Question Period Rewind - April 3 1990

Hi everyone, welcome to Question Period Rewind. I'm Donna Skellyy, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Let's take a look at 1990. A lot of iconic TV shows and movies were being released. Home Alone was number one at the box office. The first Law and Order premiered on NBC. And across the pond, the TV cooking show Master Chef first airs in the UK. But here at home, our MPPPs had other issues to deal with. >> Oral questions. Leader of the opposition Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the treasurer. Mr. Speaker, I asked the treasurer some questions back in November. I wonder if he will recall November the 15th and November the 16th. I specifically asked him certain questions with respect to the relationship between uh the uh goods and services tax being imposed by Ottawa uh and the sales tax that is uh uh being uh a longstanding source of provincial revenues. Mr. Speaker, when I suggested to the treasurer that uh under the uh the Ontario budget uh that there was in fact uh an incredible amount of money that was going to be taxed under the GST that would not be covered by the sales tax. The treasurer very explicitly told me he said uh that uh it is not our policy to tax those things. And when I began to raise questions about the possibility of harmonizing the GST and the sales tax, he said very explicitly that I was tilting at windmills and that there was no such plan by the government. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the treasurer can tell me uh if uh first of all, if that is still the case, that is is the government planning or contemplating any change in the base of the sales tax. And second, can he explain why Mr. Martin Goldfarb's organization is apparently asking citizens of this province how they would feel about a reduction of the sales tax from 8% to 6% and a very serious expansion of the base of the sales tax to make it similar to the GST >> treasurer. Mr. Speaker, the government certainly the treasurer and the treasury is not contemplating a change in the sales tax. And how come he how come he asked two questions under the under the one order? But since you've said that's in order, I really don't know why Mr. Goldfarb is conducting this investigation. Probably somebody has hired him to do it. >> Supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, uh I have uh like you, I don't know who Mr. Goldfarb is doing the poll for, except to say that uh it's a matter of record that Mr. Goldarb is a pollster for the Liberal Party of Ontario, that he also does a lot of polling for the government of Ontario, that he does a lot of polling for a variety of ministries. I don't know that. What I do know, the information that we have is that specific questions with respect to the relationship between the sales tax and the GST have been asked and that they relate very explicitly to the fact that on page 101 of your last budget in terms of the papers, you yourself establish just how much money the province of Ontario is leaving untaxed because of the fact that the sales tax does not apply to a number of items upon which the GST applies. I want to ask the treasurer if he can explain how it would be that Mr. Goldfarb would be asking these questions if indeed you have no such plans. >> Mr. Speaker, we have no such plan and presumably the client for Mr. Goldfarb has asked him to ask those questions. >> Last supplementary >> re-election. >> Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the treasurer can tell us how it is that his position has changed so dramatically with with respect to the uh the question of his willingness to collect or not to collect the GST to work for and with the federal government or not to work for and with the federal government. Mr. Speaker, can the treasurer tell us categorically in the House today whether or not the government of Ontario is going to do what he himself suggested should be done and that is that the federal and provincial governments should work together in terms of the collecting of the sales tax in the GST. Is that still your position or have you now invented another pre-election position? >> Treasure. Yeah, I uh the cynicism of the leader of the opposition never fails to amaze me and the fact that his memory is failing is probably not to surprising, but the uh the honorable member would know that a year ago the minister of finance for Canada phoned me and the other treasurers and said that he was proceeding independently without provincial cooperation or otherwise. Frankly, it was quite a relief as far as we're concerned uh because he's gone forward with every intention to use the majority of the Progressive Conservative Party in the Parliament of Canada to implement the GST. We have no plans to expand the base of our tax. And the only additional uh thing that I have said is to the taxpayers and to the uh retailers that if uh we can send the the tax money on that is collected at identically the same time as our own is collected, we would like to be as helpful as possible. This does not mean the expansion of our base in any way. We don't intend to collect tax for haircuts. We don't intend to collect tax for dry cleaning or any of the many other areas where the government of Canada with its intrusive tax is going to proceed. >> New question leader of the opposition. >> Speaker, uh my question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, it's uh it's it's my information that uh Mr. William Starr not only received a phone call from uh the minister's executive assistant with respect to the uh the question of uh of the letter that he wrote to uh to the premier and to the minister of financial institutions. But that after he wrote this letter and had been contacted by Mr. Howard for the first time. He also received a phone call from an examiner from the Ministry of Financial Institutions who called to ask the minister the name of uh the shareholders of Mr. Star's company. And uh Mr. Star having no idea as to why or how this information could or would be used by the ministry agreed to give this information to the examiner and quite voluntarily gave this information to uh to the ministry. It was after that, Mr. Speaker, that uh Mr. Mr. Howard phoned the shareholder of Mr. Star's company with respect to holding back the publication of the letter which was critical of of the government. question is >> I want to ask the minister this question. Can he explain why information gathered by his ministry by not his political staff but by his ministry officials by the civil service by the public service of Ontario was used in this way against Mr. Star. >> Minister >> uh Mr. Speaker I don't uh know that the honorable gentleman's facts are correct but I will check into them to see what in fact has occurred. I do know Mr. speaker that with respect to the issue of pressure by my office that I am satisfied that no pressure was exerted that in fact um it's my view that uh the insurance industry which you guys have said we have knuckled under under to all along uh is well able to withstand any uh phone calls that might be made by a particular individual. That is not to say Mr. speaker that I have asked my staff people to do that or anything or that I condone any impression that may be left that there is pressure uh being placed by my staff or otherwise. But I can tell the honorable gentleman that his question flies in the face of the presentations made by the member from Well and Thorald who says that