Question Period Rewind - April 18 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. [music] The next item under routine proceedings will be oral questions. The leader of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, the uh the publication in today's Toronto Star of a uh a letter from the Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs to the uh to the premier's own deputy minister is a reminder of uh just how serious the job situation in Northern Ontario has become with the closure of many mines across the north, the closure into Elliot Lake. My question to the premier is this, Mr. Speaker, we uh know, for example, that the uh according to the government's own figures, that the mining tax, for example, generates some $150 million, the mining profits tax, stumpage fees, and other fees generate at least 85 and possibly even more $85 million, Mr. Speaker. And yet, the government's own funds uh in the Northern uh Heritage Fund and the Northern Development Fund uh are worth uh at most $50 million. I want to ask the premier why it would be that every year in the north far more money is being taken out both in terms of stumpage fees and resource taxes whether it's in the forest industry or whether it's in mining far more money is being taken out that is being put back in to deal with the extraordinary changes that are taking place across northern Ontario. Premier >> speaker, my honorable friend may have a mathematical calculation on this that no one else has. And if he has some figures on that, then he should lay them before this house, but he knows what he has said is just does not represent the reality in by any stretch of the imagination. And and you know that and I'm surprised, frankly, you'd put it in that context. You know of the support for roads, you know that obviously there special programs uh Northern Development Program, Northern Heritage Program, and a variety of others. you know the special programs that are going in for uh uh for support municipal infrastructure uh you know the things that have gone into hospital care and a variety of other programs and I can you know the government jobs that are going to northern Ontario where we're trying to take some assist in making the economy less cyclical which it is and there's no question about that so but I think my honorable friend if he wants to present the reality of the situation if would want to present all of the facts at the same time >> supplementary >> Mr. Speaker, the the fact remains that if you if you look at the extent of the problem uh and you look at what the government is doing in terms of change and in terms of job loss, let's take mining as an example. Surely the minister would agree that the money that is that comes out in terms of mining profits that that comes out over a period of time. And yet you look at the assistance that's being provided to a community like Elliot Lake, it doesn't begin to meet it doesn't begin to meet the need. and it certainly doesn't begin to address the size of the problem affecting that community. So my question to the premier is this, why would your northern heritage fund and your northern development funds not be equal at least to the amount of money that you're extracting from the northern economy in terms of stumpage fees, in terms of the mining profits tax, and in terms uh Mr. Speaker, of the uh of the export tax on softwood lumber. Why would the money you're putting back into into those specific areas not at least be equal to the money that you're taking out? >> Premier Speaker, I mean, if you were looking at a calculation of taxes from Northern Ontario, you look at corporate tax, you look at personal tax and retail sales tax, you would look at all of that and then you would look at the monies going back in from a whole variety of programs, be it uh uh medical programs. Well, I I I understand the honorable friend shouting more comes out than goes back. You've never presented any evidence to that effect. And if you have a calculation, that'd be very interesting to hear it. But I think my honorable friend would want to balance those things out. I don't think there's a government, and I think many of my friends from the north would tell you, has ever been more sensitive to some of these particular problems in Northern Ontario. And we are sensitive to them. We've moved to a vast number of jobs there. We're trying to assist in in in a variety of ways. Road building programs, special programs for Northern Ontario. Now, there are special problems in in special areas. We know that. I mean, you're someone who stands up and says, "Don't log anything in tmogamy." And then then you're you're the author of some of the problems there. So, you can't have it both ways. And I think if you're going to present a balanced case, then you'd want to present both sides of this case in this house. >> Final supplementary. >> I don't think uh Mr. speaker that the premier can be taken seriously if he thinks that the government of Ontario is putting back into the northern economy in terms of diversifying it, in terms of providing stability, not short-term cutandrun options, which is a liberal option for Ontario, just as it was the Tory option for 42 years, but an option that provides for stable jobs, renewable jobs, renewable jobs, jobs that are going to be here tomorrow, next year, 5 years, and 10 years down the line. That's the kind of jobs that northerners want. My question specifically to the premier is this. Can he deny the fact that more money is being taken out by the mining profits tax. More money is being taken out in stumpage fees. More money is being taken out in terms of the softwood lumber tax. Put them all together. You're taking a whole lot more out than you're putting into the Northern Development Fund or the Northern Heritage Fund. You can't deny that. >> Mr. Speaker, I didn't I didn't deny that. What I am saying to you, you are taking a completely superficial uh political approach when you want it both ways. On one hand, you say you can't do anything up there. You can't log or mine. The other hand, you say there's this government has done more for Northern Ontario. Look at the jobs that have gone. 1,600 jobs in Northern Ontario. The payroll of uh some 50 to 55 million per year. We have moved to stabilize this in ways you hadn't even thought of. So when my my honorable friend presents a superficial case for whatever his perception of the short-term political events, let me tell you you defy your own credibility. >> Trouble there. [applause] >> New question. The member for Atobbico Lake Shore. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I'd like permission to stand it down until he comes. We understand he is. >> I presume there's agreement with the members of the house. >> Agreed. Then new question, the member for Sarnia. >> Mr. Speaker, uh my question is to the premier and it's with respect to the matter that we raised last week, Mr. Premier, about the alleged abuse that was going on some years ago at St. Joseph's uh home in Alfred. uh these uh series of stories are expanding rather rapidly as others come forward to indicate that they were occupants of that particular home during a time when these situations of abuse uh some of them with connotations that are extremely distasteful occurred and I wonder if the premier and his cabinet have come to a decision as to whether or not an inquiry is in order and will be in fact uh undertaken by the government as it relates to the St. Joseph situation. >> Premier, Mr. Speaker, my honorable friend has raised a question last week and I can tell you that it's been a subject of a great deal of discussion amongst my colleagues. Um I I share the honorable member's concerns as does the government of these events that took place some years ago. Uh question is are they limited to that institution or others as well? Uh that is a legitimate question that has to be addressed. Indeed, uh, one has to put that in the context of our entire system for care for young people today. And can we comfortably give the assurances to moms and dads and parents of that that we're doing everything we can possibly do to prevent this kind of a problem. As my honorable friend is aware, uh, the ministers met with Mr. McCann last week. I met with Mr. McCann last week and I and um, we are responded immediately with uh, counseling and to assist in any way we possibly can. Uh the police upgrade uh investigation has been substantially upgraded. The solicitor general tells me to look into all the suggestions of abuse and allegations of abuse at this time. Obviously, we don't rule any uh inquiry out at the end of the day, but uh at the present time uh the approach is to investigate this with uh with vigor. >> Supplementary. >> I appreciate the response of the premier and it was far more positive than I had hoped for in some respects. Mr. Premier, there are other institutions in addition to St. Joseph's where there are alleged problems and I wonder during the course of uh your discussions with respect to a a possible inquiry if you wouldn't also look at situations like a a lady by the name of Christina Boland who is a a resident of Sudbury and for a period of time was in the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital while she was a ward in that particular institution. I use the name by the way, Mr. Premier, because it is a matter of public information and this case was written up and provided to me by a uh gentleman reporter from the Sudbury area. Uh but there were case there was a situation where there were um reasons to believe there was alleged abuse uh as it related to this particular lady as well in a psychiatric institution. My question to the premier uh Mr. Speaker is this. While you are considering an inquiry into the situation in Alfred, I wonder if the premier might not expand his area of consideration to include other institutions like psychiatric facilities, nursing homes, homes for the aged where there are other situations where we have had brought to our attention situations of abuse. Premier >> the honorable member's uh suggestion and I and I obviously will take in conjunction with the minister's anything any advice he has in this matter very very seriously. Um, as my honorable friend knows, it was just a month or so ago that these allegations of abuse some 25 years ago and reasonable people would ask now how could that happen that we're hearing of these things 25 years after the fact and uh so uh we're looking at that the the all the aspects of that and other allegations that have been come forward and other suggestions have come forward in the last little while. So uh I can tell my honorable friend we'll take all of his suggestions under advisement uh to make sure that to the best the fullest extent of our ability that these kind of situations of abuse are not taking place today. >> Final supplementary >> what concerns me Mr. Premier is that uh we we do have allegations of uh abuse that are emanating out of the St. Joseph's uh institute. We have others in psychiatric facilities. Recently I received a letter from the daughter uh of a lady 81 years of age who um was abused in a particular nursing home and as a result of the assault that occurred in that nursing home uh I am sorry to say that that particular 81-year-old lady has subsequently died. Now there is another situation where it occurred in a different type of facility but where abuse is again a matter I think that should be of paramount concern to government. I appeal to the premier that since we have a rather substantial number of these cases which are across a broad spectrum of of areas of government concern like psychiatric institutions like nursing homes, homes for the aged homes for delinquent children and so forth. Would the premier consider expanding any terms of reference of a potential inquiry to look at all of these areas and to make sure that our citizens who are extremely vulnerable in these institutions are given proper care and protection? Premier >> mentions a number of specific questions and and I would hope that the honorable member has reported those immediately to the OP and to the [clears throat] special unit that's investigating those kind of situations because when when there's when there's allegations of criminality and of abuse that has to be tracked down. There's no question about that. And I I know my honorable friend uh would take seriously his responsibilities in that regard. I I uh obviously whenever I hear of these situations of abuse in any institution or for that matter outside of an institution, my honorable friend will be aware that that happens as well. And uh we have to look at the the kind of laws we have in this province to protect uh vulnerable people be they young or old be they institutionalized or non-institutionalized. And uh certainly uh um we are trying to uh respond to this as sensibly and as quickly as we possibly can and to serve the public interest to make make sure that all of our citizens are safe. >> I I note that the Minister of the Environment has responded to the call from the member for Atobbico Lakeshore. So I'll recognize the member for Atobbico Lakeshore. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when this Minister of the Environment took office, 50% of the soft drinks in the province were sold in reusable, refillable containers. One of his earliest acts was to cave into the soft drink industry and agree that only 30% of the soft drink sales had to be in reusable containers in exchange for industry participating in the blue box system. The number of charges laid and convictions obtained by his ministry in the interim indicate that industry was not living up to his part of the bargain. We understand now, Mr. Speaker, that the recycling advisory council has made a recommendation to the minister that he make another deal with the soft drink industry and that he reinterpret the regulation. Can the minister confirm that he has agreed in principle that he will lay no further charges under this regulation because the industry has shown evidence that it is living up to both the letter and the spirit of its responsibilities. >> Minister, >> well, Mr. Mr. Speaker, indeed I have received from the recycling advisory committee of the province of Ontario, which as you know includes uh representatives from municipalities and from environment groups and representatives of the various components of the industry. I have received a unanimous recommendation from them that the emphasis be shift from actual sales to the availability to the consumer of uh refillable and non-refillables in terms of that ratio. Uh the member would recognize that there was not a request that either the legislation or the regulation be modified, but they did make this recommendation based on the facts that the blue box program in the province of Ontario has been exceedingly beneficial, has been exceedingly successful indeed, that there are some 1.8 million households in the province of Ontario now involved in the blue box program. and that while others