Question Period Rewind - April 5 1990

Welcome to Question Period Rewind. I'm Donna Skellyy, the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The year is 1990. B. Midler's Wind Beneath My Wings wins song of the year at the Grammys. Toronto's Speakers Corner launches a video booth outside the iconic city TV building. And the population of Toronto and the GTA was approximately 3.8 million. That's about half of what it is today. What were the topics of the day in the house? Let's take a look. >> Oral questions. Leader of the opposition. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question. In the absence of the premier today, I have a question for the attorney general. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the attorney general, we have to communicate by scrums because he's not here. I understand that the premier has told the media that there will be no further public inquiry into the uh uh into the uh uh matters uh involving the relationship between the development industry and the government of Ontario. I want to ask the attorney general uh if if that is in fact the position of the government uh and why you would be making that decision uh today when it's perfectly clear from the decision of the court that what they objected to was not that the terms of the of the inquiry were too uh were too uh broad but rather that the terms of the inquiry were too narrow which I might say to the attorney general were precisely the points that I made and the leader of the conservative party made when you set up your inquiry >> attorney general. >> Mr. Speaker, I haven't had a scrum today and haven't communicated to the press, but like the honorable leader, I've received the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which makes it plain that the present inquiry cannot continue. And the judgment of the government is that the decision of the court must be respected. The honorable member will want to recall that this inquiry arose out of certain articles in the Toronto newspaper which were taken up quite appropriately in the house. A police investigation was immediately launched uh under questioning in the house. A royal commission was appointed and the court has said as the honorable member knows that uh the royal commission process cannot be used to conduct an investigation into wrongdoing. that that must be done in a criminal court where the normal protections available to citizens are at hand. Uh the government has indicated from the beginning that it is determined to get to the bottom of these allegations. The police investigation, I understand, to be continuing, but the Royal Commission cannot proceed by order of the Supreme Court of Canada. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, the the Supreme Court decision makes it very clear on page 36 uh well, first of all, on page 35, it says there seems to be a complete absence of any broad policy basis for the inquiry. They then go on to say, "The terms of reference simply make no mention of an examination of the overall system governing how government officials deal with charities specifically or with respect to outside interests generally." Mr. Speaker, the court makes it very clear that what it objects to is the way in which this government tried to narrow the inquiry, the focus of the inquiry in such a way as to eliminate any broad policy considerations. What I'm asking the attorney general is if you really have nothing to hide, if you really have nothing to hide with respect to the broad policy implications of the relationship here, why don't you establish the proper inquiry that we asked you to establish last year? That is to say, an inquiry that deals with the broad problem of the relationship between the development industry and your government. >> Attorney General. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, uh, respectfully, he can play around with all the innuendos he wants, but we have nothing to hide and have said so many times. The reality is that the the Supreme Court of Canada in a six to1 decision differing with the eight judges in Ontario who decided the matter and who supported the inquiry have concluded that an inquiry cannot be conducted in which the individuals who are concerned who are at stake are compelled to give evidence. As the honorable member knows, uh, any inquiry, no matter what the terms of reference said, would ultimately come down to certain people giving evidence under compulsion, which is the Royal Commission rule. And the Supreme Court of Canada has said that the effect of that, not only the terms of reference, the effect of that is to deprive citizens of the benefits of a police investigation and the benefits, if necessary, of an appearance in a criminal court. Simply that only the police and the criminal process can do that. Now, no matter how we describe the terms of reference, if the actors in the drama cannot be examined under oath before the inquiry, the process would be meaningless. The court has made that perfectly plain. >> Last supplementary, >> Mr. Speaker, what the court has made perfectly plain is that the way in which you drew up your inquiry caused you problems. That's what the court has made perfectly plain. The court has not said there cannot be an inquiry. The court has said not said there cannot be royal commissions carried out by the province. In fact, the court makes it very clear that the province has the right and responsibility to deal with matters under its jurisdiction. The development industry, the government of Ontario, municipal officials, these are areas in which this government can make decisions if it so chooses. What I'm asking the attorney general is this. If you have nothing to hide, why not set up the kind of inquiry which the Supreme Court of Canada says you could have set up in the first place if you'd really wanted to? >> Attorney General, >> I think the honorable member overlooks the impact of this decision, which has implications not only for this inquiry, but for other