the insurance industry uh has us u around the neck. >> Thank you. so to speak and I can tell you that he is alleging that one person in this government can pressure unduly the large insurance corporations flies in the face of their logic. >> Supplementary. >> No, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, what this issue what this issue is about is about the abuse of power by the Liberal government and its attempt its attempt to manipulate this whole business so that anybody who's critical of anybody that's critical of the Liberal Party or anybody that steps out of line with what the Liberal Party wants and what the Liberal machine wants gets sat on. That's what this is all about. That's what the issue is here. That's the issue here. I want to ask the minister again, if he's conducted such a thorough inquiry, how would it be, Mr. Speaker, how would it be that a simple phone call from a member of my staff to Mr. Star would reveal the very basic piece of information which I've just passed to the minister? Can I ask the minister, has he phoned either the shareholder or has he phoned Mr. Star to inquire as to the activities of his executive assistant? Have you? Yes or no? >> Uh, Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to Mr. Star. Mr. Star prefers to do communication through the media and that in fact is how he has been doing it. I have not called the uh the shareholder but I had indicated that uh I would be writing to the gentleman in question to offer the apology of my office in case there is some sense that there was pressure exerted but I am not going to be calling lest there be some sense that I am providing some undue pressure to the insurance industry. I have Mr. speaker obligations uh to uh uh deal with the insurance industry on behalf of the consumers and I'm asked uh from time to time to exert the influence of my office on behalf of the people over there who want their constituents to have lower premiums. >> I'm going to call >> my staff and I will call an attempt to deal with those issues. I can tell the honorable gentleman that in this particular case there has been no attempt to prevent Mr. Star from doing whatever he wants. In fact, he does that. He's very independent. And more than that, >> there is a whole series of independent oppositions to the bill >> and you help to uh to uh substantiate their activities and you you encourage and that's your job as the opposition part. >> Order, please. Order, please. Supplementary. Order, please. Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister what kind of an inquiry has he in fact conducted. He's told us yesterday that he didn't we didn't need a legislative committee because he had been super sleuth and he'd worked this entire thing out. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister's just told us he hasn't spoken to Mr. Star, who's the individual in question who was phoned. He hasn't spoken to the shareholder in the United States who was also phoned. He was entirely unaware that Mr. Star had also been contacted by his ministry officials asking him to give them information about the company. I want to ask the minister just what kind of an inquiry did you have in order to satisfy yourself that there was no pressure involved. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman asked me if I was satisfied about whether or not there was pressure unduly exerted by my office. And I can tell the honorable gentleman that because he suggests my staff person did something or because a person who has indicated a certain position with respect to government involvement in auto insurance at all suggests that certain things were done that I am not going to then start running around calling people because the next allegation will be the minister of financial institutions will be accused of exerting undue influence by calling the minister calling shareholders and calling other people. that's the type of opposition politics they would play. I have satisfied myself that there was no intention to exert influence or pressure that in fact there was merely an an inquiry as to circumstances around which uh the uh Mr. Star was uh demanding on very short timeline a reply to his letter and I'm satisfied that there was no desire to exert pressure and in fact what I have said is that I will be writing a letter which will be very clear in its terms that I am offering an apology for the fact that an impression was left. I do not believe that in fact there was any pressure applied at all but I think Mr. Speaker, in fairness, a letter is the best way to ensure that my comm >> Thank you. >> Thank you. New question. The member for Sernia. >> My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. And the minister may recall that um uh I raised a question with respect to children's mental health services in the province and my concern over the growing waiting lists that were developing in that particular field of government activity. And the minister as well may be aware that there are many actions being taken by his government, not with respect necessarily to the grants that you provide to these mental health centers and to children's services generally, but actions that are taken by the treasur that are impacting negatively on some of these services by costing them more money. Have you in fact analyzed what these additional costs are doing to these centers? how they're aggravating waiting lists and depriving some of these children critically and badly needed services. >> Minister, >> thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Speaker, we work very closely with all of the agencies that we fund and review with them the various pressures that are on them. I think it's perhaps important and useful to note that over the last uh some four or five years in terms of the funding that we've provided to those centers uh it's has gone up some $30 million uh and that's something in the order of $18 million over and above inflation. So that as we look at uh how we are funding those uh those agencies, we do look at all of the different factors that uh uh come about because of various uh budgetary changes and try to ensure that we can help those centers and indeed uh provide them with the funding that will allow them to uh better meet their responsibilities. >> Increases, Mr. Minister, are relatively misleading and I know that you're giving accurate figures other than you're leaving some of them out. I want to refer the minister to a letter that I received from the Beach Grove Children's Center which serves the area in eastern Ontario of Kingston, Brockville, Belleville, Smith's Falls. In that particular instance, and I'm only giving you one example of what the actions of your government is doing with respect to this particular facility, the employer health levy is going to cost annually an additional $23,000. pay equity to this particular institution is going to cost another $43,000. The increase on the part of the staff was reasonable. It was a 5% increase, but that comes to another $30,000. >> Mr. Speaker, in all when you add up these particular costs and when you pass through your 4.5% increase, the result is they're going to have to cut three staff positions. >> Is that how you improve children's services in this province by cutting staff positions? >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. uh uh it certainly isn't and I think that the record in fact speaks for uh the fact that we have been putting uh funding into this sector uh