uh one page and I quote signed by your deputy minister. The project will be considered as an internal government study and will not involve any public consultation. End of quote. What do you have to say about that? Do you think that's an appropriate way to go about merging two of the three biggest ministries in the Ontario government? >> Minister, >> what's speaker? As the member opposite knows full well from his time in government, government set policy decisions. Uh deputies and the bureaucracy then implement those decisions. As he knows full well, there are many policy decisions uh that are under consideration. Uh long-term care is a very significant and important one. >> Supplementary, >> Mr. speaker is the Minister of Health telling us that she doesn't see anything wrong without asking for input from health care providers, those in the health care field that provide services, those in the areas of community and social services. You're just going to go ahead with your own little private initiative, make up your mind what you're going to do, and then hold a sham of public hearings and ask for public input afterwards after you've decided what you wanted to do. I'll read to you the next paragraph in the same memo that your deputy signed. Decisions on public input will be made following completion of recommendations for a high level design of a possible new ministry. In other words, you're going to talk to the public after you've decided to create this new ministry. After you've decided what you're going to do, like you do with so many other things over there, then you're going to ask the public how you're going to spend $20 billion of their money every year. >> How come Ernie was smiling when he asked that question? >> The member opposite couldn't be more off base. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in fact at the present time, there is an interministerial task force on long-term care reform, which is consulting and discussing widely with all of the interest groups who who have an interest in reform of a system, in fact, reform of a non-system called long-term care. It's a very significant initiative and I can tell him that I'm proud of the level of consultation that has begun and that will continue to go. And I would say to him that his his theatrics are unbecoming. >> New question. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, could the rotation go back to the New Democrats as uh the premier has not arrived? >> This is what I was expecting to do. The member for Atobico. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, last week the me leader of the opposition raised with the minister of the environment the case of an employee of Varnacolor Chemical Limited in >> Are you addressing which minister? I'd like to address another question to the Minister of the Environment on that issue because when the leader of the opposition asked the Minister what protection this employee might have >> because of his actions in blowing the whistle on his employer's violations of the Environmental Protection Act. The minister read from sections of the Environmental Protection Act and strongly asserted that the employee in question, Mr. Alan Marshall, was thoroughly protected. Three days later, Mr. Marshall was fired >> and I would like to ask the minister today whether he still considers >> business >> that this individual who in attempting to protect the environment had talked to the public had talked to the media and had talked to the ministry officials has any rights to protect his employment. >> Minister, >> he most certainly does, Mr. Speaker. And as I indicated to uh the member for York South uh when he asked the same question uh about a week ago, I I think it was in the house. I indicated that under section 134B of the uh environmental protection act there is protection and it is through the Ontario rel uh labor relations board uh so 1983 C-52s22 and it says no employer shall dismiss an employee, discipline an employee, penalize an employee or coersse or intimidate or attempt to coersse or intimidate an employee because the employee has complied with and it lists the uh various environmental acts that we have in the province of Ontario or a regulation under one of those acts or an order, term or condition, certificate of approval, license, permit or direction under one of those acts or because the employee has sought or may seek the enforcement of one of those acts or regulation under one of those acts and has given or may give information to the ministry or provincial official or has been or may be called upon to testify in a proceeding related to one of those acts or regulation under one of those acts. So clearly uh the legislation does protect this individual and he will receive that protection as appropriately before the labor relations board. If he feels that he was if he feels that his uh dismissal or layoff or whatever terminology is being used as a result of this, he may certainly through the Ontario Labor Relations Board utilize this section of the act to protect himself. >> Supplementary my side. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is quite wrong and I think the minister is in grave danger of misleading people in this province who feel they have the right to protect the environment. >> Thus, danger exists, Mr. Speaker, because the act that he has quoted to us very clearly says that the employee is >> point of order in the middle of the question. >> Wish that was then parliamentary. Order, please. >> Order, please. >> Order. >> I would like to remind the member that the language used is very close to being unparliamentary and I would invite the member to be more cautious. The member for Tobiico Lake Shore, Miss >> Car. Mr. Car. >> Mr. Speaker, the section of the legislation that the minister has quoted now for the second time clearly protects an employee who refuses to pollute and it protects an employee who gives information to the ministry or a provincial officer. The employee that I'm referring to spoke to a citizens environmental group, spoke to the media, and spoke to the Ministry of the Environment. Can the minister explain why he has refused to bring in environmental rights legislation that would make it very clear that if as he says an employee is protected, the legislation does not say the employees