royal commissions going on and very likely for legislative committees of the Legislative Assembly. When the court says, although it may not have intended the result, the province has created an inquiry that in substance serves as a substitute police investigation and preliminary inquiry with compellable accused. You can see the ramifications of this decision. When you are looking into questions of wrongdoing and you have compellable accused, the inquiry cannot proceed except in a criminal court. Now my friends may feel there will be people on this side who feel that uh the judgment of the eight judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario which supported the inquiry and its purpose is to be preferred. But that isn't the issue. The issue is that the Supreme Court of Canada has spoken and this process cannot take place. >> Your question, >> Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear. We're not talking here about some fine legal arguments. We're talking about the basic political that we're talking about the basic political responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, of this government. The Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Speaker, has made a ruling which all of us respect that that is fundamental. But the Supreme Court of Canada has also said that it's the terms of reference and the nature of this Liberal Party inquiry, this Liberal government inquiry which is faulty, not all royal commission. >> Is that a new question? >> My question is coming to the attorney general. I want to ask the attorney general, is he then saying that any royal commission into the relationship between the development industry, the government of Ontario in terms of charitable organizations and the government of Ontario, is he saying that any broad inquiry of that kind? He considers that to be impossible because of this ruling. Because if he is, I say to him, he's hiding behind the ruling and using the ruling for his own political purposes. >> Attorney General Well, I don't get uh into the business every day of assigning motives and in a couple of years when the honorable member reads that page enhancer, he'll be embarrassed. But the reality is this. The reality is this. The court has said that the effect of the inquiry is what one must examine. You cannot do indirectly what you are prevented from doing directly. And if there is an inquiry into wrongdoing, that inquiry cannot be conducted if the wrongdoing might amount to a criminal offense except outside uh except inside a criminal court. Now, if a broad inquiry were instituted into the development industry, there might be nothing wrong with the terms of reference. But as soon as that inquiry began to talk to people about matters that might amount to wrongdoing, they would have to stop because they would be engaging in that investigation and taking that testimony by compulsion. That's the effect, I believe, of the Supreme Court of Canada decision. And it is not a novelty in this sense. Only last week, as the honorable member will know, the Supreme Court of Ontario gave a decision in the Beckan case, which is a case having to do with the ambit of coroner's inquests and came to a very similar conclusion. >> Supplementary speaker, uh, is the attorney general then saying that his terms of reference and the fact that they were narrowly construed, the fact that it named particular people, the fact that Mrs. Star and the Tridell Corporation. Are you saying that that had nothing to do with the court's decision? Are you are you making that point? >> Attorney General >> not making the point. The court looked at all the circumstances. What the honorable member wants to do is see if he can narrow it down to one fact or two facts and assign motives and say it's because I'm hiding something. I'm hiding nothing. The reality in this particular case is that the court looked at all the circumstances of the inquiry and concluded that while it may not have intended this result, the province has created an inquiry that in substance in substance, not in form, in substance serves as a substitute police investigation with compellable accused and that that is not permissible. Uh we intend to respect that decision. and there is nothing for it but to do so. But I want to emphasize once again as the premier has said that the police investigation is ongoing and if there are people who have broken the law of the government of Canada or the law of the province, they will be brought to justice. >> Last supplementary, >> Mr. Speaker, the the the the uh attorney general says the police investigation is ongoing. Uh, I want to ask the attorney general as of on September the 9th, 1989, uh, Mr. uh, Metro Police Inspector Leo Campbell, who is heading the investigation for the inquiry, is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying that any criminal investigation has been suspended and in fact was suspended quietly in June of 1989, and it's being suspended because the inquiry is ongoing. I want to ask the attorney general these precise questions. When was the police inquiry suspended? When precisely was it resumed? >> Attorney General. >> Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general probably will be able to provide the detail, but let me say to my honorable friend that the investigation was not suspended in that sense. Inspector Campbell is an investigator for the Holden inquiry was under the direction of the Holden inquiry. An investigation has been conducted and is being conducted by the Metropolitan Toronto Police and I believe the OP working together. Now whether there was a hiatus, >> I can't tell the honorable member the date. We launched an investigation and it is ongoing. >> New question the member for Sardia >> to the at to the attorney general. Since the attorney general is aware that not only was the inquiry called to look into potential areas of criminality but also I think one of the key focal points at least that which was annunciated by your