Question Period Rewind - April 12 1990

Welcome to Question Period Rewind. I'm Donna Skellyy, the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The year is 1990. B. Midler's Wind Beneath My Wings wins song of the year at the Grammys. Toronto's Speakers Corner launches a video booth outside the iconic City TV building. And the population of Toronto and the GTA was approximately 3.8 million. That's about half of what it is today. What were the topics of the day in the house? Let's take a look. [music] [music] >> Oral questions. The leader of the opposition. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question to the uh minister of financial institutions. Uh Mr. Speaker, uh the uh facility association has indicated that the number of drivers who are being uh dumped into the facility association uh is now uh some 300,000 strong. Uh Mr. Speaker, the minister in in in dealing with this situation has always said that all we have to do is wait for Bill 68 and Bill 68 will deal with uh with the with this problem. Mr. Speaker, I want to uh say to the minister that if that were true, can he explain why it would be that on December the 1st, 1989, Judge Cer Osborne, who the minister will know has some expertise in these matters, was commenting at a uh at a gathering dealing with the insurance crisis, and he wanted to say this, the incentives to writing business as a result of this, referring to Bill 68, will result in the population of the facility association expanding as it already has. Mr. Speaker, given that fact, why does the minister continue to tout Bill 68 as the answer to the problem when he knows it's going to contribute even more to the rise of the number of people who have to pay over $1,500 for their car insurance? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman knows that uh in many ways uh what he says is not completely uh um the state of affairs. He knows uh Mr. Speaker that um the gentleman who writes the things about the facility was commenting on a perception of what was going to be happening. He has indicated that one of the reasons that the facility has grown is because of the tightness in the market and the concerns expressed about the way the uh product has performed I guess for the companies. While your critic who has been speaking at length uh to prevent the bill from passing and preventing uh preventing the uh the implementation of a system that will see average rates climb only by an average of 0% outside the large centers and by an average of 8% in the large urban centers as indicated uh Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman from from Well and Thorald has often said that it that the rates will go up by 50%. That's not that is not the state of affairs. If he was accurate, he would have said average increases of zero outside the metropolitan areas and only an average of 8%. That means that there will be people above zero and people below zero. In other words, getting decreases. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, not all the people in the facility association have been dumped there. The facility actually puts together the uh the coverage for people who have not met the underwriting criteria of the of the companies because of certain uh problems associated with driving habits and otherwise. I acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that there are underwriting concerns because of the fact that some companies have left this jurisdiction, withdrawn the writing of insurance, and as a result, people have fallen into the facility because of the tightness of the market. Bill 68 sets up a new system, a reasonable system with balance costs, balanced costs and benefits. And in fact, this will help with respect to the facility. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, the minister is talking nonsense and he knows it. There is nothing there is there absolute nonsense. There is nothing in your legislation, nothing in your law, nothing in Bill 68 which stops the insurance companies from picking and choosing who it is they want to ensure and how they want to ensure them. Nothing which stops them, nothing which stops skimming, nothing which stops them creaming off the market and saying already, Mr. Speaker, Judge Osborne says that as many as 30% of the drivers who are dumped into the facility association have clean records. They are there, Mr. Speaker, because the insurance companies simply decide we'd rather not insure you for whatever reason that may be. It could be a younger driver. They decide they don't want to have anything to do with that. Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is why is there nothing in your new law which stops the insurance companies from doing what they're doing now, and that is picking and choosing, creaming off the top of the market, and dumping those they don't want into the facility association. Why haven't you dealt with that issue? >> Uh, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that uh that the honorable gentleman hasn't seen very much happening with the bill in the committee of the whole or in the House in fact is because you guys are filibustering. You won't allow us to debate. And in fact, the reason, Mr. Speaker, that nothing can happen constructively in the auto insurance sector in the province of Ontario to provide people with a better priced product and in fact have better benefits and in fact, Mr. speaker having a market that is available is because the NDP are holding it up and preventing it going through the natural course of evolution in the system of our government. You guys are speaking at length and that's fine. Go ahead. You want to frustrate this coming in so you can stand up day after day and say prices are too high. We've told you for a long time people are paying too much for auto insurance in this province because of the way the system has been has been working. We have come up with a reform product which is comprehensive and in fact even though you don't like bits and pieces of it, it is overall the best and the only the only comprehensive option that we have today. And in fact, Mr. Speaker, we expect this will provide people with better cost product, better benefit levels, and in fact will make markets available and prevent people from going into the facility association like you can. >> Thank you. There isn't any indication, Mr. Speaker, from any of the other parties that they have any option that approaches. >> Thank you. Last supplementary. >> I don't mind the minister attacking me, but I I'd like him to think about for a moment. The government asked the government asked the uh Judge Cer Osborne of the Supreme Court of Ontario to do a report on car insurance. That report was two volumes long. Judge Osborne, not in this report, but very recently, very recently at a meeting, Judge Osborne said, "Insurers will not want to write policies for the very people that this plan is designed to protect, namely those who are compelled by statute to buy insurance and to whom, for whatever reason, insurers are not willing to extend coverage." The incentives, and to quote him again, Mr. Speaker, he says that the population of the facility association will expand will expand because of the fact that you are maintaining the premise of the current system which is that the private companies have a monopoly on providing insurance and they decide who they're going to ensure and how they're going to ensure them. That's