in other jurisdictions have tried different methods to uh divert waste from what [clears throat] would go to normally to uh either a landfill or an incinerator that in fact they're coming to the province of Ontario to look at what we have done because we've been most successful in diverting that household waste in that instead of the approximately 1% which is contributed by the soft drink containers to the waist stream we have through the blue box program the engine of which is uh the soft drink container. >> Thank you. >> Supplementary. >> Is it recyclable? >> Mr. Speaker, before this minister took office, he believed in a hierarchy of waste reduction, of reducing, of reusing, and then recycling. In fact, representatives of all parties in this legislature last December supported a motion of mine, reaffirming their commitment to that hierarchy and calling upon the minister to reduce waste. If there's any easy way to reduce waste, it's to require people to use reusable soft drink containers. One study has shown that only 6.3% of those that could be recycled are in fact recycled. How on earth, Mr. Speaker, can the minister justify this latest cave in to the industry and the fact that he's prepared to put all the responsibility on the consumers and not on the market on the um producers of the waste? >> I thought he also agreed in making the producers and the polluters pay. Now he's saying it's our fault because we're not buying reusable containers. >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, of course, what the member forgets in this whole matter is that there will still be uh a requirement for instance in terms of advertising that the soft drink industries must advertise must advertise equally must advertise equally both non-refillables and refillables. Second, that they must continue to stock on their shelves both refillables and non-refillables so that they're available to the consumers. She forgets as well that the pricing system will mean that on the average there will be a 30 on the average across a year 30% lower price for those uh drinks that are sold in fact in refillables instead of non-refillables. Then in fact they must maintain their production capabilities so that they can supply to the consumers of the province of Ontario. And she would know, Mr. speaker, she would know if consumers in the province of Ontario, as they indicate in many areas, wish to purchase one product over another. For instance, that 100% of the uh products that are sold in terms of soft drinks could in fact be uh in in refillables rather than non-refillables if that were the choice of the people. But she must recognize, Mr. speaker that the recycling advisory committee obviously believes that the best way to capture the most waste and divert it from either landfall or incinerators is in fact using the >> Thank you. >> Final supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that members of the house understand that what the minister is saying is we're not going to regulate, we're not going to monitor, we're not going to prosecute. It's the choice of the people. It's the choice of the people to gobble up prime farmland and live around metropolitan Toronto. Is that why we have no food land policy guidelines in this province? It's the choice of the lumber mills to lumber old growth forests. That's what the market might dictate. Is that why we're logging? And this minister is now saying it's the choice of the people to use non-refillable containers and therefore we won't regulate the industry. Does he not realize that this is a complete abdication of his responsibility to protect the environment and reduce [applause] waste? Mr. Speaker, >> Minister, well, Mr. Speaker, what the what the member for Tobico Lakeshore refuses to understand or refuses to recognize at least is the fact is the fact that we have in the province of Ontario a system which in terms of household garbage diverts some 14% of that which would normally go to an incinerator or would go to a landfill in the province of Ontario. and that in fact the engine for this what is making it work is indeed the soft drink container which is in that blue box. Why I ask the member are people coming from all over North America to look at the system that we have in effect which has 1.8 million households which has the broad support of people right across this province. Why are people from the European uh economic uh community now coming to look at what we are doing in North America in terms of our blue box system and in terms of our Omry system where the private sector has added to the $20 million it already gave $45 million additional to promote recycling in this province and where we're going to see even more of that happening. It is what we have in the province of ONIP. [applause] >> New question. The member for Sarnia. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question again to the premier. Mr. Premier, back uh prior to the 1987 election, there was a very substantial announcement uh made by your government to the effect that you would be uh you would be uh investing some $850 million in hospital beds, health services in the province of Ontario and that that would amount to some 4,400 beds. Now, I realize that that promise has been withdrawn or changed or altered very substantially. There are people, Mr. premier who are extremely angry that the government has led them up the garden path with respect to hospital construction and I say that because Mr. Premier areas like Ajax Pickering have raised $7 million they're required onethird of the money and they have received absolutely no word from the government with respect to what has happened to what they consider to be a very firm promise. These petitions you see before you, thousands of them are from the Ajax Pickering area saying, "Are you going to build the hospital you promised to build before the last election?" They would like to know from you, Mr. Premier, are you going to keep the promise? >> Premier keep the promise. And I tell my honorable friend, that uh uh all those commitments still stand and indeed are uh exceeded. uh just some discussions are going on in various communities mostly appropriate kind of care for the future working along with community based care as well and uh I I don't think that you have any reason to despair >> supplementary >> well >> I'm glad you don't think I have any reason to despair I am uh feeling quite badly about the efforts that have been put forward on a local level by these individuals who have literally raised Mr. premier millions of dollars >> which was the formula that you put in place and your ministry and staff put in place in order to proceed with the construction of these facilities. Now you have announced in the Ajax Pickering area this new community called Seatin which is going to require some additional infrastructure. The hospital that would be most likely to support the needs the health needs of the people in this new community would be Ajax Pickering. Are you prepared to make a commitment today that Ajax Pickering will receive the money that they require to build the additional chronic care beds that they have requested and that you will meet the commitment that you made, >> Premier? We will respond to the needs of that community and there's no question that we understand that the needs of a new and expanding community in in Satan and we're determined to have the best infrastructure available for those people and my honorable friend knows the discussions that are going on with a