government was to restore confidence in the system. What in fact does the attorney general intend to do now? If in fact there is no possibility from what I interpret his words to mean that any form of an inquiry can be uh structured or held to look into these allegations and problems. >> Attorney General, >> as the honorable member knows, there are a number of other investigations ongoing which will come to result in the normal way. The first is of course the police investigation and if the leader of the opposition would have the courtesy to allow me to provide an answer to the leader of the third party. >> Yes, >> there is first of all the I can you catch me and there is the police investigation underway. Secondly, you will recall the auditor made an investigation into the relationship between the Minister of Housing at that time and one Kaza and gave the then Minister of Housing a completely clean bill of health. By the way, the public trustee has made an investigation and that report is already public. There are, I believe, certain matters of complaint arising out of these allegations before the conflict of interest commissioner which are either proceeding or have been awaiting the result of the Holden inquiry. And there are certain matters that are within the purview of the election commission uh and which they have before them and to which they can respond. In that way uh and through that process uh the facts will become known. supplementary. When the inquiry was being proposed, the attorney general will recall there was an informal meeting held between the leader of the opposition, myself and the attorney general. At which time although there were differences in the way in which we wanted to approach this matter, I think that there was a commonality of appeal on the part of the opposition parties to expand the terms of reference of the inquiry to not focus them as narrowly as you did. >> Our concern was that there were other matters that were not specific to some of those named in this particular case that should be looked at. Now, will the attorney general not admit to this house that in fact one of the reasons why the Supreme Court decision was brought down in the substance and form in which it was was specifically to do with the fact that you botched up writing the terms of reference. General, >> I I don't believe I botched up in writing the terms of reference. And as I had very active support from the leader of the third party who I believe believe agreed with the terms of reference, if I did botch up, he's going to have to take some of the responsibility with me. But the reality is this. >> Bob Ray didn't go to the meeting. The the case is being made, no doubt, that if the names of certain actors had been removed from the terms of reference or it had been less less focused in terms of reference, the commission would have been allowed to proceed. In my respectful view, that's an error because it doesn't look at what the court was really concerned about. The court was concerned about forcing people by virtue of the public inquiries act to give evidence without any of the protections that a criminal court makes available in cases that may amount to selfinccrimination. So that if the terms of reference had been drafted differently, the terms of reference might have passed muster. But it is clear that none of the persons that we're concerned with would have been required or able to give evidence. That's precisely what the Supreme Court of Canada has said. And that's why I'm confident that this decision not only affects and terminates this inquiry, but may indeed terminate some others uh or may indeed restrict significantly the way royal commissions and the legislative committees of this house can be used. last supplementary. >> As I understand, what the Supreme Court decision indicated was that an inquiry was was quite proper and most appropriate in terms of an area of provincial responsibility. I'm sure we have agreement with the attorney general on that point. However, when it got into the precise investigation of individual actions within the context of that particular inquiry, there was some problem. Is the attorney general saying to us then? Because by its very nature, every inquiry that I can think of will at some point in time or another involve the review of the activities of an individual within that inquiry. Is his interpretation of the Supreme Court decision one that says that there will never be another inquiry on the part of the province of Ontario or the provincial government. Is that what you're saying? >> Because by extension, that's the logic I get out of your argument. That's the trouble with taking something and extending it too far. That isn't what I intended to say. What I intended to say is that when it is apparent from this decision, though the terms of reference may in some instances have a bearing as they clearly did here, it is the heart of the decision that when an investigation begins and compels people to give evidence that may incriminate them, it is an invasion of the criminal law field. And that position was reached by the court without even considering the charter arguments. Let me give uh an example that is in a sense academic. It would not be inappropriate, it seems to me, to launch an inquiry into election practices in the province. But if the ambot of the inquiry led the commission to ask questions that might have indicated that a person had breached the criminal code in the election contributions they made that would be absolutely prohibited by virtue of this court's decision. The court's response, and we must accept it, is that at that point the matter becomes a question of wrongdoing for a criminal court so that the persons involved can have the protections of the criminal system. That's the way the Supreme Court of Canada has adjudicated this principle of fairness. >> Thank you. >> And it is for us all to comply with it. >> New question, leader. I want to uh turn to the solicitor general if I might for a moment. Some 10 months ago, this house was advised of a uh uh a full and comprehensive investigation that was to be undertaken by the OP relative to areas of potential criminality. As you're aware, Mr. Solister General, uh we've been advised now that quietly this investigation was suspended while the inquiry was underway. Could you tell me in order to get to what I believe to be the the uh the essential root of this entire question, namely the restoration of public confidence in the system because it deals with campaign funds as you know it deals with the independence of certain operations of government from other operations outside of government. Can the solicitor general advise this house in light of the fact that this inquiry will not be continuing? What actions do you intend to take to fulfill your responsibilities to the people of Ontario? >> Solar general. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And uh in response to the question, let it be very clear that there were in fact two investigations being undertaken at least. one uh directly uh related to the Holden inquiry and another which was uh police investigation a joint forces operation comprised both of Metro Toronto police and the OP in that particular investigation and that is the one which I will uh particularly speak to in that in the police uh joint forces operation uh and investigation that is one which uh has been ongoing for a number of months. It uh involves uh five or six uh officers specifically uh uh charged with the responsibility of that investigation and it has never been stopped. >> Could I ask since uh in the past we have had some difficulty in getting any information uh in connection with the activities of the OP relative to these ongoing investigations? What is your intent Mr. Minister, with respect to any form of public disclosure relative to the investigations themselves, is it your intent to continue as you have in the past to keep this house and the people of Ontario totally in the dark or are you going to release a report at the end of the investigation? >> General, uh, Mr. Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I think the uh honorable leader of the third party should be aware that this investigation has been uh uh carried on by a joint operation between the OP and the Metrop Metropolitan Toronto Police that there are six officers who uh are involved in this investigation that they have been conducting that investigation that that con investigation is continuing and uh will continue until it has been completed. supplementary. >> Could the solicister general also comment on the uh review of this matter that was being undertaken as he is aware by the elections finances commission also by the conflict commissioner and the public trustee. They do in in fact have other ministries other departments in which they report. Would the minister give some undertaking to the house on behalf of the government that there will be access to this information on the part of the opposition parties and through us obviously to the public as it relates to their investigation of any potential wrongdoing that was uh undertaken by the individuals involved? >> Solicitor General. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, I think that the uh honorable leader of the third party's question points to the fact and the observation is to be made that there are a number of uh investigation which have been uh undertaken from the beginning that uh there are different forums for each investigation. One was of course that which was uh particularly attached to the Holden inquiry and others uh uh through for instance the public trustees office the election uh uh commission and your question in fact points to the fact that those particular investigations were ongoing in my responsibility and role as the solicitor general I am uh involved and uh particularly responsible for the police investigations on that one aspect of investigation. There is a joint operation, a joint operation comprised of Metro Toronto uh uh police as well as Ontario Provincial Police comprised of five or six officers uh with a view to uh fully investigating the matter and uh and acting accordingly. But I think that the the honorable member should be aware that with respect to all of these investigations that there are different forums for which each of these investigations are to be undertaken and have been undertaken. New question of the opposition. Mr. >> Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if I might be permitted on a point of order. I I asked earlier that the record be corrected. I never attended, as was alleged by uh or stated by my colleague from the Conservative Party. I never attended at any time any discussions with the attorney general with respect to the establishment of of of this inquiry. I I refused I refused to precisely because of the problems which we are now into. >> New question. There we go. >> Order. It's not a point of order. >> It's not. >> No. New question. Leader of the opposition. >> Speaker, I want to ask the the attorney general again. I want to ask him again. Mr. Justice Laame Mer in his decision makes it very clear what is wrong with this inquiry, what is different from the inquiry which which was set up by the Liberal government. What makes it different from all the other inquiries which have been the subject of review by the Supreme Court is that private individuals are named and that criminal quot criminal code wording is used in establishing the the reference for the for the commission. I want to ask the attorney general when Mr. Justice La Mer says, and I'm quoting at the end of his decision, "It is therefore clear that provinces should be given ample room within their constitutional competence to establish public inquiries aimed at investigating, studying, and recommending changes for the better government of their citizens. Why would you not take those words from the judge as meaning to say you can establish a commission of