and that we have through meetings with them through their executive set out a a series of issues that are facing them and are trying to see how we can in the normal budgetary process help them to meet that particular problem. I would have to come back to the honorable member and say what I said the other day that it does not help in our funding of those agencies and others in the children's area when we learn only in the last number of weeks that we are losing some $160 million which would have been able we would have been able to receive under the Canada assistance plan. One of the reasons that we shifted the programs uh into our ministry so that we could uh obtain Canada assistance plan funds was precisely because it would make those dollars go farther. They would be $5050 and we were from 1987 until this last fiscal year able to add something in the order of $25 million to that sector. But obviously that has an impact on our ability to continue with that kind of expansion. We have also said in our meetings with the executive uh that we are going to go forward in meeting uh issues around the salaries of uh of employees and around the waiting list. We may not be able to do that as quickly as we would have liked because of these cuts but I think when you look at the record of this government you will see that each year we have increased the funding to this sector over and above inflation. >> Thank you. Supplementary >> Mr. Minister, I I truly believe that you have lost sight of the level of crisis that is occurring with respect to these services. The Beach Grove Center has a waiting list today of 300 children that are going without absolutely badly needed services. as a result of your programs, not federal cuts, but as a result of programs your government has passed on to these local institutions. What has happened is there's going to be another 100 young children who are going to be put on a waiting list. You are aggravating a problem which is bad now. It's going to get worse in the future. >> You know full well, Mr. speaker that there are some 10,000 children on waiting lists in this province. >> It's not good enough to simply blame the feds. What are you going to do about it? >> Speaker, we will continue to do what we have been doing, which is dealing with children's services and putting money into that sector in a way that your federal cousins have not been doing. And those are facts. The other point that I would make to my honorable friend is do not be led into or lulled into dealing with the broad area of children's services in only looking at one sector. The way that we're going to deal with this issue and have an real impact on providing the services to the kids who need it is by bringing all of those sectors together and dealing with the real problems. And we don't dispute for a moment that those are not real problems. But I think you have to look at the record of this government in working with children's mental health centers, in working with children's aid societies, in working with family and counseling agencies over the last four or five years to see that we have been in there with them trying to help them. And we have just lost $160 million, which doesn't make that task any easier, but our commitment remains and we are working with the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centers to resolve those issues. >> New question. for leads Grenville. >> Mr. Speaker, my my question is for the minister responsible for uh seniors affairs. Right on. >> U Mr. Speaker, later today I'll be tableabling several thousand petitions uh related to the auto insurance proposal brought forward by this government, No Fault Auto Insurance. The minister we know represents seniors around the cabinet table in this province and I'd like to know uh from him today what representations he has received from seniors in respect to this legislation. >> Minister >> I'd like to pass this question to the minister responsible for financial institutions. >> Minister >> Mr. Speaker, we've u just been through a series of extended hearings wherein there have been a number of people who have made representation some of them including seniors groups and you might know Mr. Speaker that uh there has been some very positive comments from some of those people and there have been some concerns expressed mixed in fact from various people who are seniors in the province of Ontario. You know from having attended the hearings, I know from having reviewed the briefs uh that there has been positive in uh uh effect seen by the bill for some seniors and some seniors have raised concerns just like other just like other people who see the bill in the province of Ontario. That Mr. Speaker is what we've heard from seniors and I can say Mr. speaker without uh without concern that we have had from some senior people of organizations bill uh a number of letters which would express some concerns but not a condemnation of the legislation >> supplementary. >> Are you kidding? >> Oh, Mr. Speaker, I'm astonished by the referral of this question. Obviously, there's no advocate for seniors in this Liberal cabinet. If the minister supposedly responsible doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up today in this house and say what he's doing on behalf of this seniors of seniors of this province, all the members of that cabinet, all the members of that government should be hanging their heads in shame. Obviously, no one is speaking out on behalf of seniors in the cabinet of the Liberal government of Ontario. >> If that was the case, and Mr. Minister, I want to direct a supplementary since a minister supposedly responsible doesn't have the guts to stand up here. I will direct it to you. The supplementary. The supplementary. What about volunteers in society? The people working for Meals on Wheels, the people driving cancer patients, volunteers. You are attacking those individuals. You are discouraging them from providing volunteers for much needed services in this province. >> Minister, >> um Mr. speaker. Um, >> the afterdinner speaker was great in his theatrics, but as usual, uh, fails to provide people with a sense of the bill and its contents because for the first time, Mr. Speaker, senior citizens in the province of Ontario will receive in the no fault portion of the uh, insurance $185 per week. That's an increase over uh, the previous amount under no fault, which was zero. There will be an increased benefit there. There will be increased uh uh efficiency in making payments early between 10 days and 30 days. There will be increased uh increased attention paid to supplementary medical and rehab uh uh services. There will be increases allowed for long-term care. Mr. Speaker, this honorable gentleman will know that there are people in the senior citizens community who in fact recognize though those as increases and very good and sound increases in benefits. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the people in the senior citizens community recognize the member from Carlton East as in fact the finest of the finest of the people who are in the cabinet and in fact appreciate the advocacy which he and all of us in the cabinet are providing on behalf of improving services not only in auto insurance but in all facets of life dealing with senior citizens in the province. And I find the diet tribe which we just were experiencing from that member from Leeds Granville as being unworthy of this house >> supplementary. >> Now Mr. Speaker, I find the actions of this government invoking closure, invoking time allocation is unacceptable to the people of this province, unacceptable members of this legislature. Member from Carlton East I have a great deal of respect for as well. But I want to say when he supposes that we have to believe that he is representing seniors interest in this province and he's not prepared to stand up in this house and indicate what kind of representations he's had, what kind of input he's had around the cabinet table in respect to the concerns of seniors in this province. That's a sorry day indeed, Mr. Speaker. A sorry day indeed. Let's talk about non-economic loss for seniors. These people do not have any recognized income. Many of them are living on pensions. Because of your legislation, they are not going to have recourse to the courts for non-economic loss. >> Let's hear a a satisfactory response to that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Minister, in respect to all the seniors who had those legitimate concerns out there across the province which you are trying to trivialize here today. >> Minister. >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, there is no attempt by anyone to trivialize anything with respect to concerns about legislation. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in fact, please, >> we have taken into consideration the representations of a number of people with respect to the bill. We've heard from them. We in fact, Mr. Speaker, when we've been trying to deal with the clause by clause on the bill, uh suffered through two full days almost of uh quote brief opening statements by the opposition parties. four speakers and I got about three or four minutes in there as well and we didn't even get to clause one. Mr. Speaker, that's the type of activity that these people have been uh promoting in the House and if they wonder whether or not we should get on with business, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to get on. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Order. New question. Member for Windsor Riverside. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The 650 tenant families at 5000 Jane Street and 401 Steels Avenue West in North York have been told by their landlord NHD Development Limited that their rents will increase by 52% in 1990 due to both land rental increases and capital expenditures. NHD Development Limited is a company headed by Sam Saber. Antika Investments Limited is also headed by Sam Saber. He that company is the one that owns the land. The land rental charges at 5000 Jane Street are to be increased from 82,744 to $720,000 per year, a 770% increase. Well, the land rental charges at 4,01 Steel Avenue West will go from 60,27 a year to 881,100 a year or a $1,363% increase. >> Question. >> One Saber company is hitting another Saber company. And who pays the tenants? Now, Mr. Minister, you know, of all the loopholes in your rent review legislation, here's another one. What are you prepared to do to te protect tenants in this province? There's 12 of them from these buildings here in the gallery. What are you going to do to protect them from the Sabra family? >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, my uh honorable colleague is aware of the fact that there is a uh a section within the rent review legislation uh which requires a uh a provable armslength relationship uh with respect to the kinds of arrangements that he just described. And uh I will be quite happy uh on behalf not only of him but also of the tenants that uh that he has spoken about uh to have this particular transaction reviewed once again to be sure that in fact it is a legitimate arms length transaction. I can't comment on whether it is or not. I know the legislation requires that. I know that our uh uh rent review hearing officers will take that into consideration. Uh and uh I give him my commitment to have it reviewed one more time. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Uh, Minister, we have raised case after case in this legislature of how landlords in this province are finding the loopholes in your rent review legislation, whether it's refinancing, whether it's renovations, or now land rentals. Now, Mr. Minister, aren't you now convinced that there are so many loopholes in your rent review legislation that it needs to be scrapped and that real rent control needs to be brought in because that's the only thing that will protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords who are out there to make bucks at the expense of ordinary people in this province. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, in um in 1985, it was clearly recognized that there were uh there were some faults in the rent review legislation. And on the basis of that uh my uh my predecessor uh brought together landlords and tenants to uh to rewrite the legislation uh to uh discover from both sides uh where those kinds of uh changes ought to be made. Uh that was done as you obviously know and we now have in place another piece of legislation. Uh it has been the uh the history of this legislature in the 15 years that I've been here that from time to time that we find from practices out in the field uh that uh any piece of legislation does not always work as well as we we as legislators intended it to and uh consequently consequently we have to uh we have to make amendments to that from time to time and uh if this proves to be one of those cases then certainly we will review it once more. >> Thank you. No question. The member for Nippasing. >> By messenger. Over to your honor. >> That's the story of rent control in this province. >> Order, please. The member for Nippasing. >> Speaker, a question for the premier concerning his government's decision to shut down the operations of the Northeastern Ontario Regional Sports Committee. Premier, after successfully coordinating and promoting amateur sport and the disabled games for 16 years, this organization was terminated by your government with 6 weeks notice. Interestingly enough, this group was part of the umbrella organization that uh opposed your cohort's uh bill 119 to take the lottery funding away from them. Premier, in view of the fact that your government funded, paid for a $40,000 study that stated sports councils should not only be maintained, but enhanced. Can you, Premier, explain why your government terminated this funding without adequate consultation, without notice, and totally against the recommendation of the $40,000 study that you commissioned and paid for? Pre, >> Mr. Speaker, I believe the honorable minister can assist my uh friend with this matter. >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Uh the member from Npasing raised an important issue and I'm pleased that he has so I can address it. He will be aware of the fact that a study was done which made several recommendations. One of those recommendations was that the sports councils as presently constituted were not truly representative of all of northeastern Ontario. In addition, he recommended that if they were continue to operate, they should do so at some arms length from the Ministry of Tourism, who had been providing both funding and space for them to operate. The decision to discontinue the operation of the Northeastern and Northwestern Sports Council was a difficult one. They had done and the members of that group had contributed significantly. However, Mr. Speaker, there were some initiatives that we wanted to introduce in