number of communities with respect to the very best kind of uh uh community and chronic care for the future. As you know there's a new emphasis on home care uh as well community- based medicine. My honorable friend will know that we are I think in Ontario the most institutionalized uh uh uh society I think in the world and uh we are there's new approaches being looked at but every every community will will have its needs responded to all the communities >> final you say today that we are the most institutionalized province or or region in the entire world and I presume by that you mean that we have more available health bed more a available hospital beds per capita and there May be some truth in that. I did not make the commitment for 4,400 beds in 1986. You did. On the strength of that commitment, hospitals in Sarnia, in London, in Windsor, in Aurelia, in Ajax Pickering, in St. Catherine's in areas right across this province have proceeded to have bake sales, bottle drives to to to elicit to solicit direct donations from individuals in order to support their part of the commitment. Now, Mr. Premier, what is being said to them is discussions are going on. Well, they were of the opinion that those discussions had come to a bit of an end and had been concluded satisfactorily and that the commitment was made by your government to proceed with the construction. >> What time frame can you give Ajax Pickering or St. Catherine's General or other hospitals that have raised money locally before they're going to get the money to proceed with the construction that they require? Premier, >> I can't respond to the specific uh question with respect to a specific hospital, but I can certainly happy uh to respond in general. That financial commitment stands and indeed has been exceeded. There's far more than that. We understand we well I can tell my honorable friend that you're just getting excited about about things that aren't correct. Uh we recognize the changes of demographics. We recognize the changing emphasis on home care. uh we recognize some of the uh the the changing community needs and we are very comfortable respond to that in a in a in a very thoughtful way not just for now but in the future as well and I can tell my honorable friend we're working with those communities and I think they understand uh this approach >> new question the member for Nickelb >> thank you Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the treasur of the province of Ontario. >> The treasurer said yesterday that he believes the taxpayers everywhere are sick and tired of having uh one level of government pass responsibilities to another level of government and makes it make the taxpayers pay there. >> Well, I happen to in this case agree with the treasur in that regard. And I know as well that the taxpayers in Brandt County agree with the treasur since last year they had a 14% increase in property taxes and this year they're going to have one of around u 9%. In 19 19 1990 the officials uh officials at the at Brand County tell us that the reason for that is strictly provincial government initiatives. Y >> could the treasurer tell us since he understands how taxpayers are sick and tired of this going on why he continues to pass off costs to the municipalities who could least afford it? [applause] >> Treasurer the um I'm I very much impressed with the abilities of the elected officials and financial officers in Brandt County to improve their situation and I think the honorable member would join with me in extending congratulations to them. They're all good friends of mine. that that doesn't necessarily mean that they're all liberal, but I assure you none of them are NDP. [laughter] But the uh the uh I think the I think the honorable member would also be aware that on an average since 1985 we have in increased the allocations to municipalities by 9%. It's 9% per year and I know that uh I know that the municipalities have been have been doing their best to control their costs but as these costs go above that naturally they have to turn to their own rate payers to find the funds that are required and uh we think that they have done a reasonably good job at that they feel that we are not giving them enough money and I can understand that feeling. I've been known to criticize the senior level of government for not giving us enough money and I don't want to do that anymore. [laughter] >> Supplementary. >> Well, we'll uh we'll we'll see next we'll see next Tuesday how serious you are about that. The perhaps we could perhaps could perhaps we could turn to the uh to the city of Brford rather than the county brand county. Some new Democrats there. There are >> Yes, there are lots of new Democrats in the city of Brford. There's a property tax one less >> the many we get some elect. >> Yes, it is indeed the uh the property tax uh payers in the city of Brford are having an increase this year in property taxes of 8.2%. And the reason that that is 8.2% which is above the rate of inflation I'm sure you know uh because of the unconditional grants that were that were frozen for the last two years. Okay. The health payroll tax tax which is costing an additional $150,000 pay equity $300,000 and court security $60,000 plus a a wide array of other costs primarily caused by by this treasure. The treasur knows that property taxes are unfair and hit low and middle income earners the hardest. Will he assure us? Will he assure us that in his budget next Tuesday, there will be no provincial initiatives that will pass on the costs of these initiatives to the property taxpayer at the municipal level? >> Treasurer. >> Mr. Speaker, it's uh it's a fortunate coincidence, I suppose, that the tax increase the honorable member reports from Brford is identical with the increase that we're passing on from the provincial treasury on the overall basis, 8.2%. It's uh almost uh almost magical. But this this of course does not mean this of course does not mean that the local taxpayers are not going to have to dig deeper for the programs not only that are required on a general basis across the province but those that uh are designed specially to benefit the city of of Brford that we think Brford particularly is a case that is uh particularly appropriate to choose because it's one of the most progressive municipalities in Ontario that uh they have been able to uh control and and direct their growth in an exceptionally fine way. And my colleague, the honorable member from Brford uh was really the author of setting that city uh on this direction and toward these goals for which uh the the local rateayers have shown their appreciation by supporting him strongly at the most recent election. >> New question, the member for Leeds Grenville. >> Um thank you, Mr. Speaker, >> in the uh in the absence of the Minister of Health, I'd like to direct this question to the Attorney General and hopefully he will be familiar with the topic. He may be aware that Mr. John Finley uh is going to be appearing before the Lieutenant Governor's Board of Review next week, April 27th, in respect to a placement of that individual. He uh a number of years ago was found responsible for the sexual assault, murder, and mutilation of a young Toronto boy. Subsequent to that, he was released into the community and uh committed another violent act, found not guilty by a reason of insanity once again. And now this hearing is taking place next week. The mother of young Kirk Diesley, Caroline Diesley, has asked to have the opportunity to appear before the