inquiry that looks into broad questions dealing with the relationship between charities, this government, between the development industry and this government and establishing confidence in the system with respect to how public officials and how Liberal Party officials conduct themselves. What you cannot do is go on a witch hunt against particular individuals who are named in your terms of inquiry. Why wouldn't you understand the difference between those two things? >> General, >> any inquiry about election expenses uh is not ruled out by this. What is ruled out is an inquiry which directs itself to whether contributions were illegally made or illegally received which is what this whole case was about from the beginning. It was alleged that Mrs. Star you remember the name had made illegal contributions and about that if the leader of the opposition will just sit by for a moment Mr. Justice Laame Mer says this. One of the implications for the allowing the inquiry to go on is that the inquiry can compel a witness who is really one of the named suspects, he's got that in quotes, to answer questions under oath, even though that person could not have been compelled to provide incriminating evidence against herself in the due course of a regular police investigation. So what the honorable member wants to know is that regardless of the breadth of the terms of reference, if these witnesses were to give to be giving evidence, that would, as Mr. Justice La Mer says, in effect, be to do indirectly what you cannot do directly. And that is, of course, I believe a fair reading of the court's decision, and it must be obeyed. >> Supplementary, >> Mr. Speaker, I think that the attorney general has a responsibility to the people of this province and that responsibility is to establish an inquiry that will restore confidence in the integrity of the way in which this government's planning decisions are made, the way in which municipal officials planning decisions are made. He has a responsibility and the premier has a responsibility to establish a sense of integrity that people matter more than uh than uh than the power of some private individuals. Now, Mr. Speaker, what what the Supreme Court of Canada has said is that you cannot have an inquiry which names individuals and which is a substitute for a police investigation for a preliminary inquiry. That's what we warned the attorney general nearly a year ago when he went off on this track. I say to the attorney general, why not get to the bottom of this matter in terms of the relationship between those who have power and those who are elected? Why not get to the bottom of it? >> Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we must come back to the facts. And the facts are that after a series of articles in a newspaper in in which names of people that most Ontarians had never heard of became provincial bywords, uh the matter was raised by my honorable friends in the house and I said that we would launch and we did launch an immediate police investigation which is designed to be as complete and as thorough as we can make it. Not satisfied and I understand why. Certain people wanted a royal commission. We established a royal commission designed to canvas the matters of irregularity that were raised. It was attacked by the people who were called to give evidence before. It wasn't attacked by me. It was attacked by the people who were subpoenaed to give evidence and who were participants before the inquiry. The very people whose names had been mentioned in the newspapers and raised in the house. We brought the matter as we were obliged to do to a court and eight judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario unanimously supported the correctness of what we were doing. Now the Supreme Court of Canada has reversed that determination. I'm sorry it's happened, but it's happened and we must live with the result. >> The cynicism Order, please. >> New question. The member for Sernia. >> Attorney General again. I can see that he's heartbroken over the decision. >> And uh I I want to I want to give him an opportunity to heal his heart because I can see that he's just distraught to the to the extreme about what's happened here. Aside from the OP investigation and some of the other uh reviews which are going to be ongoing, what is the intent of your office and the government of Ontario with respect to the next step that should be taken relative to restoring what I believe to be a very important and fundamental part of this entire exercise, namely the public's confidence in the system. >> Whether you believe this or not, Mr. Attorney General, that's what's on trial here. And what's on trial is whether or not the government operated appropriately and whether the actions taken by certain individuals were appropriate. Now, you have a certain responsibility, sir. >> I ask you, what do you intend to do? >> General, >> the honorable member is of course entirely right. >> The honorable member is entirely right. In the minds of many citizens, the system is on trial. But trials take place in courtrooms. They don't take place in the legislature and they don't take place in the newspapers. And what the Supreme Court of Canada has said is that when there is a trial, it should take place, particularly if there is an allegation of criminality in a criminal court where protections are available. Now, I have brought to the honorable member's attention the fact that a police investigation uh in the solicitor general's department or within his purview is being conducted. If it produces charges, they will be prosecuted to the limit of the law. The election commission has certain rights. The conflict of interest commissioner has certain matters before him. The public trustee has matters before him. All those matters can uh take place including if necessary if there is evidence criminal trials but I'm with the honorable member criminal trials cannot and the Supreme Court of Canada has said now must not occur either here or in