that's the premise of the current system. That's the premise of Bill 68. You've still left the monopoly where it is and you've done nothing to protect the consumer in doing so. I want to ask the minister again, why is it that when dealing with a real problem, you are you are running away and simply doing the bidding of the insurance companies when you have a choice. You can step in on behalf of consumers, you've chosen the insurance companies over the insurers. Why have you done that? >> Uh Mr. Speaker, I don't run away from anybody. >> I don't run away from the minister, the member from uh York South. I don't run and do the bidding of the insurance companies. I'm here to protect the people who are wishing to purchase. >> Order, please. I tried to get the other members to respect those asking questions. The reverse could also be true. Minister, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a continuation of how the NDP treat this issue. They want to prevent people from putting the real facts in front of the people. We are here to put in front of the people a comprehensive plan that provides a coverage for people who want to purchase auto insurance at reasonable prices and provides good benefit levels. That's what we have done. And in fact, Mr. Speaker, what we have done further and we've gone through Mr. about Justice Osborne's report and we accepted a good number of his recommendations about how we have to strengthen on behalf of the consumer the regulator's role so that in fact we can look to make sure that the people are delivering the benefits that they are required and in fact that's key to this this proposal and something that the opposition leader does not wish to acknowledge. >> We in fact Mr. Speaker have in place a way in which we take a look at the underwriting rules the fact uh Mr. Speaker, there has to be prior approval of the rates before they go out and the context of the setting of those rates will be viewed by the insurance commissioner. And in fact, Mr. Speaker, we have a very sound and solid role to be played by our regulator on behalf of the consumers of this province. >> Thank you. No question. >> Leader of the opposition. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the premier, perhaps I could ask a question to the treasurer. I knew you'd be thrilled. Uh [laughter] Mr. Speaker, my question to the treasurer is uh is this uh and it takes on added meaning in the light of the fact that we're going to be having a budget uh in two weeks time. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is growing around the province that contrary to the PR campaign by the Liberal government. In fact, the number of people using food banks is still very high and in many parts of the province is on an increase. Uh and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the number of uh even the Daily Bread Food Bank, which uh has indicated some changes in its numbers, told us today that there are still, according to their figures, 10,000 children under the age of two, 10,000 kids under the age of two in Metropolitan Toronto who are still relying on food banks for their food. >> So my question for the treasurer is this. What are you going to do to begin to address surely the most glaring social injustice in the province today? And that is the presence in a in an affluent province in a province in which a number of people have done extremely well over the last number of years. The continued presence of so many people who are having to struggle even to eat. >> Treasurer. >> Mr. Speaker, uh the question is an extremely important one. and I've followed the matter as carefully as I possibly can that the honorable member might be aware that of all the enthusiasm and support for the SARC initiatives last year that I was one of the slowest to join that band of strong supporters but was glad to do so when the usefulness of the SARKC recommendations were clearly pointed out to me. Uh I was delighted to hear on CBC Metro morning a couple of days ago Gerard Kennedy whom the honorable member would know probably better than I uh who founded or at least uh operates the Daily Bread Food Bank which is the largest and most effective one that I'm familiar with that the utilization and requirement for the food bank was down something like 15%. and he was good enough to say, and I can assure you that he's got no particular political um interest in uh in our party, that he attributed this to the additional payments that had come through from the provincial treasury through the legislation and regulation that improved the SARKC payments. I was very glad to hear that because that's exactly what it was supposed to do. It's been pointed out by by others including one of the honorable members colleagues that uh the second area of recommendations from the social assistance review committee dealt with the working poor a matter that another one of the honorable members colleagues raises from time to time in this house and a matter of which there is a lot of concern as well and Mr. Speaker is making some kind of a gesture to me and I might continue this at a later moment. >> Supplementary Mr. Speaker, uh >> gesture, if >> he's making a gesture, I'm sure it's one which we'd all like to make from time to time. >> Mr. Speaker, my [laughter] >> more and more people are doing it every day. >> My supplementary question to the treasur, Mr. speaker is uh is this one and that is that the uh the statistics are are important to to get a sense of that if you talk to people who run the food banks in different parts of the province for example we've been on the phone to people in Ottawa and Wateroo and Kingston recently for example and we find that that the hard reality is is that there has not been any decrease in the use of food banks in those communities uh for example the partners in the mission food bank in Kingston had a 19% increase in food bank use between March of '89 and March of 1990. Similarly, in Waterl, there's been an increase. Uh, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to I'd like to simply uh ask the the treasurer uh why it would be that the this number would still be as high as it is given the fact that the government trumpeted last year that they were spending $400 million that they thought this was, you know, they were taking all the credit for having gone ahead with the Stark reforms. Perhaps the treasurer can explain to the house why it would be that the numbers would still be as high as they are. We have 10,000 kids under two in Toronto who are still using food banks. Is the treasurer telling us that the government has basically gone as far as it's going to go and they're not going to go any further? >> Mr. Speaker, we didn't trumpet the implementation of the SARKC recommendations. [clears throat] We implemented the SARKC recommendation and it meant the largest single commitment. [applause] the largest single additional commitment for welfare services in the history of the province. And we're not finished yet. The honorable member, while he may take the role of Cassandra, should be aware that the specific facts in this are that the utilization of food banks has re it's bad. It's bad has reduced by 25% for those welfare families, the families in receipt of special social assistance with young children. And I believe at least that's an indication not of the solution of the problem but the at least the allocation of some of these funds which all come from the