review board and uh give testimony and respect to her concerns about Mr. Finley and the possible future release of that gentleman once again into the community. Does your ministry have a position on this sort of intervention on the part of victims? >> Attorney General, >> as the honorable member knows, the Lieutenant Governor's Warren's board is chaired by the honorable Mr. Justice Kalen of the Supreme Court of Ontario and has vice chairman, including a number of other Supreme and District Court judges in the province of Ontario. It's not a board within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Attorney General, but as the honorable member noted is within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health, and the honorable member can be certain I'll bring his concern and the concern of his constituent to my colleague as promptly as I can. >> Supplementary. >> Well, I appreciate that response, Mr. Speaker. I I simply want to say that when Justice Kalen was contacted some time ago in respect to this by members of the media, Justice Kalen indicated I don't want to hear any of that emotional stuff. I don't think it's helpful to the process. Um again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the attorney general's views in respect to this sort of impact statement being made before the review board process. We're talking about a board that makes decisions to release individuals like Mr. Finley into the community. And in this instance and many others that we're aware of, uh, criminal acts have once again been committed against the citizens of this province. I think it's important that perhaps through your Minister of Health, but certainly your government, you take a strong stand in support of individuals like Mrs. Dasley having an opportunity to be heard. These gentlemen of the review board are releasing these chaps into the community. They should be responsible. They should have uh have those witnesses appearing before them so they can very in a very real sense understand the impact in those families. >> Attorney General, >> as the honorable member knows, the uh the board is regulated among other things by the provisions of the criminal code and I'm sure every member in the house wants the board to operate as effectively and as fairly in the public interest as it possibly can. That's why the government has gone to the trouble to make sure that it is chaired by a senior justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario. A very great experience. I understand the honorable member's concern. I must take them at face value because I've not heard the comment uh that he has assigned to Mr. Justice Kalan and I will ask the Minister of Health to make an inquiry about the matter. >> New question. The member for Simco Center. >> Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the uh Minister of Community and Social Services. Uh I have asked and raised this question on previous occasions in this house and uh so far as I can tell uh nothing has been done. I have been told that there are over 20,000 refugees within the province of Ontario who are not allowed by the federal government to work and who must therefore be assisted by the provincial taxpayers. I hear the costs can be in excess of $100 million annually to this province. And yet when you talk to each of these refugees, as I have done, you realize that they are desperately wanting to work. They desperately want to support themselves and they desperately want to support their families. My question to the minister, does the minister have any up-to-date figures as to the number of these refugees in this province and the cost that it is uh meaning for the taxpayers of this province? >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh my honorable colleague raises an issue which is once again of some concern to the province and indeed not only to my ministry and our government uh but indeed to a number of municipalities. Uh in fact yesterday I met with the regional chairman of Peele and a number of his officials to discuss some of the concerns they have around uh uh the increasing number of refugees in refugee claimments in their municipality and the cost to them. Uh I've also had an opportunity to discuss that with metropolitan Toronto and know that Ottawa and Hamilton and others have raised concerns. The honorable member might be interested to know that uh in February of 1989, there were some 21,000 uh refugee claimments on the general welfare assistance uh uh roles. Uh some changes were made uh subsequent to February of a year ago. Uh but today the figure is uh over 15,000 and is beginning to climb again. And of those 15,000 there approximately 12,700 in metropolitan Toronto. uh and that number is growing by some 600 cases a month. It was for this reason that the end of March I wrote to uh the federal minister Barbara McDougall uh and suggested to her in the strongest terms that it was time that the federal government assumed the financial responsibility for the refugee claimants uh in Ontario >> supplementary. >> Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know that other provinces such as Quebec and Newfoundland are also carrying a heavy burden in this uh problem as we are. Uh and I'm also told that the federal immigration system is not waging a very effective battle in eliminating or even reducing the number of refugee cases. And I wonder if it would be possible to give an ultimatum to the federal government that they either allow the work permits or that they pick up the tab for the problems which they are causing by their policies or that they provide us with the opportunities for work at either the federal or the municipal or provincial projects. Something has to be done because it is unfair in the present situation. >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Mr. Speaker, we have looked at a number of options to see what we as a province can do. But as the honorable member knows, the responsibility for the refugee claims, the legal responsibility rests with the federal government. Uh we also know that the vast vast majority of refugee claimants want nothing better than to uh get uh uh accepted into the country as refugees and to become full members of the society. And indeed we see when they are given refugee status that that is precisely what they do. Uh I have said to the municipalities with whom I've been meeting and discussing this issue uh that I would expect a response from Miss McDougall very shortly and at that time uh or if we don't uh we are going to move uh in a very aggressive fashion in conjunction with the municipalities most affected uh to get the federal government to accept its responsibilities in this regard. a number of approaches that have been suggested, they have uh said no or they have canceled other approaches that provided financial help. Uh but the actual dollars now uh when we look at it is uh last year over $112 million in Ontario. We're projecting for this coming year 128 million. But if the situation continues to deteriorate, that figure will of course go up and it's time the federal government took some action. >> Thank you. New question, the member for Hamilton West. >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister of Community and Social Services, I want to acquaint the Minister with some ripple effects of the unfortunate funding and policy responses the government has made to children's mental health centers. And I refer to the Earles Court Children and Family Services, which has recently