protected, why has he refused to bring in clear environmental rights for such employees? >> Mr. Speaker, it's obvious and it's quite clear under this particular act. What I read to you is quite clear when I said well but he has the right obviously by protection under this particular act and uh there is not a uh kind of situation that the member believes exists. In fact, in other situations, in other situations, the member would know that in fact uh this has been invoked and in fact the Ministry of the Environment has assisted uh someone in another situation which was confronted with the same type of information being provided. Since the information was provided to the Ministry of the Environment, a provincial officer, it says or to the ministry, then obviously this uh section of the act is going to comply. It's going to apply in this case. And I'm sure that uh I certainly appreciate the the uh assistance that Mr. Marshall has provided to this ministry. Uh and since the Ministry of the Environment was uh at the meeting where this information was provided to the Environment Group and to the Ministry, he certainly has the protection that exists under 1 section uh 134B of the Environmental Protection Act. It's there. It's designed to protect those kinds of people. We appreciate what he's done and we have already uh and we're in the process of contacting him to assist him in this regard. >> Do question the member for NASA. >> Mr. Speaker, as well to the minister of health, uh minister, according to your plan to reorganize and merge the ministry of health and community and social services into one ministry. One action identified under step four of this document is to quote uh I am quoting this is the ministry document prepare a highlevel organizational structure for the new ministry in terms of divisions and activities within divisions prepare a preliminary branch structure and it goes on to spell out how the project will go even further to develop a consistent highle field structure and responsibilities minister can you explain how you and your deputy can justif testify proceeding to this advanced stage of designing a brand new ministry without any public consultation or any client group input whatsoever. >> Good question. >> Mr. Speaker, in fact, the uh member opposite knows very well that we appointed a joint assistant deputy minister who would look at uh how health and commock could work very closely together. I would tell him that in fact most of the constituent groups that I've spoken to and that my colleagues have spoken to greet very positively the fact that health and com and the office for disabled persons and the office for senior citizens are working together to serve the people of the province of Ontario >> complimentary >> he's answered the question >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, the document says the purpose of this project is to design a new ministry dealing with health and social services and bringing the two ministries together. That's what the document says the purpose is. >> So despite what you say, this document details the secret plans to present the public with a fatal comp plea before anyone has a chance to comment. And I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's becoming a pattern. Sunday shopping, free trade, Meech Lake, lot levies, you name it. First, the Peterson government makes a decision behind closed doors, and then you send it out for some token hearings before ramming it down our proverbial throats. >> This is a major, massive $19 billion health and social services shakeup and once again, the public shut out. My question is this, Mr. Speaker, why on earth won't the minister commit it to a full and open public consultation process today with the partners, those on the front line, those who are actually delivering the services before you make your decisions behind closed doors? Yes, sir. >> One year ago in this legislature, my colleague tabled the principles of long-term care, committed to full consultation with the partners and announced a joint assistant deputy minister to implement the principles as they were tabled. There's been much discussion and there will continue to be because we believe in open consultative process with our partners as we move to improve services to the people of this province. I see it as positive. My colleagues do. I don't understand what his problem is. >> Your question, the member for Lampton speaker, >> I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Mr. Minister, in February of this year, you released a discussion paper on charitable gaming in Ontario entitled Putting the Charities Back in the Driver's Seat, which outlined a number of areas in which the ministry believed reforms to the regulatory framework were needed. The deadline for responses to this discussion paper, Mr. Minister, was March the 30th, 1990. Charitable groups in my area as well as other areas are very interested in the course of action to be taken uh because uh charitable dollars are becoming ever more scarce and the need for services of charitable organizations are becoming ever more important. I too am concerned about the plight of these charities. >> Question. >> Mr. Minister, now I realize the deadline has only recently passed and you may not have had an opportunity to review all the submissions what you have received, but can you tell this house what the initial response uh has been to your discussion paper? >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm uh glad to hear my friend raise that issue because as he points out, we did publish uh a document uh which proposes to change fairly significantly uh the rules and regulations relating to charitable gaming in the province of Ontario. And if I might, Mr. Speaker, just suggest to members of the House why we're doing this. Uh I I will tell you that the rules that we have right now uh were created some 20 years ago under an exemption under the criminal code which uh simply provided an opportunity for the classic model of church basement uh bingo if you like. Since that time, charitable gaming has developed uh primarily through commercial bingo halls into a $600 million enterprise in the province of Ontario. uh and the rules that we have right now are simply not appropriate to handle uh that sort of sophisticated business. In addition, Mr. Speaker, to the uh consultation document going out and the responses coming in, I've had an opportunity to meet with groups uh all around the province really in London, Ottawa, GE, Windsor, uh and just last Friday in in Tilbury to hear from the charities themselves about the kinds of problems that they were having. Uh and the thing that has really impressed me, Mr. speaker is the extent to which people all over this province uh work on a volunteer basis to raise money for their enterprises uh and they do it through this model and we hope uh within a few months to have a be better regulatory model for them. >> Supplementary. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And by way of supplementary, I would like to tell the minister that the groups in my area are particularly concerned about the one thing which is regulation of the commercial halls. Now uh when this was put in place or there was a moratorium put in place uh to stop more construction of these halls, it has in fact uh put a lot of pressure on the charities that are uh working in there and they would uh well I guess they feel that they're somewhat held to when the managers of the halls decide when they can be uh holding a charity. I just wonder if you're going to be able to balance and return charitable gaming to the charities here in the long run. >> Minister, >> uh Mr. Speaker, I'm absolutely sure we will be uh able to do that in our new regulations. My friend mentions the moratorum. Uh just to remind the members of the house, Mr. speaker that uh my wise and capable predecessor, the member from Windsor Sandwich, instituted a moratorum on the expansion of this sector by way of a uh a decision not to allow the for the uh uh development of any new commercial bingo operations in the province until we have a better regulatory model. Uh the thing that is absolutely clear in all of this is that the government must have the authority uh to license commercial operations. Uh and under a licensing mechanism, we would therefore be able to inspect uh and be able to audit all of these operations. uh and to do that for one primary purpose and that is to ensure uh that the charities are getting uh all and every single scent that is due to them in this volunteer work that they do uh operating licensed uh uh charitable gaming primarily bingo all over the province. So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to put the charities back in the driver's seat. uh we are going to be licensing the commercial operations and when those regulations are in place then we'll be able to lift the moratorum that my friend talks about. >> Thank you. New question the member for Cambridge. >> Speaker, my question is to the minister of labor. >> Minister, these are pink slips. >> It's a form minister that you will be familiar with. A worker receives a form like this when he loses his or her job. On my desk are a large number of pink slips and each pink slip represents the loss of one job. >> You can laugh or borrow. >> 1,250 workers in Cambridge and Woodstock will lose their jobs as four clothing plants and a head office of tag clothing apparel closed permanently later this month. Minister, >> how do you have the nerve to call yourself the Minister of Labor when you're prepared to sacrifice workers to the barracudas of the marketplace, leaving the workers in the case of bankruptcy without any protection for their wages, their severance pay, and their vacation pay? >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. I uh I share the concern of all members in the House when we see a a layoff and people losing their jobs and each each one of these is a very real human tragedy. We're very fortunate in the province that over the last 5 years we have been able to see jobs created at a rate that's reduced the unemployment rate from around 10% down to about to less than 6%. In spite of that, there are still tragic cases as the member points out where we do have layoffs. uh we do uh Mr. Speaker step in and our employment standards branch work with the the company to attempt to ensure that the workers are paid paid their back wages paid their vacation pay paid for for their severance and termination. However, in the case of a bankruptcy uh it is sometimes difficult to recover the wages. We have been urging the federal government to take steps to ensure that in the case of a bankruptcy that wages are protected. Uh to date, Mr. Speaker, we've been unable to persuade the federal government to move on that, but we will not stop because indeed it is a case of human tragedy in each case. >> Supplementary Speaker, the workers of Ontario don't want the sympathy of this labor minister. They want action. >> All right. >> The Brown Commission, Mr. speaker reported in 1985 and recommended protection for workers of wages, severance pay, and vacation pay. >> For 5 years now, this Liberal government has done absolutely nothing to protect workers when a company goes bankrupt. No doubt you're comforted that your Liberal friends in the banking community, shareholders and creditors will all have a piece of the pie, leaving only the crumbs, if anything, for the workers. Would the minister outline Would the minister outline to the legislature >> top priority >> the specific steps the Liberal government has taken >> and will take to protect the rights of workers to the monies owed to them when a company goes bankrupt. It's time you acted. Don't shove this off on the feds. >> Priority. >> Mr. Speaker, again I'd remind the member that uh in the case of bankruptcies, it's clearly a federal matter. Uh we have constantly urged the federal government to act in this matter. There is something called the constitution that that we all uh must recognize. So in the case of bankruptcies, it clearly is a federal matter that we're urging and pushing the federal government on. Having said all of that, if you look at the severance programs in this province, there is no province that has a more comprehensive severance program than we have. If you look at the activities of the premier's council where for the last year the premier's council has been preparing a report specifically on these issues. So, Mr. Speaker, while we might like to to step in in the federal jurisdiction, it is clear that in bankruptcies it is the federal government's responsibility. We will continue to urge them to act in this important area. You're here. >> Order, please. >> Order. >> There are many private conversations that make it difficult at question period. >> Order, please. Order, please. Order. >> My question is to the minister of agriculture and food. The minister's records will show that in April of 1986, fully four years ago, the premier promised the St. Albert Cheese Co-op that he would solve their quota problems. And I have photographed, it was a great photo op, Mr. Speaker, the premier, the member from Ottawa East, and the member from Prescott Russell. Minister knows that the co-op was founded in 1894 and is still not getting enough milk to meet the demands of its fresh cheddar, cheese, and curd sold over the counter. Mr. Minister, your predecessor and the premier did absolutely nothing in four years to solve the problem. Are you willing to attack and solve that problem once and for all? >> Minister. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, I'm u quite happy to address this u this question from my friend the critic from the third party today and I would like to almost uh pose a question back that I would hope uh that the member is in support of the supply management system of this province because that's what he's questioning. Mr. Speaker, he's questioning the very heart of that system. I would like to say to the member though that um at this particular time and um the member knows that um that the St. Albert's Order, please. >> One member at a time, please. >> Order. Minister of Agriculture may proceed. >> Mr. Speaker, the uh the member knows that at this particular time, this issue is before me as the people at the St. Albert's Cheese uh Cooperative have asked me to review the decision of the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal. I'm in the process to do that and as he knows by the 16th of this month I will be rendering a decision on that and so at this time it would be inappropriate to uh make any further comment. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. Well the premier in ' 86 had a definite plan to solve their problem much like no fault auto insurance. Four years later we still have a problem. >> The ruling made by the Farm Products appeal tribunal has been appealed and one item not in the appeal Mr. Mr. minister is whether or not milk made from fresh cheddar made into fresh cheddar cheese or curd could be exempt from the plant supply quota rationing system. Will you as minister agree to follow this route and look at creating an entirely new classification for fresh cheddar cheese and curd products? And are you willing to meet with representatives of the co-op to try and finally iron this out? It's four years, Mr. Minister. It's got to be addressed. minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, in attempt to answer all the questions that the member has posed, uh, it would be inappropriate at this time to meet with the members of the co-op, but I would be glad after the period that I render my review, I would be happy to do that. The member must know that the second issue that uh, the member brought up today about the separate classification for fresh milk going into production of cheese is something separate that the Farm Products Marketing Commission will be looking at separately. And I'd like to tell the member that in another hour I will be announcing the restructuring of the Farm Products Marketing Commission. I think that it'll be more flexible and they'll be looking they'll be looking at that first challenge to see how flexible we can be. >> Thank you. New question. Member Franklin. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Housing. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the minister indicated that provincial funding for tenant hotlines in Ottawa and Metro Toronto would be uh withdrawn for two reasons. Firstly, a provincewide 1800 rent review hotline would be more cost-effective. And secondly, that there had been a growing demand for provincial funding for tenant hotlines in other centers. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would consider instead a formula whereby if both the local tenants federation and the municipality make a commitment of funds to attendance hotline, then the province would provide matching funds. >> Minister, >> well, Mr. Speaker, I u I want to recognize my honorable colleagueu's uh interest in this subject. Uh, and I also want to tell her that I'm uh I'm impressed by the fact that the Metro Tenants Association and that Metro Council uh is considering putting some of their own money into this. Uh I presume that's that's a maybe, not a definite yet, but anyway. Uh and I would I would clearly say to her that that is a uh uh a legitimate response and I would certainly encourage them to uh to do so. Uh however, I would say to my honorable colleague, Mr. speaker that the uh responsibility of the provincial government is to provide a provincial service and not just a local one and uh that if those two organizations want to provide a local service as well, I would certainly encourage them to do so. But I would point out to her that in just 7 days, the uh service that we are now offering uh has has uh answered 163 calls. uh 93 of them from the central region uh 44 of them from the uh from the uh southwestern from the eastern region and 26 from the southwestern region. I think that's a clear indication that we are now serving the entire province rather than just two cities. >> Supplementary the member for scarbor entry. >> Order please. Order >> supplementary. The member for Scarboro. >> Mr. Speaker, in supplementary, this situation is causing some anxiety among tenants who are concerned uh that the loss of this hotline may reduce their options when looking for advice and direction as opposed to simply an interpretation of the legislation. The suggestion by the member for Edgington may not only allow this service to continue, but would also maintain the minister's concern about efficiency and effectiveness across the province. My question is, can the minister ensure that the funding for the hotline will continue during the period in which this suggestion is being considered? >> Minister, >> Mr. uh Mr. Speaker, I uh I accept uh my colleagueu's observation uh that we need to uh consider both types of services