consolidated revenue fund are having a useful effect >> supplementary. Mr. >> Speaker, I'd like to send a contribution to the treasurer from the walk a mile in my shoes campaign which brought thousands of shoes yesterday from the poor of Ontario working for independent poor. Can you manage that? Uh And I have those shoes were filled with messages, Mr. Treasure, and I want to give them to uh to the pages to take over to you as well because they make constructive reading. I think that what uh their message is essentially, and if I can read one of them, perhaps it would be enlightening. I'm one of the more fortunate ones. I'm on FBA disability and live on supported housing. Even so, I struggle to survive because I run out of dollars by the third week of every month. I've used food banks because otherwise I go hungry. There are no dollars to buy clothes and no gifts at Christmas. >> I end up borrowing at the latter half of the month. Pay it back at the first of the month. So I'm caught in a circle. I suffer from depression and fight it on a daily basis. The added stresses of living in poverty complicate my illness making life absolutely miserable. He wouldn't even accept the shoes. >> May I simply say to the minister that while what the government did last year undoubtedly is having an effect out there, the message of this man, Jim Gillespie, is that income adequacy for those on social assistance and the working poor remains to be accomplished. Will you in walking a mile in some of those shoes, will you go an extra mile this year and provide income adequacy for those on social assistance and the working poor so that in fact the figures that that patronize food banks will really decline substantially. >> Treasure of food banks has declined dramatically and the honorable member should be aware of that. these statistics come from Daily Bread Food Bank. If it comes from the food bank that the honorable member may run from the back of his constituency office, his stat his his statistics may be different. And I'm not for a moment saying the problem is solved. All I am saying is the $415 million additional budgeted last year are having a salutary effect. that the program in addition not only is designed to assist in the food bank problem that the honorable member and his colleagues and others have brought to public attention but also assist those who have been caught in the trap of social assistance to move off that into a productive lifestyle and in that connection we're also able to report significant success that I know the honorable member in spite of his rather negative view of the world would be the first to applaud. >> Thank you. New question. Member for Perry Sound. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. >> Minister, uh Dr. Williams, cardiovascular surgeon at the hospital for sick children, has stated that the appropriate waiting time for a child for cardiac surgery is 6 to 8 weeks at most. And at most cardiac centers in the United States, a child receives surgery within two weeks. According to an external review headed by Dr. Dr. Serno, of which I'm sure you're aware of the hospital for sick children. The situation there is that the average waiting time for children on the waiting list for cardiovascular surgery there is some 14.9 or 15 weeks. Do you think that this is an acceptable length of time for children to be waiting for cardiac surgery? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I don't want anyone in this province to wait one moment longer than is medically acceptable. That's why we are working with the experts to tell us how we can improve on what is already a very good system. As he knows, there are some stresses in downtown Toronto and the recent announcement of the establishment of the pediatric registry which links for the very first time the cardiovascular services available at the Children's Hospital in Western Ontario in London and the Children's Hospital in Eastern Ontario in Ottawa with the sick children's hospital in Toronto. I think will improve that situation. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, that's that's an interesting statement that the minister makes because Dr. Williams and Dr. Serno disagree with you there too. Minister, you're recently announcing and you've just said so in the House again today that you feel that children waiting for treatment can be treated elsewhere, namely London and Ottawa in this province. Well, I'm here to tell you that Dr. Williams doesn't share your belief. He says the type of expertise and procedures that are required are not available anywhere else in the province of Ontario in most cases other than the hospital for sick children. He says that in the past week alone they have had to refer one child to the Mayo Clinic, another to Philadelphia, and that Kingston is constantly referring children to Boston to have treatment because they can't get it here in the province of Ontario. They've also identified for you on several occasions that the real problem is a shortage of ICU nurses at the hospital for sick children. I've been trying to tell you that. We've been trying to tell you that. They're trying to tell you that. When are you going to do something about that? >> Minister, >> Mr. Ch Mr. Speaker, the uh Children's Hospital of London, the Children's Hospital of Ottawa, and the Children's Hospital here in Toronto sick children all provide cardiovascular services. There is no question that there are some very unique services which are only offered by sick children's hospital in Toronto and we are working very closely with the experts and I would say to him that Dr. Serno is working very closely with the ministry and in advising us as to how we can resolve uh the issues that we face. We know as well that the nursing issue is very specific to downtown Toronto and that we have uh brought forward a package of significant nursing initiatives to create the kind of positive environment which I believe will go a long way uh not only in the short term but in the long term as well. We know that there are no simple or quick answers to this systemic issue facing not only Ontario but North America and the world. But I am confident that we are making progress here in Ontario. >> Last supplementary, Mr. >> Speaker, um according to Dr. Williams, this problem began in September of 1988 is when the nursing shortage began. That's his statement, not mine. Some 245 children have had their cardiac surgery canled at the hospital for sick children since that period of time. That amounts to 18% of their total case load. Currently, there are 158 children waiting for cardiac surgery at the hospital for sick children. And talking about specifics and what Dr. Serno is doing to help you, I'm glad you brought that up because you will know that Dr. Serno headed the external review at the Hospital for Sick Children and three weeks ago made a request to you for $8 million that you respond to by today, Madame Minister, to provide the necessary funding for ICU nurses so this problem can be solved at the hospital set today. There is an immediate solution. It's in your hands. Are you going to provide us with it or not? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, let me quote the member opposite Dr. Seno's own words recently and I would say this is Dr. Serno. I think that what has happened in the last year or so and I've been a part of all of this demonstrates to me that there is a great commitment for the ministry, the hospitals and cardiac surgeons to solve this problem. The member opposite knows the member opposite knows >> order please. The member opposite knows full well that the hospitals of this province are transfer payment agencies of history that there has been a very significant and I would say generous allocation by the treasury to the hospitals which will amount to some $6.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, I member for Perry Sound that we are making progress. The problems are there. We are meeting those challenges and I'm confident that by working together with a positive attitude as displayed by Dr. >> Order, please. The member for Perry Sound >> Ontario both for today and in the future. >> Your question member for Leeds Grrenville. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions uh related to his no fault auto insurance plan. As he may recall on a number of occasions, I've raised the issue in this house in respect to the uh questions that have been raised about the constitutionality of the bill. U as uh as I have suggested and others have that he make his legal opinions public and he refer the bill to the court of appeal for a judgment in respect to its constitutionality. Up to this point, Mr. Speaker, the minister has refused to do that. But based on the uh the uh Supreme Court decision in respect to the Patty Star inquiry, I think this has some relevance, Mr. Speaker. U it indicates to us that there's been an over reliance on the part of the government in respect to legal opinions and I'm wondering if the minister would respond in the House today. Have you and your colleagues in government learned your lesson from the Star inquiry, your over reliance on legal opinions? Are you prepared to make your opinion public and refer the matter to the court of appeal? Good question. >> Uh, Mr. Speaker, we will not be referring the matter to the court of appeal. That's an unusual step taken as you uh obviously know. It's not something that is uh countest every day. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the opponents of the bill uh will challenge uh uh it on constitutional grounds because that's the the way they think they uh they can best attack it uh after it goes through this house if the opposition uh uh lets it go through the usual processes in this house. The uh the thing, Mr. Speaker, that we have to be aware of is that uh uh anybody now anybody now who has a concern about legislation always raises the issue of constitutionality. We have to check, Mr. Speaker, with our legal adviserss as to whether or not that uh uh the bill would sustain an attack under the constitutional charter charge. And we have the opinion that that in fact is is the case. Mr. Speaker, that isn't over reliance on legal advice. The drafting of legislation requires that sort of advice and we must have it. We have the advice. We have indicated that and we know that the opponents to the bill will continue to say they're going to charge that it is unconstitutional in the courts >> for supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, that's an astounding response and an irresponsible response, I would suggest. when the minister is saying let this be challenged once the law is passed and we're looking at two or three years down the road and the liability that's going to be attached to that sort of an approach Mr. Mr. Speaker we have a we have a a credible opinion that has been made public from Mr. Henderson former partner of the attorney general in this government and as I said earlier the star decision very clearly indicates that you can't rely on legal opinions from anybody and uh Mr. Speaker, rumor has it again we're talking about the suit the that's been filed against the government by the Ontario Nursing Home Association that once again this government is going to end up with egg on its face. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, why why should we and the people of Ontario be satisfied with secret legal opinions on this matter given the government's track record? Why should we be satisfied with that approach? >> Mr. Speaker, in order to conduct the affairs of government, we have to contact people who are legal adviserss on a regular basis, we are in the business of providing service under legislative requirements. We check with them uh in drafting regulations. We check in drafting legislation. We check in uh what manner we can try and uh pass legislation through the legislature of Ontario, which doesn't appear to happen very easily anymore because you guys want to filibuster the the bill and prevent it from going through. I I'm referring, Mr. Speaker, more particularly, of course, to the official opposition, not so that my friend from Leeds Grrenville thinks that I'm pointing an unkind finger in his direction, but to be reasonable, Mr. Speaker, when people conduct business, and let there be no mistake about it, this government conducts a business of providing service and the implementation of policy for the people of the province. In this case, with respect to auto insurance, a program which balances cost against the good benefits that are available under the plan and making the market respond by making the product available. We have to rely on advice from legal counsel. Now, he says we ought not rely on any legal advice. And when he tells us that we can't, he then underscores the fact that nobody should take seriously any legal opinion. I don't share the view of my friend from Leeds Grenville about the relevance of putting reliance in legal opinions. We must at least, Mr. Speaker, take heed when we see the the results of their opinions. We have ours that says that our bill is going to withstand a constitutional >> supplementary. Speaker, the history of this government with respect to auto insurance is one costly mistake after another. And the people who end up paying the tab are the taxpayers of this province. You have a letter from the president of an insurance company, Kingsway, expressing concern about the constitutionality. You have an opinion from uh Mr. Gordon Henderson expressing concern. And Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, the minister is talking about letting this thing go through the courts for two or three years. We're talking about a liability in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So I want to pose this question to the minister. If indeed that is the course that's followed and you allow it to be followed, what is going to happen, Mr. Minister, if this indeed this legislation is found on unconstitutional, who is going to be responsible for that liability? The insurance companies of this province or the already belleaguered taxpayers of this province? >> Um Mr. Speaker, uh I don't respond to the hypothetical questions of the uh person from Leeds Brenville who has who has taken on a a certain negative cast uh just just over these last few days. I know him as a very positive contributor to the debates on many many other occasions, but he seems to be have he seems to have been captured captured by the spirit of the negative cloud that has drifted down from the people on his uh on his right, my left. And I'm I'm I'm very sure, Mr. Speaker, that he would want us to move forward and indicate that the bill should be passed, that in fact we should implement the system which provides for on average a zero increase of premiums uh in the next year for folks in the rural part of our province and only on average a an 8% increase in the urban centers of the province. Mr. Speaker, this we should do to make sure that we pass those savings on quickly. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, there will be people left at risk, left in a system which requires an adversarial type adjudication which I think is not as productive as we could have under the mandate of Bill 68 and I look forward to the passage of that bill very soon. >> New question. Member for Hamilton East. >> Minister of Health. On March 22nd, the minister responded to my question about negotiating fairly with ambulance officers at calling Woodport Elgen Concardan as suggested by the Ontario Public Service Labor Relations Tribunal with the following comment. Quote, "The Attorney General's office is making an application for a judicial review of both of these decisions, the Mckcne one as well. It has been decided in fact to await the outcome of those reviews. Since the attorney general has been proved wrong yet again, and your government has come to its senses and dropped the review, is the minister now prepared to enter into real negotiations with the many so-called private ambulance operators whose contracts are currently up for renewal or will be in the next few days? >> Minister. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh on April the 9th, the government withdrew its application to the divisional court for a stay of two rulings made by the Ontario Public Service Labor Relations Tribunal on the issue that the member opposite raises. In doing that, uh we we also announced yesterday that uh we accept the TR tribunal's decision and confirmed that 21 private ambulance services where OPSU has bargaining rights are agents of the crown for collective bargaining purposes. The 21 private operators will continue to direct the daily operations of their ambulance services and it is only for collective bargaining purposes that they will act as crown agents. >> Supplementary. >> We're talking about collective bargaining processes. Madam Minister, a government spokesman, as you've indicated, did clearly indicate that the government accepts the ruling of the tribunal that they are crown employees. Is the minister does she agree with that uh that comment by Bob regularly and in her ministry and is she prepared to accept responsibility for uh bargaining with those agencies and organizations that are funded by the government of Ontario? >> Minister >> uh Mr. Speaker uh to clarify the impression that the member opposite has uh as um as I said before uh we have said that uh pending the judicial review we accept the tribunal's decision I announced in the house before that we would comply fully with it. We have confirmed that for the 21 private ambulance services where OPSU has bargaining rights that they will be agents of the crown for collective bargaining purposes. That means that as crown employees, ambulance workers will continue to have collective bargaining rights, but disagreements will be resolved through binding arbitration arbitration replacing the right to strike. >> New question, the member for Markham. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Revenue, I'll address this question to Ontario's number one tax grabber, the treasurer. >> Yes, that's for sure. >> As he will know that the >> cancel that road to market cancel that road. >> I mean, they blame Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, but there's the problem right there in the front bench. >> The Toronto Transit Commission is experiencing a marked decrease in the use of their parking lots. >> Parking lot revenues are expected to >> order. Order. >> Speaker would like to hear the question. Member for Markham. >> He's the only one. They don't want to hear it, Mr. Speaker. >> Can't handle constructive criticism. >> The Toronto Transit Commission is experiencing a marked decrease in the use of its parking lots. Parking lot revenues for the Toronto Transit Commission will decline this year by approximately $2.4 million because of the decline in parking lot usage. And much of the decline in the TTC parking lot usage is being attributed to your tax, the commercial concentration tax. As the architect of these tax policies that are punishing transit riders, are you proud of the fact that your government's tax policies are contributing to parking problems and traffic chaos in Metro Toronto? >> Mr. Speaker, uh the honorable member compared uh the effects of our budgets in the province to those of the government of Canada. I have a feeling he's forgotten that in fact our tax policies, however disagreeable he may find them, are actually paying the bills of this government while the progressive conservative government in Ottawa is going into deficit by $30 billion this year. He should also be aware that the effect of the commercial concentration tax amounts to $1.35 per day per parking spot. the fact that the Toronto Parking Authority concentrated the effect of that tax on their 100 parking lots into about 20 parking lots, the busy ones, so they could collect all the required money on a concentrated and focused way is their decision and not mine. If the honorable member feels that $135 35 cents per day per space is unnecessarily high, then of course he is the right to his view. But I think he's wrong in his objection. >> Supplementary. >> Well, you know, the problem starts with the high spending that's going on in this government and then the highway in which they're going out to grab the money. Mr. Speaker, as supplementary, because of this commercial concentration tax, municipal governments and agencies are exploring ways of avoiding the tax. And when these parking lots no longer generate revenue and become free, you won't get any money at all out of them. So what you're ending up having is a higher vacancy rate now. You're seeing people parking illegally on the streets. They're contributing to gridlock by driving their cars into the city more than they did before. It's eroding that source of revenue that you had. Why wouldn't your government support the amendment that our party put forward that would have exempted the municipallyowned uh operated lots from this commercial concentration tax? >> Mr. Speaker, it's because the money from the tax is going to support public transit and the improvement of the highway system that really serves many uh hundreds of thousands of people in the Toronto area, but particularly the honorable member's constituents in Markham. As a matter of fact, there are $2 billion extra allocated to the improvement of the highway system and the public transit system over the next 5 years. and the funding is directly associated with the taxes that the honorable member is objecting to. He wants his cake, but he certainly doesn't want to pay for his share of it. And I think that's undemocratic and unfair. >> Member for Oxford. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Play that on your cable show. [laughter] >> Order, please. Order. >> Order, please. Member for Oxford. >> My question is for the Minister of Labor. It's with a certain amount of sadness that I asked the question because since early in March, I've been monitoring the Harvey Woods operation in Woodstock in Oxford County. As you know, about 600 workers of Harvey Woods, members of local 1300, 986, the amalgamated clothing and textile workers will be unemployed because of Harvey Woods closing. We have a Harvey Woods as one of our largest and oldest employers in Woodstock. The employers are fine, hardworking people, and I'd appreciate your assistance, Mr. Minister, in helping these employees. Could you please inform this house on matters of severance and holiday pay for these Harveywoods employees? >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. speaker and I I share his concern about the the individuals who are are facing this very unfortunate circumstance and I appreciate the interest that he's taken in it and uh his personal uh presentations to myself and others. Uh I guess first on the remuneration side, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that at least the wages that were owing these workers have been paid. However, it's uh it appears that some of the vacation pay has not been paid and certainly in terms of severance or termination, none of those payments have been made. Our employment standards branch is issuing orders to attempt to receive that. But uh I think the member should be aware that we under the bankruptcy act, the federal bankruptcy act have difficulty in securing those funds. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter that we have urged the federal government to act on and they've yet to act on that. Uh in other areas though, Mr. Speaker, of assisting the workers, we have, I understand, established an employee assistance program. Uh we will be working with the union and with the workers there in terms of counseling, terms of training and helping to ensure that they receive their unemployment insurance benefits. >> Supplementary. >> Thank you, Mr. Minister. Have you any information on pensions and retraining? What what schedules are there for retraining? >> Minister If I heard the question correctly, it was uh regarding pensions and uh and uh and training. First, in terms of the pensions, again, as a result of uh of your uh interest in this matter, I've discussed it with the Minister of Financial Institutions. I'm told that the pension commission of Ontario has appointed an individual to look at the status of those pension funds. I'm led to believe there are seven different pension funds for those employees and they at this moment are looking to ensure that the pension fund is properly administered. In terms of training, Mr. Speaker, we have a program called the transitions program for workers who are 45 years of age and older and the employment adjusted committee will be working with them in terms of helping in the training area as well as working with the federal government to assist the the people who are affected by this. >> New question, the member for Nickelbelt. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the treasurer concerning his perverse tax policies in the province of Ontario. The treasurer will know that uh I think he will know that in Ontario in 1987 using Statscans Canadianwide figures and extrapolating that into Ontario that there were roughly 40,000 corporations in Ontario that had positive income that use tax loopholes and write downs to reduce those profits to zero. And because of that, we believe that there were 11 billion in corporate profits in Ontario in 1987 that were not taxed. Using 1990 figures, that would be up around 15 billion. Will the treasur bring in at least a minimum corporate tax at approximately 1/ half the statutory rate, which is 15.5%, so that we can raise the necessary money to make this a more just society? Mr. Speaker, I think the honorable member is aware that the uh corporations that he's referring to that pay no tax even though they make a profit uh get that uh tax write down or exemption if you want to call it that on the basis that their com their commitments and their their financial expenditures uh align themselves with government taxation policy. and that is their profits are spent in new machinery or some sort of an expansion that's going to be advantageous to the community or they're covered by previous losses. And sometimes uh this gets rather complex when a company buys another company. Company A may be profitable. Company B which they buy may have a loss which might be called a tax loss having to do with its previous experience. And under the law, that loss can be transferable. And it gets a little fancy, gets a little lawyerish. It gets written with accountants. And it's all legal. >> Thank you. >> And probably appropriate. And I got a lot more to say about this. >> Supplementary. >> Why is it appropriate? >> It's not appropriate. >> Why is it appropriate? >> It's not appropriate. >> If you don't have something better than that to say, save it. The Mr. uh [laughter] Mr. Speaker, it's passing strange that the the treasur has all these arguments why he can't do it. The United States has done it. I don't know what the what they've got that you haven't got in terms of wizardry at uh at putting together a package in Ontario that would provide a minimum income minimum corporate >> tax. The will >> the Mr. Speaker, we're talking about lost income approximately of a billion dollars a year. That billion dollars a year would allow you to either reduce your retail sales tax to compensate for the federal GST or to remove every single taxpayer in the province from paying provincial income tax if that taxpayer is living at an income below the poverty level as established by stats. Can will you make a commitment to do that in this budget? pressure. >> Speaker, the honorable member knows if we had a chance to carry on a proper debate at this time rather than in uh uh 45se secondond spasms that the province has uh the province has a capital tax which means that uh we have payments from all corporations whether or not they show a profit. that he might be recommending that the capital tax be increased and that's always something that could be considered, but we feel that it's uh uh reasonably fair and equitable. Uh the honorable member is living up to his tradition as a democratic socialist that whenever there is a problem with meeting the budgetary requirements of the province, he says, "Let the companies pay brackets inco, let the rich pay brackets anybody else." his own income is climbing up there a little bit and he better watch the direction of his recommendations. [laughter] >> Question, the member for Simco East. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. This the Minister of the Environment must know about the city of Aurelia's plan to work with a private company to build a recycling and incineration plant for municipal waste from the greater Toronto area. The city council in Aurelia is enthusiastic about this proposal, but they are not sure of the Ministry of the Environment's position on incineration. They do know it is not to be used for the 50% diversion of waste by the year 2000. Will the Minister tell us if incineration will be allowed to deal with the remaining 50% of the garbage from the greater Toronto area? >> Minister, >> uh this is uh this is uh interesting and first of all, Mr. Speaker, I >> I think no I think I remember the last election >> that the member benefited immensely because there was some kind of proposal to have North Simco garbage go to uh the area which he represents. In other words, Aurelia. And there was a great fight that they should not accept that relatively modest amount of waste coming from there. You're telling me now the city of Aurelia is enthusiastic about having Metro Toronto's garbage go there