north northern Ontario which we think are worthwhile and which we think will promote sports and sports activity in the north and we had to make a very difficult decision and establish some priorities. >> Supplementary. >> Very good. >> Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the premier would refer the question to the minister because this is the minister who, according to Grant Southwell, the president of the sports council, when he met with the minister, this is the minister who said, and I'm quoting Grant Southwell, the minister responded, "There are certain trade-offs that people who choose to live in Northern Ontario must make. According to Mr. Black, we cannot expect to receive the same amount of qual or quality of service that the South enjoys." This is the minister that you referred the question to. This is his response to the Northeastern Ontario Sports Council. >> He goes on in his letter and he says this in the words of the minister, it's not uncommon for a government to spend money to research an issue and not act upon the recommendations. Well, the minister is right on that. We know report after report uh including insurance that the government refused to act on the recommendations. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister is how can you justify saying to the people of Northern Ontario that there's a price we have to pay and that is we can't have the same services for living and choosing to live in the north that people in southern Ontario enjoy. How can you justify that statement to the president of the Northeast Ontario Regional Sports Council? >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, I know that the member from Npasing is very busy these days and obviously doesn't have the time to research his facts properly. I've never had the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Grant Southwell and so uh I'm not sure where the member gets his facts but he obviously has them incorrect. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and let me share this with other members of the legislature, that this government is committed to Northern Ontario. In fact, what we have done has been to increase our funding significantly for the promotion of sports in Northern Ontario. We've done that through three initiatives, Mr. Speaker, that I want to share with you. First of all, we are working with the Ontario Physical and Health Educators Association who are implementing in Northern Ontario a pilot program called Sportability, which we believe has tremendous potential to service all of this province, but we're instituting that program on a pilot project in Northern Ontario because we want to meet the needs of the North. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that we have announced a new $50,000 funding program for young athletes in Northern Ontario. Once again, a recognition that those people do need some help in order to compete satisfactoryy at the provincial level. And so, we're instituting that program to give them specific assistance. And, Mr. Speaker, finally, we are continuing to fund the coaching certification program in the north as we have done in the past. Thank you. >> Thank you. New question, the member for Simco Center. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the treasurer. In recent weeks, there have been riots across Britain objecting to what they are calling a pole tax, which has been introduced by that country's uh Conservative government. And I understand that this is a tax which is on people rather than on real estate. And I understand that that means that a single person who might be living in a mansion pays one tax for him or herself. But if there were six uh adults living in a crowded home that they would pay six times what the one person is in the mansion. I'm asking the min I'm asking the treasurer if he has looked at what's uh being proposed in Britain and do we have any assurance as to uh what might or might not happen in the province of Ontario. Uh, I've been considering asking one of the polling organizations to review that on my behalf, but the uh but I thought maybe my reading of history uh would be sufficient. The last time the uh United Kingdom tried to pull tax was in the 13th century and uh the chancellor of the exjecker was executed for his bad judgment. So uh I'm not sure I'm not sure what's going to happen to the uh iron butterfly. They may need an acetylene torch for her. >> Supplementary. >> Order, please. Mr. Speaker, I have read various reports which indicate incredible costs involved for not only the British Parliament in this transfer of tax target but also incredible incredible costs for the municipalities to implement it. And I would ask the treasurer uh I know that there have been recent changes in our own federal government and the way they are collecting and administering taxes and have any effect on the province of Ontario with regards to changes in the federal taxation programs. Treasurer. >> Speaker, there's no doubt that the imposition of the goods and services tax at the federal level is going to cause a good deal of dislocation, anxiety, and difficulty for our taxpayers and certainly our merchants and business people. It's a judgment, however, of the government of Canada and presumably the progressive conservative majority in Parliament that they should proceed with this. I have already indicated that anything we can reasonably do to assist uh we're prepared to do. But we are not going into the goods and services tax. We are not contemplating expanding the base of our sales tax. Uh the people in the province are used to the sales tax. They don't like it. They certainly don't like it. But in fact, we net just under $9 billion from the tax and that pays a lot of our bills. >> Thank you. New question. Leader of the opposition. >> The the tire tax on the other hand is tremendously popular. Mr. Speaker, uh question that I have for the Minister of the Environment. Mr. Speaker, uh Mr. Alan Marshall is in the gallery today. Mr. Marshall is an employee of the Varnacolor Chemical Limited in in Almyra. Uh Mr. Marshall has uh made out an affidavit, Mr. speaker setting out certain extremely important allegations with respect to spills and chemical spills at the company. Mr. Speaker, I also have an affidavit from uh Mr. Bert Nallayia who was the head of the laboratory at Barnacolor from 1986 to 1989. Mr. Speaker, my first question for the minister is this. Mr. Nia has uh left the company. Mr. Marshall has been suspended, but neither of these individuals have any rights under the Environmental Protection Act with respect to their employment. I want to ask the minister, why is it that if an that if somebody under the Labor Relations Act takes a complaint, their employment is guaranteed and protected under the law. But if somebody takes an action under the Environmental Protection Act, making a serious allegation against their employer, whistleblowing as it is called, there is no protection in the law for whistleblowers. Can you tell us where is the protection for Mr. Marshall and Mr. Nalai? >> Minister. >> Well, in fact, uh, Mr. Mr. Speaker, uh the Environmental Protection Act does cover situations of this kind and we uh certainly are thankful in in many circumstances across the province when employees of various firms are prepared to put forward to us information which uh assists us in uh prosecuting any particular company for a violation and uh we welcome that opportunity. We've had information like