had to reduce its catchment area, which which it has served in central Toronto, broadly speaking, and which has had to lay off three of its workers, and now has to close down as a result of funding constraints, a reception class for transient children exposed to family violence who come from the four uh interval and transition houses in the area of Hiron Street School, the annex as it's called. The minister will be aware of the not only the social problems but the academic problems faced by children in those emotionally difficult circumstances. And yet, as a result of funding constraints, Earls Court has had to give notice that at the end of this school year, that reception class unique in this country, described as a very valuable experiment in Canada's mental health, will have to close. Why is the minister standing by and letting that happen? >> Minister, >> thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Speaker, uh, our colleague, the honorable member from St. Andrew St. Patrick has also raised that specific issue uh, with me regarding the uh, [clears throat] transition class. Uh, and I think as as you have noted uh, Earls Court has done some extremely innovative work uh, in a number of areas uh, dealing with this and other issues. It is my understanding that that program at the present time has been transferred to another uh school. One of the issues that has come out of that is given the uh uh the effectiveness of the program at Hurine uh is there some way in which in fact uh it could be continued there as well as uh uh continued at another center. uh as the honorable member mentions uh we have had some uh funding uh problems uh in in the broad area but we are looking to see uh what we might be able to do in that regard. I would underline though that the decision to move the program as I understand it was made by Earls Court and that that program is continuing. I think the issue is to see uh whether or not it could continue as well at the Huron location in Toronto >> supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, the program itself is not transferable. It's not being displaced into another school. What you have is another school with a set of transient children of a slightly different character, but also high risk who will be served at the Lord Duffren School as distinct from the Huron school. The problem there is and the tragedy is that in point of fact I'm told by Earl's court that if there is not more top up funding to meet pay equity needs in the Earls Court situation that that program will never open at all. So instead of having uh two risks high-risk children's groups being served in at least one location, we will have neither of them served in either location and the program will be totally gone. Uh so Mr. Minister, it's a very serious situation needs to be addressed in the next couple of months and I hope you'll find a way to do that. What do you plan to do, >> Minister? >> Yes, uh Mr. Speaker, we do take it very seriously and in fact one of the reasons that we move to uh uh increase the percentage increase for the uh all of the transfer payment agencies in the Ministry of Community and Social Services was in fact because of various pressing needs that they had and we hope that that move to 5 a.5% will be helpful in this regard as well. But we are mindful of the particular nature of that program. I have directed that we look very carefully at it. Indeed, we are doing that uh to see how we can in fact meet the needs of uh of those two programs and uh I believe that working with them that we'll be able to find a way uh to resolve this situation. >> New question, the member for Perry Sound. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the premier. The premier will be aware, I'm sure, of an external report uh done in late February of 1990 with respect to cardiovascular services at the hospital for sick children here in Toronto. He will also, I'm sure, be aware of the fact that the report, which is an independent review team headed by Dr. Serno of St. Mike's, concludes that the crux of the matter is the inability of the hospital to retain recruited critical care nurses. The nursing department has done everything that is possible internally to deal with the issue of retention within those areas. What does the province plan to do to assist the hospital for sick children in this regard? Mr. Premier, >> Premier, >> Mr. Speaker, I I wish I could respond in more detail to my honorable friend's question. It's a fair question and the minister is not here and I'm sure that he could assist him more on the specific uh details of that question but there's no question that uh that is a problem particularly for the downtown hospitals in Toronto which has a high percentage of the medical care based here as my honorable friend knows and uh uh it's it's a problem in a number of areas getting technical staff mind you it is an international problem as my honorable friend knows as well and I've talked to a number of health professionals who tell me that. Now, with respect to the specific question my honorable friend uh raises, uh I'm sorry I don't have the specific answer, but I will refer I'll discuss it with the minister. >> Supplementary. >> Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can help the premier out somewhat. Last Thursday, I did ask the Minister of Health this very question because the first recommendation in this report is a is a submission uh to the Minister of Health which was made about four weeks ago now requesting some $8 million in additional funding to address this very particular problem of critical care nursing shortage at the hospital for sick children. The minister in her response to assist the premier uh relayed some initiatives that she's taken about nursing generally in the province. She relayed the information that the treasur has given her about additional funding to hospitals but did not specifically address this particular problem and this particular request for which an answer was requested by the hospital I might add by last Thursday which is why I asked the question on that date. Can we get a commitment out of the premier today that he will direct the minister of health to seriously look at the hospital for sick children's proposal and respond in a positive manner so that these children aren't on the waiting list for 16 weeks on average and don't have to go as two children did recently to Minneapolis and to other states for treatment. >> Premier speaker, I'll obviously tell my the minister of my honorable friend's concern. And again, I apologize. I can't tell you the details. >> New question, the member for Oxford. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Housing. Affordable housing is a problem in Ontario, Mr. Minister, and I wondered government land is made available from time to time in the province for the purpose of development. Considering the need for affordable housing, can the minister update the members of this house on the policy relating to the lease or sale of government land for affordable housing? >> Minister Well, Mr. Speaker, as my uh colleague uh knows, the Minister of Government Services is responsible for the land holdings of the government, and a decision was made uh by this government that any lands that were surplus to the needs of other ministries would be made available for housing first. And uh we have over the last little while in fact put a number of pieces of government land on the market. Uh, as the uh, member will recall, last December, I think it was, I explained a situation in Stony Creek. Uh, the member may also be aware of the fact that, uh, we do make government land available for nonprofit housing corporations. And up until this point, we have we have sold them that land and incorporated that cost into our uh, into our payments. Uh we have decided however that from now on whenever we make uh government land available for nonprofit housing uh that in fact it will be by lease. Uh with respect to making land available to the general population, we have uh indicated uh that we are quite prepared to make it available either for lease or for sale uh whichever is in the best interest and produces the lowest cost housing for the people who wish to buy it. >> Supplementary. Mr. speaker. Uh can the minister advise the House of the timetable for releasing government land for housing? >> Well, Mr. Speaker, uh we plan in this calendar year of 1990 uh to have about six or seven fairly large uh uh land holdings released to the uh for housing. You will recall that just earlier uh this year as a matter of fact about a month ago I announced the Satan project which involves about uh 7,000 acres of government land. We are currently negotiating with Markham uh for about uh 500 acres of government land which would produce about 15 uh housing for about 15,000 people. We are negotiating in Windsor right now for u uh for government land. We're negotiating in Bowmanville. uh we're negotiating in uh Kitchener Waterlue and in Oakville I believe those are the ones that come to my attention over the next couple of years there are about 20 sites that we will be making available for either uh sale or lease or lease to buy and uh it is our goal to put them make them available to the public in the way that will produce the lowest cost housing for the most number of people. >> New question the member for Tobico Lakeshore. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation. Earlier this month, the Minister announced his $5 billion package for public transit in Metropolitan Toronto. A plan that was welcomed by the municipalities, welcomed by the opposition parties in this house. But at that time, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out the glaring omission of any commitment to making those new transit systems fully accessible to the disabled. Can the minister explain that emission? And could he give us some commitment given that it is so much cheaper to make a system accessible when you're first building it rather than retrofitting it that he will in fact provide the funding to allow those new systems to be used by all the people of the metropolitan Toronto area. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I'm well aware of the fact that this is a very important issue which uh to which there has been considerable discussion and attention throughout the GTA. been as the honorable member knows a number of reports uh prepared uh um not the by the Toronto Transit Commission itself. I can tell the honorable member uh that while the discussions continue and indeed while our while our u our progress on this issue continues and it has seen a budget which has grown by leaps and bounds and a uh and a commitment to transportation for the disabled which has grown very very quickly. I think there are now over 90 communities which are affected and nevertheless elicit the issue of accessibility is an important one and uh we have indicated that in the building of new stations in making provisions for the expansion of the civision uh of the uh of the system that provision for um for accessibility uh will be contained within >> here >> supplementary. >> I welcome that commitment Mr. speaker and I want to um ask the minister more specifically in March Metro Council um passed a resolution endorsing a 10-year plan to make their system retrofittedly accessible. Um the plan was called choices for the future. Can the minister tell us whether he has met with Metropolitan Toronto around these proposals and whether he is prepared to support the 10-year plan that would make the existing TTC system more accessible? Minister. >> U Mr. Speaker, I can say to the honorable member and uh to my colleagues that uh this government has been proceeding with a whole range of options and certainly public transit is is one of them not just for the disabled but for the frail elderly and uh in that regard such issues as kneeling buses and and others are are issues which we're move moving on immediately. I am aware of the uh of the latest uh proposals from from Metro Council. I haven't had an opportunity to review them uh with the leadership with Chairman Tons and the leadership of Metro Council yet. Uh obviously, as the member knows since she alluded to it in the preamble to her first question, there have been a number of other very central issues we have been dealing with, but this is a very very important issue and I expect to have these discussions uh with Metro Council and to see how working together we can make progress on this issue in the years to come. >> New question, the member for Missaga South. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of the Environment. >> Um, Mr. Speaker, we are aware that the government announced last summer the new tire tax. We're also aware that it's up to in excess of $40 million at this point. We had the excitement of the announcement of the program, of course, following the fire at Hagersville. The announcement for the program was approximately between 13 and $16 million. So, Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this. That would probably leave a balance of maybe $25 million, Mr. Minister, that is yet unaccounted for from last year's accumulation on tire tax. Would you like to tell this house what you're doing with the money that you're collecting under the pretense of tire tax for environmental programs? >> Minister, >> member knows uh Mr. speaker and all jurisdictions of this kind all money which is collected as a tax goes into the consolidated revenue fund to be distributed as sees fit. That is uh true in any province in Canada that's true of the federal government that's true in the province of Ontario. But the uh what the treasurer announced if you if you look at uh at what the treasurer announced in his last budget, he announced that he announced that such uh funds would be used for the purposes of recycling in the province of Ontario. And indeed, the member would know that the recycling commitment in the province of Ontario this year is approximately $55 million. >> Supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only assume since the minister's just told us that that money is going into the black hole that there aren't any more programs that he's announcing with that amount of dollars. >> Um, Mr. Minister, I know you're aware of the fact that St. Lawrence Cement are advocating tire incineration. In fact, the general manager of St. Lawrence Cement has been on the journal talking about burning tires at his plant. I would like to know from you whether tire incineration is a program that you're going to advocate and do you support St. Lawrence Cement's in interest in burning tires and if so will you encourage them in spite of the fact that they're out of compliance with their current operation in the manufacturing of cement and now have a control order issued against them. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the member is advocating that uh St. Lawrence cement be permitted to uh to burn tires or not? I I'm sorry. I I didn't Was that the question? >> Oh, I see. You're you're not saying what you're you're not saying whether you're advocating that. I just wondering about that because uh because when I uh when I have uh read uh I have had advice from various members of her party and that advice isn't always the same depending on where it's coming from. So, I wondered about that. Mr. Speaker, uh as you know, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis which we in the Ministry of the Environment have placed uh is on the recycling efforts that all of the recycling efforts that we can bring forward. Anybody who has any other solutions is welcome to bring those solutions forward. They must be proceeded with an environmentally desirable manner. They must go through the approval process. But anyone who has any uh ideas which would be useful in terms of dealing with this matter are most welcome to bring those to the attention of uh of uh the government of Ontario of the ministry of the environment. We would evaluate them on the basis of uh all the environmental criteria that are set up and uh make a determination at that point in time. >> You question the member for Windsor Walkerville. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. I too have a question for the Minister of the Environment and it concerns the Detroit Incinerator which is a matter of considerable importance to the people of Windsor and Essex County. The minister will know that this is the largest incinerator in North America and perhaps in the world which has been permitted to be constructed and operate without the best available technology. I understand that there has been a recent development with respect to this incinerator before the Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission. Could the minister please bring the House up to date on this matter? >> I certainly can, Mr. Speaker. The member for Windsor Walkerville along with the member for Windsor Sandwich have brought this matter to my attention on a number of occasions and I must say I think if my memory is correct because we were both in Windsor at the time and the member was receiving an award from the Clean Water Alliance at the time for his initiative in being the first person to appear before the uh the uh Michigan uh poll air pollution control commission and he was instrumental in in bringing forward a resolution at city council uh to oppose the incinerator. without the appropriate uh equipment. Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that we s we filed a suit to force the operators of the incinerator to place what we refer to as state-of-the-art pollution control equipment on this new incinerator. We felt uh then as we do now in 1990 that a model T incinerator is not acceptable. That is an incinerator with less than the best available pollution control technology. And our suit, I'm pleased to report to the member, has survived several challenges uh by authorities on the other side of the river. Yesterday evening, the Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission voted, and I'm happy about this, to 6 to 4 to deny the incinerator an operating permit on the grounds that it was emitting too much air pollution. And we applaud this decision in the province of Ontario. And I understand that the incinerator is shut down at this time. >> Supplement order. >> Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, could the uh could the minister uh advise the House of the impact of this decision upon the future conduct of your continuing lawsuits in Michigan courts? Uh decisions of the Air Pollution Control Commission can obviously be appealed. Uh what impact will that have on your legal actions in the Michigan courts? >> Minister, >> the member is quite right, Mr. Speaker. one decision of a board does not necessarily do do the job and we recognize that uh there is the possibility of the city of Detroit and the operating company in this case appealing this particular decision. That is why we intend to continue to press our case, which I believe will ultimately we will win because I think it's a good case we're putting forward to get the people who run the Detroit incinerator to do the right thing and to spend the necessary money to ensure that the best pollution control equipment is on it and that they can eliminate unnecessary pollution that might be created by this particular uh facility. It has been a long fight. it will continue in the courts even though we have this favorable decision which we think is a good decision and it's as a result of a number of people who have who have uh complained and we took the initiative as a ministry we were criticized at the time by some who said we shouldn't be involved in the American courts we felt on behalf of the people in Essex County on behalf of the people in Windsor that it was our responsibility to do that and that is why Mr. Speaker, we undertook this action which we will continue to pursue in the courts in the United States. [applause] >> I I I appreciate the assistance of all members, but I have found that often sometimes it seems to go a little longer when other people are speaking. New question, the member for Sudbury East. >> Mr. Speaker, in the short time remaining, I have a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities concerning funding for dental hygiene programs. He will know that two years ago Niagara College had to terminate its dental hygiene program because of the high costs in delivering it. He would also know that Cambrian College announced some months ago that the suspension of its program because of the high cost of delivery. At the same time, a task force within his ministry was put together to study all college programs and particular highcost programs. I am advised that that particular committee recommended a substantial increase in the waiting of dental hygiene programs across the province so that his money would flow his ministry would flow more money to those colleges in order to allow them to deliver it. I'm also advised that that report has been sitting on his desk for several weeks now. Uh Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this. if he would make some kind of announcement today about increased funding to those colleges. I am sure that colleges like Cambridge would continue to pick up the costs in order to continue the program. Will he give us that commitment today? >> Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, I thank my honorable friend from Sudbury East for raising this this matter. It is true that at the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, we have been reviewing uh a number of the formula, but I can tell her that I'm not prepared uh to give her the kind of response uh uh to her particular question in that connection today. Though I could observe that Cambrian has received uh uh a rather generous uh increase in overall allocations uh this year over last. that I would also observe as I know she and the member from Nickel Belt would want me to observe that matters of the management of those resources at a particular college fall within the purview of the board of governors and the management team at the particular institution and neither the member from Sudbury East nor from Nickel Belt would want me as the Toronto-based minister intruding upon the management uh rights of the local board or the local management team. But I do repeat that Cambrian has enjoyed a significant increase in funding this year over last. >> Here, here. >> That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.