for the purposes of uh of incineration. That's I just wanted to get that right in my mind first of all. Uh now second second of all the member is quite correct when he member is quite correct when he says that the policy of the ministry of the environment is that we cannot count any disposal method whether that be landfill or that be incineration as part of the 25% reduction by 1992 and the 50% reduction by the year 2000. All uh disposal methods uh come under environmental scrutiny and there would be a hearing of the environmental assessment board and assessment by uh the various ministries of the government of the province of Ontario. So as a disposal method it would have to meet all of the environmental requirements of the province of Ontario. >> Supplementary Mr. Speaker uh Mayor Palmer said the proposal makes the best use of European technology and North American knowhow that I've seen. Mr. Speaker, we understand this is just a proposal right now and we also understand it will go through a full environmental assessment, but what we want to know is this. Is incineration an option that the city of Ria can support to handle the GTA waste that is not recycled in the long term? >> Minister. >> Yes, sir. Uh Mr. Speaker, uh certainly the city of Aurelia or its proponent in this particular case is welcome to make application. Uh I guess the committee that they would go through is Swisk, the solid waste uh committee uh in Metropolitan Toronto, which is uh looking at uh at the requirements of Metropolitan Toronto. And uh certainly uh as a method of disposal, I want to make that clear as a method of disposal that either landfill or incineration if it were environmentally acceptable that is if the environmental assessment board were to rule in favor of such an application uh would be accepted. There have been for instance in in the uh regional municipality of Peele there was a uh a facility which was an energy from waste facility in that case which was approved by the environmental assessment board. They attached some 31 conditions to it, but it was approved and they have a green light to move forward. But you're quite correct and I'm glad the member clarified that it would not be counted as the 25% or the 50% in terms of recycling. >> New question. Member for Missaga East. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Ministry of Health. Minister, all members will know that the government is committed to moving towards a health care system which is less institutionally based and more community-based. Can the minister inform the house whether her ministry's home care program is receiving the necessary financial support from the honorable member one seat removed from her in order to enable it to provide more services in support of people who need it. >> Minister, >> very much Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Missaga East and acknowledge the fact that he represents his constituents well and ensures that I'm aware of their concerns. I'm pleased to tell him that this government is in fact committed to a health system where we have a broad range of services and opportunities for people to have those services not only in the institution but in the community and as technology allows in people's homes as well. An interesting statistic Mr. Speaker, in 198485 the ministry spent $14 million on home care services and that was an increase of just 1.9% over the allocation of the previous government the year before. I would tell him that in 1989 90 this government spent some four $350 million on home care and that was an increase of some 25% over the year before. I would point out to the member opposite that that is over three times the increase in over three times the allocation for home care services which was in place in 198485. >> Supplementary. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker, in light of the long-term care reform initiative which the government has undertaken, can the minister comment on the implications for the home care program specifically and will people still have ready access to the program? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the member knows, not only is our financial commitment clear, but our commitment to improve access for people around the province to home support services. I want him to know that we've taken a number of initiatives to improve access to all services. One in the banning of extra billing as well as the abolition of OHIP premiums specific to home care services. In fact, I believe that long-term care reform will be a significant uh initiative to in fact speed access to appropriate services. What is currently in place today is that anyone wishing to access services, as the member knows and has pointed out to me, they have to contact each one of the service providers to try and find the appropriate services for themselves. Under long-term care, the principle is a single point of access which will give people the information that they need so that they can have the services provided to them in a timely manner. I want to thank the member for his question and I know of his great concern in this area. New question. The member for Tobico Lake Shore. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment concerning the very damning indictment of his stewardship of the Great Lakes that was issued this week by the International Joint Commission. With respect to the UN, the provincial responsibility for the Great Lakes lies with his ministry. >> Order please. Order. >> Order. >> Order. Member for Tobico. >> Mr. Speaker, I take it from that response that the minister is attempting to say that he has no responsibility for the control of toxic discharges into the Great Lakes. That has certainly been our perception for the last four years. Because my question to him is in response to this damning indictment, he of course quoted the municipal industrial strategy for abatement, a program which he announced in June 1986 and a program which called for virtual elimination of toxic discharges to the Great Lakes. Can the minister explain why four years later there is not one single control regulation in place under this MISA program? >> Minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I I I see that the the member for Tobico Lakeakes Shore has made me entirely responsible for all the great lakes. I expect it'll be the St. Lawrence River and the Atlantic Ocean next because it does flow into the Atlantic Ocean. And uh I remind the member first of all I remind the member first of all that of course there are at least eight other states of the United States that discharge directly into those waterways and of course there's the air pollutants that come from all around the world that end up landing in those waterways. But we in Ontario indeed have taken the initiative. You know, the member may have been aware when there was a a forum that was held that was partly in Chicago, partly here in Toronto at the waterfront where there were a number of scientists there who had expressed concerns about the Great Lakes as we have. You know, one of the people there in fact was an independent person of this ministry was extolling the virtues of the municipal industrial strategy for abatement was a person saying that here was one jurisdiction that had an excellent program for dealing with the responsibilities that we have. I remind the member as well that all of the monitoring regulations are out have been promulgated are