that provided to us by a number of different people. Uh it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that under section 134B of the Environmental Protection Act, uh employees are protected uh when they give information to the ministry. The Environmental Protection Act clearly applies in the case the member refers to and has applied for a number of years now as the former Minister of the Environment uh would tell you and uh certainly uh our ministry will assist in any way we can as we have with other employees who have in fact provide information to us in similar circumstances. Information by the way which we believe is very useful in terms of charges being laid and prosecutions when we do further investigations. >> Thank you. Supplementary Mr. Speaker, Mr. Marshall makes several significant allegations not only against the company but also against the ministry. It's my understanding that as of today the ministry has decided that no charges will be laid despite the fact and I'm quoting from uh the the uh the Kitchener Waterl record who said the member ministry the environment official said the employees allegations have been substantiated in many respects and that is why an audit is being ordered but there are no charges being laid against this company. I repeat my question to the minister. Why is there not protection clearly stated in the act and it isn't there? The minister says it is. He's wrong. It is not there. Why is it not clearly stated in the act that employees will be protected when they start to call and tell the truth about their employers? Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, uh the member would know under the uh section 134, it states the following under the interpretation where it gives the various designations, the various interpretations. No employer shall dismiss an employee, discipline an employee, penalize an employee, or coersse or intimidate or attempt to coersse or intimidate an employee because the employee has complied or may comply with the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act of Canada, the Ontario Water Resources Act, or the Pesticides Act, or a regulation under one of the acts, or an order, term, or condition, certificate of approval, license, permit, or direction under one of those acts, or because the employee has sought or may seek the enforcement of one of those acts or regulation under one of those acts or has given or may give information to the ministry or a provincial officer or has been or may be called upon to testify in a proceeding related to one of those acts or regulation under one of those acts. Mr. Speaker, I think that clearly addresses this particular issue and I commend the people who come forward and provide that information. And in the specific instance you're talking about uh there is an audit going on and an ongoing investigation going on and you would know that the ministry for instance and visited the place about seven or eight times seven times I believe in 1989 and continues to investigate. >> Thank you. Your question the member for Missaga South. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for disabled persons. >> On August the 14th, 1987, the then minister of housing, Mr. Alvin Curling announced the supportive community living demonstration project. His statement promised that your government would complete an additional 1,000 supportive units by 1990 and the modification of 2500 existing units. Since we know that your government is committed to the pledge, we did what we said we would do. Madame Minister, my question is, could you tell this house how many of these 3500 supportive units have been built? >> Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, I'd have to refer that to the Minister of Housing. >> Minister. >> Um, Mr. Speaker, I I don't know the exact numbers. I will certainly find out from the honorable minister, a member rather. I can um I can tell her that uh uh quite a number of uh of affordable units as far as the housing is concerned have been uh supported by my ministry. And of course what she uh probably knows is that there has to be a combination of the the housing component and the supporting component uh which is a uh responsibility of my colleague the minister of community social services. We work together in those but I can't tell her uh right now how many have actually been done but I'll find out. supplementary. >> Mr. Minister, this is a sad day in this house. We have the Minister for Senior Citizens defers his question. We have the Minister of the Dis for the Disabled defers her question. We have two ministers who have referred their questions this afternoon and I think that's singularly significant. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Minister of Housing with as much grace as I can muster that that program in fact has been cancelled. Mr. Minister, since the program has been cancelled and since there are 250 people on waiting list for accessible units that provide part-time attendant care and 880 on waiting lists for accessible units without attendant care, as well as countless others, of course, who are on waiting lists for private nonprofit housing. Disabled persons have to wait between three and five years for affordable housing today in this province. and you as the Minister of Housing do not even know that that program was >> supplementary. >> My question is this. What are you prepared to do to ensure your government lives up to its promises in addressing this appalling situation? >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I would uh quarrel with the honorable member's contention. Uh first of all we have uh we have opened up uh Ontario housing units to make them available for uh single people uh and disabled people that was not available before. Uh secondly uh a significant number of the nonprofit and co-op projects which we have authorized over the last couple of years uh do contain uh special units uh designed for disabled people. Uh I have just come back from a tour across the province in which I visited about 14 centers. And in every single center I went to I visited two or three projects that were either complete or under underway. And in every single one of those projects, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of units specifically designed for the disabled. So I think the record is clear as to what this province is doing. >> New question, the member for >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Uh, according to the Saturday Toronto Star, a $2 billion expansion of Metro's rapid transit system will be announced by the province on Thursday. Now, Mr. Speaker, my constituents are high transit users. In fact, we have three subway stops in Egun. We have Lawrence, Egun, and Davisville. Particularly at Egun and Davisville, we have a real problem with overcrowding. It is extremely frustrating to stand on the platform at rush hour in the morning and watch train after train go by too full to allow us to get on. The question I have for the minister is, is it indeed true what the Toronto Star reports that you are making a major announcement on Thursday? And secondly, if you are, what's it going to do to help my constituents in Egun? >> Minister, >> um Mr. uh Mr. Speaker, uh I want to tell the honorable member, we'll see her on Thursday morning, she's invited to uh to hear the results because I know on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, the member for Egllington has raised the concerns that she that she