and I would assure him that we have already indicated both to the Ottawa Tenants Association and the Metro Tenants Association that we we would extend their service and the funding for their service for two months beyond the time when we would start the provincial one. We have al also indicated to the tenants legal service, Mr. speaker that uh their contract will run for an additional 7 months. So that will give us an opportunity over the next two months and then over the next seven months to clearly compare the service that's being offered and the efficiency and the productivity of the resources that we have. >> Order please. Before we pro proceed with the normal rotation, there were two questions that were stood down to the premier, the leader of the opposition. >> Speaker, uh Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the premier. Uh Mr. Speaker, it concerns the uh the premier's decision last year to uh announce a public inquiry uh and the grounds upon which he felt that a public inquiry was necessary. I wonder if the premier can tell us whether he still feels, as he did last June, that a public inquiry was the only way uh to reestablish uh public confidence in the conduct of public officials uh and public confidence in the integrity of the political system of which he is the nominal leader. um there were a number of allegations at the time as my honorable friend knows number of allegations made in this house some by you and some of the allegations you'll recall that you made particular specifically were quite wrong and you had to stand up in this house and apologize for that >> you remember apologize >> but it was a very supercharged atmosphere and we felt felt it was a reasonable approach given the circumstances >> what's wrong >> so Mr. Speaker, the reason that I asked the question is because it's perfectly clear that this government has uh has an awful lot at stake. Uh and uh indeed I think it's not too much to say that there's a great deal that this government would rather not have revealed whether at a public inquiry or in any other way. And what I want to ask the premier, what I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court of Canada >> made it very clear that made it very clear that it was not a question of uh of public inquiries themselves being wrong. It was a question of this particular terms of reference being incorrect. And I want to ask the premier very spec very specifically this question. Since you said last June that you needed a public inquiry to reestablish confidence in the system and since you've said again today that uh that uh you uh that's the reason that you called for a public inquiry. I want to ask you, considering if you've had time to reflect on the Supreme Court decision, exactly what is it that's stopping you from holding a broader inquiry into the question of how such a degree of outside influence could have been exercised on your government and what is precisely the relationship between the Liberal Party and the development industry. >> Premier. Well, Mr. speaker and my honorable friend is extremely promiscuous in his use of words and his an imputation of motive and I say to the Mr. Speaker, you want to review that very carefully. The kinds of things that this me member has said in the house today and on other occasions. And I just tell you, my my I tell my honorable friend that a lot of the things he said in here are factually incorrect. And if you were uh honorable, you'd stand up and admit that. Now, you can cast about allegations all you want to. Uh we uh chose the course that we did because we thought it was reasonable in the circumstances. Uh and I can tell you that what's changed is a Supreme Court ruling. That's what's changing the circumstances and we have to obey the law. >> Last supplementary >> your idea of progressive government is >> Mr. Speaker uh yesterday outside the house. >> You got a vacuum cleaner now. >> I understand from the press reports that the premier indicated that an inquiry into the allegations of child abuse uh at St. Joseph and Alfred had not at all been ruled out by your government, but that you were basically going to be waiting for the criminal process, the criminal investigation process to be completed before you would make such a decision. I'd like to ask the premier. We've now had apparently or allegedly, according to your government, a an aggressive police inquiry going on into the events surrounding the the Holden inquiry for over a year. over a year according to the uh attorney general. I want to ask the premier why would you not make the same statement in the house today that you made outside with respect to this particular set of issues and that is to say that once you've completed the c criminal investigation once that process is over and a definite decision has been made as to whether you will or you will not lay criminal charges why would you not also say as you said last June that people must be confident that public officials all public officials whether elected or appointed are people of integrity and they must uh and I insist that the democratic system depends on the public trust and faith in the integrity of their public officials. Why wouldn't that lead you to the conclusion that this needs a public inquiry just as surely as the very important allegations of child abuse at St. Joseph's also merit some kind of an inquiry? >> Mr. Speaker, I think if my honorable friend wants to quote me, he wants to quote me accurately. And I did say uh yesterday that the Supreme Court of Canada has made uh new pronouncements with respect to the question of inquiries. Anything that's done obviously has to be under the purview of this uh of this new ruling and the difference between the two is quite simple. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled very specifically on on on the case at hand. That's the difference and it's not that hard to understand. >> Member for Sernia. His question that was stood down to the premier. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, my question is for the premier as well. Back on June the 24th um of last year, the premier was quoted as having said on the day that the Holden inquiry was called, and I quote him directly and accurately, he knows of no special relationship between our government and the development industry, but the premier added, "That's not what the appearance tends to be, and we've got to get to the root of it." End of quote. Now, does the premier stand behind the words that he used on June the 24th of 1989? Does he believes that it does he believe that there is at the very least a perceptual problem with respect to certain links between the government and the development industry and does he believe that that has got to be rooted out? Speaker, I think we've said uh quite uh on many occasions that uh a police investigation has to come first. That is what is proceeding at the present time. And uh that is the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. That's not particularly difficult to understand. I'm I'm sure my honorable friend has read the judgment. He has a highly trained legal mind and he would understand uh the directive of the Supreme Court. >> Supplementary. Well, >> I want to say to the premier that we have read the judgment and we know that there are certain differences of opinion with respect to the position being taken, the very narrow interpretation being taken by the attorney general and the position, I might add, being taken by the opposition parties. And in that connection, yesterday we set forward the first step of a six uh a six-step plan to see if we can break the log jam over this issue. Now that you have set aside any possibility of an inquiry being held as it relates to the the Holden inquiry, I say to you that yesterday we placed through the House leader of our party, the member for Perry Sound a series of questions that we have asked the speaker of the house to respond to. I have today tabled with you, sir, another five steps that I believe to be reasonable, responsible. They are not steps that that I believe are are uh are are being suggested in any way in conflict with the Supreme Court ruling. Will you at the very least take those steps under consideration? >> Premier, >> uh let me tell my honorable friend, he just sent me over a press release and I've referred it on to the attorney general for his uh wise and thoughtful analysis of the situation. And if by chance uh by some rare stroke that you have something specific and new constructive to to contribute, we'll take it under advisement. >> Last supplementary. >> Well, that uh no one other than the premier and his government who are the font of all wisdom would have any ideas or suggestions that might be of uh of any application to this particular problem. But let me suggest to you that the problem continues as it relates to the matters that were under review by the Holden inquiry. Those matters in our view if left to the decision of your government are going to carry on for some period of time without any decision coming forward with respect to the activities of certain people. What we have suggested I think is a responsible series of steps that can be taken by your government that are quite reasonable under the circumstances. All we're asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the premier consider those steps as being a legitimate and re uh realistic way of coming to grips with the problem of the uh Supreme Court decision. Premier >> because I said to my honorable friend, I haven't had a chance to review them. the attorney general will and if by any chance there's something constructive and I know how well motivated you are in all these matters and we take that into consideration when we do the analysis that you have that you have come to and we also take into account the extensive legal training that you have had in putting this forward and I and I thank you for your constructive addition to the debate >> here >> to normal rotation the member for Alma >> speaker I have a question the minister of transportation uh the minister will know that there has been for some time a considerable controversy about the safety at the Echo Bay Bridge location in the township of McDonald on Highway 17 east of Garden River Reserve in Sus Marie. >> Uh there have been a large number of accidents over the years uh because of poor visibility of white outs in winter, fog in spring and fall. Can the minister explain why his ministry appears unwilling to investigate the possibility of spe special lighting to improve vis visibility in this location and to make highway traveling more safe in that area. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, the honorable member would want to know that uh we have been do doing entire exactly that. We have been investigating the possibility of uh some special lighting. I think the honorable member would want to know and would want to acknowledge that the fog conditions and the white out conditions which have caused by my recollection two accidents this past winter in that immediate area can be so serious that no amount of lighting can can resolve the issue. I understand that both of the accidents, Mr. speaker occurred during daylight hours this winter. But I do want to say to the honorable member that uh we are currently looking at u at whether the um I believe it's it's low-level sodium lighting would be appropriate in the bridge in the immediate vicinity. >> Supplementary. >> I appreciate the uh minister's response and want to point out that initially the ministry's position was that there was no kind of lighting that could resolve the problems. Uh after that uh initial response, there was a fivecar pileup at that very same location. Could the uh minister uh uh indicate when his invest his ministry's investigations will be complete and when his staff will be in touch with the township McDonald Meredith Aberdine additional council to uh uh indicate what plans the ministry has to try and improve highway traffic traveling in that area. Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, to to my friend from El the uh we have by and large completed our our technical evaluation of the situation as as it exists in the area and uh there has been a determination made that that from a technical point of view in some of these white out and fog conditions uh this low-level lighting can be helpful. uh in some other conditions, we would have to depend on the uh Ontario provincial police who move very quickly and are well aware of the very peculiar uh weather patterns and weather conditions can spring up as the honorable member knows very suddenly. Uh I uh will need a short period of time in which to sit down with my officials uh probably early next week in which in which I want to review this matter and then I give the honorable member an assurance that he and uh and his and the officials in his area and in his writing will be notified immediately. >> New question the member for Lenfruit. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. I'm sure the minister is aware that over the last few years that the deer population has increased greatly in eastern Ontario and other places uh throughout Ontario. And I have a lot of apple producers, uh vegetable producers, and now beef farmers who are finding that the uh their new seating is being affected by if the attorney general will be quiet. He's not interested in agriculture, but maybe >> Yeah. Oh yeah. >> Oh, listen. >> Could we have a bit of order, please? >> Order, please. >> Order. >> Order, please. The member for Lanarch Renfruit is trying to get his question through. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question. The Minister of Natural Resources. I'm sure the minister is uh aware that the deer population in Ontario's increased greatly and in Eastern Ontario it's uh it has as well and I have a number of farmers both apple producers, vegetable producers and now at the latest the beef farmers who are having trouble with their new seeding and the deer pulling it out by the roots. A farmer phoned me last Friday and counted as many as 50 deer eating off his new seating and felt that he would have to uh re rework the whole field and seat it again. >> Is would the minister be prepared to uh pay compensation to farmers found in this particular situation? >> Minister >> with deer dam. >> Uh thank you very much Mr. Speaker and I appreciate the question that the honorable member has raised. I know that this is an issue of concern to farmers and to managers of of wood lot areas um across southern Ontario. The issue of compensation has not been one that my ministry has been involved with in relationship to this problem, but we have been very much involved in the management of the deer herd and the growth in population of the deer herds. I think as the honorable member will know, we are concerned to manage that population growth in ways which are are sensitive to the to the values of effective management of of the animal population. But we have been able to successfully carry out controlled hunts in two counties uh this past fall as well as a successful controlled deer hunt in Longpoint uh with the uh consent of the of the federal government. We're also looking at a controlled hunt as a possible management approach to the deer population in Rondo Park. I think we can consider continue to consider that type of approach where it seems to be necessary. >> Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, uh Madame Minister, the uh deer population has increased every year. Uh and this pre past year we had such wet weather that the deer harvest even though you put on double the dough licenses in my particular area. There were very few of them actually harvested a deer. Uh I asked you again we pay for wolf damage done to sheep for killing of sheep or lambs. We pay for bear damage done to beehives. And I asked you again with the farmers in the the needing all the help they can get. Why wouldn't you pay for or recommend to your Minister of Agriculture for damage done by deer? >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, I would stress the fact that we are interested in long-term approaches to managing what is a very serious problem. I've indicated what we have been able to do in uh in certain areas of the province. And I would certainly undertake to ensure that our district office works with farmers in your particular area to determine what more we could do to assist in the long-term management of that problem. New question. The member for Scarbo Ellir. >> Question is to the minister responsible for disabled persons. Mr. Speaker, uh, one of the major barriers preventing disabled persons from fulling equal participation in our society is the lack of physical accessibility. While the Ontario government has shown leadership by creating programs to break down this barrier, there is still concern that not all government buildings are accessible. Can the minister advise the house what the Ontario government is doing to make public buildings more accessible? >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to uh thank the member for his interest uh in people with disabilities and I can assure the member that the government is doing several things to make uh government information services and buildings accessible to people with disabilities. Uh first of all, we have our employment equity policy in the Ontario public service. We have a policy whereby ministries are uh expected to provide government information in an accessible form like a usable form uh such as braille and audio tape. But to spec specifically respond to the member's question on government buildings, in the last budget, the treasur uh announced $38 million to be spent over a 5-year period on government buildings. >> Supplementary. >> By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, some organizations such as Zion Wexford United Church in my writing have utilized the access fund in previous years to ensure and improve accessibility uh to their facilities. In December of last year, the minister announced a three-year extension uh to the access fund. Uh this will obviously help in assisting all residents to more easily participate in the activities of their particular community. Can the minister update this house on the results of the access program and advise the members of the broader range of organizations that are now eligible to apply for funding under this most important program? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, the access fund is a fund which is shared with the uh minister responsible for seniors affairs. I can tell the member it's been a very successful program and uh in the uh renewal of the access fund we were able to expand the criteria. We uh now um have expanded it to include consumer advocacy groups, uh employment counseling and training centers, volunteer services and coordinate coordination centers, emergency shelters for victims of violence, and uh sexual assault centers. We've also added other uh types of projects so that visual visual alert emergency systems are included as well as portable hearing assisted devices systems and uh telecommunication devices for the death. >> New question. The member for Windsor Riverside. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the premier in the absence of the minister of industry. Uh Mr. Premier, this question deals with the uh high unemployment rate that exists in Windsor. The unemployment rate has uh ranged between 9 and 13%, the highest in the province for several months now. And there is one practical uh intervention that your government could make. One company in Windsor, Kelsey Hayes, at one point had several hundred employees working for it. Yet, it now has a uh shutdown for several weeks. Uh three of its dyes that are used to produce auto parts have been moved to the United States, and there are real fears that the plant will actually close down. Uh Kelsey Hayes is owned by by Varity Corporation. Your government owns hundreds of thousands of shares of Varity. Would you use your influence as part owner of this company to intervene and protect these jobs? >> Minister Premier. >> Speaker, I appreciate the information of the honorable member. I I can't tell you what exactly at this moment where what influence we would have in that situation, but I'll certainly have the matter looked into and if there's anything we can do, we'll try to do it. >> Supplementary. >> Appreciate that. Perhaps the premier could also be of equal assistance in dealing with the Windsor unemployment question in reporting on any activities or studies that the government is uh uh currently conducting to move more public service jobs to Windsor to help with the diversification which is something that I have asked you about before. You will be aware that London has approximately 4,000 Ontario public service jobs and the lowest unemployment rate in all of Canada on an ongoing basis for the last several months. Windsor has 800 provincial civil service jobs and the highest unemployment rate of the entire province. Will you intervene in that area as well to help our community with jobs and diversification? >> Speaker, I can tell my honorable friend that uh certainly uh decentralization is part of the policy of this government. You'll be aware of a number of the jobs that we have moved out of Toronto and I've chatted at length with my colleagues from the Windsor area have been uh uh very forceful and putting these concerns to the government. So uh it's a matter that's under active review. >> No questions. The member for Markham >> question for the Minister of Transportation and uh I'm still pleased with your announcement last week on transportation. >> Wow. Wow. >> Come on over. We got room for you. >> Come on over here. We'll make room for you. Come on now. We'll make room for you. >> That's the good news. >> You've been lulled into a false census. >> That That's the good news. Now, I have a few questions about him. >> Order, please. Order, please. >> Member for Markham. >> I have to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. I just softening them up for the kill. >> Until last week, the government did not show much interest in private sector funding for the Shepherd subway. >> Well, that's true. However, when the private sector becomes involved uh and they contribute some portion to the cost of the subway, they're going to be looking for some kind of tradeoff and something back. >> What is your government prepared to give away to uh entice that private sector money? Minister, I >> um I like the preamble of the question best of all and I uh I must say I was I was prepared at that point to entertain two or three or four or five supplementaries. Uh Mr. Speaker, the issue that the member raises is a very important one in terms of the uh the need for the private sector to become involved in the shepherd system and and the in terms of the development of the overall system. our hope on every line that we will be able to uh involve the private sector because a great deal of work needs to be done quickly and a great deal of money is needed. At the same time, I want to say to the honorable member that we intend to ensure in this government and and I know our municipal partners do as well to ensure that the uh that the public agenda comes first and that the public is served first in the development of this system >> in terms of on bill. Right on. >> In terms of any specific negotiating stance, I can say to the honorable member uh that I think it is appropriate and I think he would agree at this point for a uh for those discussions to go forth uh between the private sector, between the municipalities, metro, uh Mayor Lassman and other officials from North York and ourselves and to let that let that matter take uh its proper course. >> Supplementary. Well, in spite of the uh the minister's answer, there will be tradeoffs and it's going to be important for us to know what those tradeoffs are during these negotiations and I would expect that the minister will be aware of our interest in that. The it's a 10-year deadline for these transit proposals and there are many hurdles yet to be overcome. Choosing the exact alignments will take time. Completing the environmental assessment will take time. Setting up the formula for private sector involvement will take time. The construction itself will take time. You have a long list of plans and proposals in your announcement. What are your top three priorities for transit improvements and when will they get underway? >> Minister, Mr. Speaker, the honorable member raises a good question, a good series of issues that uh and challenges that we face and that is why we have a transit implementation committee which will meet within the next 10 days to begin the process of setting the priorities. I'm not I wouldn't want to indicate what the priorities to begin are. Let me just say to the honorable members, I said last Thursday and repeat, Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of these proposals won't be underway. They'll be complete within this decade. >> Order, please. >> This completes the order, please. Order please. >> Order please. >> Member for Markham. Thank you. >> This completes the time allocated for all questions.