out there for uh the purpose of of comment. Some of them have are in the process of being implementing looking at over 200 potential contaminants where before all they used to look at were the lumps and the colors and that even with those uh monitoring uh regulations in place that the companies involved are making modific modifications to their plans even before abatement regulations are in place and you get companies such as DAO and Sarnia, Domar and Eastern Ontario both saying that they are now committing financially and otherwise to a closed loop system which will immensely benefit those waterways. In my supplementary, I will elaborate on some of the other measures we're taking here. >> And Mr. Speaker, it's disappointing to hear this minister say that because there are other jurisdictions involved that somehow excuses his lack of action. >> But let me point out, Mr. speaker that is obvious members of the International Joint Commission are very familiar with this minister because if I may quote one sentence in their report they say it is not sufficient to respond to such threats the health threats they point out by reciting a list of existing programs and their merits and that's precisely what this minister does every time we raise the issue >> if in fact he's doing such a great job Mr. Speaker, can he explain why less than a month ago four responsible environmental groups, Greenpeace, Pollution Probe, Great Lakes United, CILA, and CEAP, five of them, had to issue a press release in which they said environmentalists have accused the Ministry of the Environment of collaborating with polluters in resolving key issues as part of the provincial water pollution control program, MISA, and went on to say, "The public will no longer tolerate government compromises on environmental protection. Isn't that precisely what he's just described to us? Compromises with industry instead of virtual elimination of discharges. >> It could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. And if the member would only look at the membership of the Misa Advisory Committee, I can assure you that members of industry were not very happy initially when they saw the list of people on the MISA advisory committee that we set up. well-known environmentalists not only in the province of Ontario but across Canada are members of that particular committee. There would some who are say who would say it's stacked with environmentalists and scientific experts in the field who have fought for environmental reform over the years. They are there to comment on all of these regulations to have input on all of these regulations and I think it I think it it bismerches their their particular reputation to make that kind of charge. Secondly, secondly, this member, and justifiably so, is as anxious as I am to see the program proceed quickly. But what those environmental groups were actually saying is, "Would you please pause now? Would you please slow down the program so that we can have some further input? Not with the people sitting on the MIS advisory committee because even though they belong to environment groups, they don't represent those environment groups on the committee, they said. So I am quite pleased to have them involved in the process. But I don't want the member for Atobbico Lakeshore then to get up in this house and say well you're slowing down the process now because you're allowing these people some input. I'm prepared to allow that input. I really look forward to the member for Atobbico Lakes Shore supporting that particular pause in the action while we undertake that activity. >> Question [applause] to Stormmont Dundas Lengar. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Mr. Minister, you're probably aware that the Minister of Agriculture and Food keeps statistics on farm income. Realize net farm income according to projections for this year is in its third year of decline and total net income for agriculture this year will only be 86% of what it was last year, a 14% reduction. Your bill 68, no fault insurance, proposes to compensate accidental injured farmers at 80% of annual income. What representation has the Minister of Agriculture and Food brought to your attention when you were formulating these rules that we're attempting to deal with in this house? >> Good question, >> Mr. Speaker. In fact, what has happened in our cabinet is that we are highly consultative and in fact in all cases where there are ministers who represent special and very highly regarded segments of our uh of our economy, we go directly and speak with them and in this case nothing different has changed. We recognize the difficulties that agricultural has been experiencing and we saw your earlier uh speech about concern didn't have to be made because the member from uh Brandt Norfolk of course is very much aware of the concern about agriculture. I am as a member from Bruce County also very concerned about farmers and we took a great deal of time to study how our system would compensate farm people. In fact, as the regulations are brought forward, we shall continue to study the uh uh the exact way in which the results of farm income are to be uh put together so that the 80% figure can be arrived at. Uh we have a minimum figure as you already know. I'm sure you're aware of it. Uh you can in your supplementary you can in your supplementary therefore let the people of Ontario know about that minimum number so that you don't leave an impression that you're uninformed. I'll leave you that uh that ability uh Mr. Member and we can deal with the followup question in your >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will, Mr. Minister. You may even want to take a look at at Bruce County farmers and their net income. Why aren't you looking at those kinds of situations? You're forcing agriculture and small business into buying income guarantee insurance. That's what you're doing. Will you as minister table in this house the representations that have been made to you by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food? And why will you not consider gross income instead of net income as the criteria? $185 a week will not buy much replacement. >> Minister, >> um Mr. Speaker, um I had thought that the member from Stormmont Dundas really did know the minimum number which is actually 232. that that's where we started, not the 185. And I'm sorry that he wasn't able to advise the people about that number, but it that that's not that's not the Bane's concern because I know from from my point of view, my relationships with him in the in the context of our discussions here, his concern for agriculture is real. He should then acknowledge that so are my concerns for agriculture and the fact that we will bring forward a program that is reasonable for those those people who are actually on the farm. The member from Sarnia had interjected uh I think he was probably thinking out loud, Mr. Speaker, that they can't afford to pay the prices for insurance. Right now, the people from the farming community are paying the cost of a spiraling auto insurance premium. And what we've brought forward, Mr. Speaker, is a way in which to balance the cost that they will be saddled with for auto insurance premium with the premium or with the benefits they receive. And we have put together a very good way of reimbursing those people for their losses as a result of insurance. >> This completes the time allocated for oral question.