has on behalf of her constituents over the extremely uh difficult problem of the rush hour congestion and the impact that is having on uh on her constituents in the Egllington Davisville area, an area I know very well having uh uh in my younger days living in Toronto used both of those stations because where I lived. Uh those her facts are right. those the volumes are such now that often trains go through so full that people at those stations simply have to wait four or five uh trains. As part of the north metro boundary transportation review, one of the one of the um options that was looked at which we'll be discussing on Thursday and uh which we've been considering is a uh is a looping of the Young Spadina subway system uh somewhere in the Finch Steels corridor. Uh Mr. Speaker, one of the uh issues that has been raised by those who the consultants who did the review, very eminent consultant in Metro, Richard Soberman, who I know the honorable member knows, uh is that simply doing the loop would add uh uh 10% increase to the young Spadina capacity. Uh that would mean an additional two trains in the uh in the rush hour and that's something we're looking at very carefully. >> Supplementary. >> Um I'm very encouraged to hear that the minister will be making an announcement in this regard. I wonder though, could you give me some specific details as to how many people the system will be expanding to accommodate and uh inferentially what this will mean to my my constituents in Eg. >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I just asked the honorable member who I know has traveled the line and traveled out of those stations to contemplate the impact of of adding somewhere in the range of 3,000 or 3,500 additional capacity spaces through thins on a per hour basis as well. uh one of the ancillary issues that a loop if if proceeded with might solve is it might add to the utilization of the spadina portion of the young spadina uh system which is now the only portion of the system which even in rush hours at times is underutilized. Um certainly the major problem is on Young Street we have we have expected cross B metro boundary uh increases capacity increases of uh of up to 110,000 people a day every day in both directions by the year 2010 and obviously we have to find solutions to address that emerging need. >> New question the member for Hamilton West. >> Mr. Speaker to the Minister of Community and Social Services. A a Metro Toronto nonprofit child care center by the name of McMurray Sprouts is being forced to ask 10 subsidized kids to withdraw from child care because they can no longer afford to keep them. It's estimated that up to a thousand children in the Metro Daycare system are similarly at risk. Why? because the provincial contribution to Metro Daycare costs rather than meeting the 30% that's obligated by the cap, the Canada assistance uh plan in fact stands now at 23% of the costs of the sub of the sub subsidized daycare spaces in Toronto. When is the minister going to begin to pay the full provincial share of daycare costs in Toronto and uh relieve these children in particular of the risk in which they stand? >> Minister, >> thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm not aware of the specific instance that my honorable friend raises and we'll certainly look into it, but I would want to point out to the honorable member that over the last four or five years, we have increased significantly uh uh the subsidized spaces in Metropolitan Toronto, which now stand I believe at over 19,000 and in which we participate fully with uh Metropolitan Toronto. uh and that indeed uh the funding which 5 years ago for child care in the province was $89 million we now put into metro alone uh over $und00 million and I think that's a significant amount of money. Recently I met with the metro chairman and with the mayor of Toronto and other senior officials from uh the metropolitan area to look at some of their specific problems around uh uh subsidies and around their purchase of service area. It is my belief that we will shortly be able to uh move forward and uh meet the difficulties that they encountered there. Uh and I think we'll continue to work with them and I would be very hopeful that the kind of situation that you raise uh will in fact not reoccur. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, there are multiple problems that afflict daycare in the province and particularly in Metro Toronto. But I want to address the minister to an interesting and puzzling wrinkle and that is that u he's not the only one that's uh that's not paying the full share of the overall daycare costs in the in the in the in metropolitan Toronto. The federal government also is only paying 38% as against the 60 the 50% that should be its cost. However, it's interesting that the ministry of which this minister is in charge refuses to pass on the extra amount that the Metro Toronto government pays, namely $18 million uh in full funding of subsidized spaces, which it isn't normally obligated to do. The minister and the ministry could pass that money on and get 50% refund from the federal government if it would do it. But the ministry officials keep saying we don't intend to play bookkeeper in this particular game. Well, I wonder, Mr. Minister, uh isn't it perhaps a little bit time to rise above the question of playing games of bookkeeper and actually working out some arrangements to pass on those those those charges and get 50% of that money back, namely $9 million to address some of the subsidized spaces that are at risk. >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think the honorable member would agree that uh what we have to do in looking at the funding of this whole area is work cooperatively and positively with the municipal level of government as well as with the federal government. And I think in our view it would be most irresponsible if we simply uh uh took the request from Metro Toronto or any other municipality and simply passed it on. One of our major concerns about the Canada assistance plan was to ensure that it not be cut and that we act responsibly, which is precisely why I sat down with the metro chairman and others to look very directly at that particular problem and I believe that we have come to an arrangement which is going to be very positive for metropolitan Toronto. I think that in terms of the federal funding uh and what we are going to lose as a result of the uh of the cuts in cap that battle we are waging on a on a number of fronts but I think it's very important that the province and uh the municipal level of government sit down to work out what we believe is the appropriate level of uh of child care spaces and what we are going to subsidize and then it is critical that the federal government come to the table and pay its proper amount. But I can say to uh my honorable colleague that we are going to meet the specific problem that Metropolitan has, Toronto has in this area. >> Thank you. New question, the deputy to Stormmont Dandas Gary. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Tourism Recreation, Minister will remember a letter I sent you recently regarding closures of parks, St. Lawrence Parks in Eastern Ontario. Last year, you shortened the season and put up the rates for the users of the park. This year, five parks are being closed completely. How can the parks commission or your ministry say that the closure of five out of 15 parks enhance tourism in Eastern Ontario? >> Minister, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I'd like to clarify for the member from Stormmont, Dundas, and Glengarry that the decision to close the five parks in question was made not by my ministry, but by the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, which as he knows is an armslength agency. I'd also like to stress to him, as he well knows again, that the members of that uh St. Lawrence Parks Commission are people who live and work in the communities of eastern Ontario. They are people who understand and appreciate the problems there. >> The decision to close those parks was a difficult one. But in fact, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission in trying to see how they could uh carry out the responsibilities in a cost-effective way made that very difficult decision. I should also share with him the fact that uh of the five parks that have been closed as he would know approximately three of them may well be open by uh this summer as communities are going to take on that responsibility after negotiations with the commission. >> Thank you. Supplementary. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These are prime waterfront properties in eastern Ontario and we will not allow them to be growing weeds and brush. In the St. Lawrence Parks Commission Act. It says it is the duty of the commission to develop, control, manage, operate, and maintain the parks. Doesn't sound like closing them. In the AY's committee, it says to acquire, preserve, develop, and maintain historic sites, to operate to a high standard of excellence, to encourage, and promote tourism in the area, to operate historic sites, camping facilities, etc. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, there is nothing in there that says closing down. It's to encourage and promote. Do you feel the mandate of the commission is to close down a third of its parks? Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, let let me share with the member and with his his colleagues some facts and figures. Let me tell him, for example, that the the park at Faren, which is one of the parks in question, uh had a 27% occupancy rate last summer. Let me tell him that the park at Browns Bay >> order, please. Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question if I may. Let me tell him that the park at Browns Bay bay had only 9,000 visitors last summer, an occupancy rate of some 32%. Now, I want to tell him also I want to tell him also that his colleagues, the member from Simco East and the member from Leeds Grenville were members of committees who looked at the operation of the St. Lawrence Parks Commission and both of those committee studies recommended they be operated in a cost effective way. >> Our government, Mr. Speaker, is committed to spending taxpayers dollars wisely. If members of the third party don't care about how taxpayers dollars are spent, I want them to know that we do care. >> We didn't achieve a balanced budget in this government by frittering away taxpayers dollars. >> Very good. >> Order, please. Order, please. Member for Ottawa West. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, my question is to the Minister of Health. Uh, Minister, many of my constituents, having heard your recent announcement concerning the new health cards, have been calling my office to make inquiries. I wonder if the minister can tell the constituents of Ottawa West how and when uh they will be receiving their new health cards. >> Minister. >> Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the member from Ottawa West for his question. And in fact, he's been very active in ensuring that his constituents are well served. >> Every household in Ontario will get a health card information form approximately midappril around the 17th with instructions on how to fill it out and room for approximately 10 people to be on the same application form. There will also be additional information and a return envelope will be included. We're hopeful that everyone will complete the form within two weeks and if they have any questions, they can call the ministry office. The phone number will be on the form. People should be receiving their new cards 6 to 8 weeks after they've sent the form back into the ministry. >> Supplementary. The minister the minister mentioned that there will be information that needs to be provided in the application form. I'm sure the minister is aware of the fact that a number of people and press reports have indicated that there is a question of infringement of personal privacy with respect to the application form. Can the minister assure the house and the residents of Ottawa West in fact that individual privacy uh will not be violated through this process? Minister, >> speaker, in fact, uh, protection of personal privacy is a priority for the ministry and for myself. And I want to tell the member and the members of this house, all of them, of the special steps that the ministry has taken to enhance and ensure protection of personal privacy. A person's name, age, uh, address, sex, and identifying information will be kept in a separate datab bank with the confidentiality provisions maintained as we do now. uh a separate datab bank for all health information and services and they uh will be kept separately. They will not be tied together and they will uh only this data without the names attached will be made available for planning purposes. This is an enhancement over what exists today. Today where you have one number for a whole family in fact the opportunity to separate that data out for planning purposes is more difficult. I believe confidentiality will be improved with this new system and would thank the member for his question. >> No question. I have a question for the minister of labor. It's concerning the compensation case for Mr. Goyo Toyajik. He was a worker employed as a caretaker at North Toronto Collegiate School for 22 and a half years. In October of 1980 died 1989 he died from methelomia which is almost always exclusively caused from exposure to asbestous. The board has denied the claim and said that in fact he would not have if any exposure to asbestous. Mr. Stan Gray who is the director of the Ontario Workers Health Center is actually handling the claim and it was his staff who went into that school and did the inspection regarding the asbestous problem. On January 8th he delivered to the Ministry of Labor 19 pictures, a lab report, a videotape showing all of the asbestous in that school. The ministry has all the evidence to prove that in fact the asbestous was with there and the worker had extreme exposure to it. I want to know why the Minister of Labor hasn't forced the board to accept this claim. >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I I don't force the board to accept any claim and that they have a a process that they follow which uh is a thorough process including access to outside resources to review situations like this. And there is a a well uh well ststructured process for review and for appeals. And so I'm I'm sure the members of the house would appreciate that the minister doesn't force the board to do things when there is this well ststructured appeal process that the legislature has developed including the workers compensation appeal tribunal. And so I uh Mr. Speaker uh don't involve myself in a case where there where as I say we have the a well-developed process for following it. This completes the period of time allocated for oral questions.