the newspapers. >> Supplementary >> as the attorney general well knows this matter is not just so nar or can can be so narrowly defined as just a criminal matter. There is a question influence perhaps influence pedalling involved. There is in fact a matter of of conflict which is not a criminal offense. There is a matter that relates to the conduct of certain ministers of the crown as they relate to this particular matter. What does the attorney general intend to do beyond simply, as I read it from what he has said to date, whitewash the whole thing and hope to sweep it under the rug? >> Attorney General, >> the honorable member says there are matters at stake about improper influence and there are matters at stake about the conduct of individuals, particularly ministers. The honorable member will know that the kind of conduct that has been alleged is prohibited by the criminal code and other federal law. The police are precisely investigating those questions and when the investigation is complete, the uh crown law officers will prosecute any charges that have been laid and I commit the house to that proposition. The honorable member then goes on to say that there may be questions of conflict of interest. There may be and I understand that there are some allegations of conflict arising out of this matter before the conflicts commissioner. He will decide those cases in the way his statute provides. I am confident that is the appropriate response to these problems in light of the decision that has been given today. >> Thank you. New question member for Scarboro. >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, my question uh is to the Minister of Housing. I I understand I understand the Ministry of Housing uh has advised the Federation of Tenant Associations of Metro and Ottawa uh that the uh government is discontinuing its funding of tenant hotlines. Uh this withdrawal of funding has naturally caused a great deal of concern among all those interested uh and supportive of uh of tenant rights and tenant adv advocacy. Uh would the minister please advise this house the reasoning behind this decision? >> Minister. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um approximately two years ago, the uh Metro Tenants Association drew to the attention of the Ministry of Housing that while both they and our ministry operated a uh an open line for tenants during regular day day hours from 9:00 to 5:00, that there was no service for tenants after hours. Uh and they uh they indicated 5:00 to 8:00 uh at that time to uh test whether or not such a service was necessary. uh we supplied funds to the tenant association to set up such a hotline from 5 to 8:00 each evening and from 10 to 1 on uh on on Saturdays. We did that for one year, Mr. Speaker. Uh that was extended for 5 months and then extended for another uh 6 months I think it was for a total of 22 months. Uh at that point in time uh we realized that this service should be available across the entire province. uh we had a request and had uh provided a service in Ottawa, but we had also had requests from places like Kingston and Hamilton for example just recently uh and decided it would be more appropriate to use those same funds uh as a uh as a provincialwide hotline and that's what we've done >> supplementary the member for >> the minister has indicated that his decision was based upon cost effectiveness since too few calls were being handled by the tenant hotlines However, when making his decision, did the minister also consider the high quality of the service provided by the tenant federations in both metro and Toron and Ottawa? And was he aware that the tenant hotlines offer a much more comprehensive service than rent review, including tenant advocacy, information on landlord and tenant matters, rental housing protection act, municipal bylaws, and referrals to legal, social, and housing agencies. >> Thank you, Minister. >> Um, Mr. Mr. Speaker, my uh my honorable colleague is certainly correct uh that the quality of the service being offered was uh was quite high and uh I don't think anyone has suggested that it would be otherwise. However, I would draw to uh her attention through you that after two years of operation, the metro tenants uh uh phone service was drawing approximately six calls a day. Uh and for that we were paying a a very very high rate indeed uh in excess of uh $42,000 a year. Uh the uh the province's hotline has now only been in operation this week and we are drawing 17 calls a day, half of them from Metro. Uh so I would have to say that if we can cover the entire province, if we can do it in both lang both official languages, uh if we can provide service to the hearing impaired and uh if we can uh provide service to more people, uh then that is a more efficient use of the resources that I have available. If I had resources to provide this service in in all of the communities across the province who wanted it, I would certainly attempt to do so. Quite frankly, I don't and I've got to make the best use of the resources that I do have available for did proceed with the next member. May I remind members that for questions in somearies, multiplechoice questions or answers are not the point. Next question. The member of Hamilton West, please. >> Are they too hard? >> Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to ask the minister about Carolyn Meredith. Carolyn Meredith is a young woman who is severely mentally and physically handicapped. In her original family, she was sexually abused. In the subsequent family with which she stayed, she was sexually and physically abused. The school to which she went, the principal pleaded with an aunt and uncle to look after her for the remainder of her school years, which they have done. But now, the two of them work. They can no longer afford to keep her at home. She will be 21 and ineligible for further school or support after June the 21st. There is no place for her to go because your ministry has refused to provide a one-to-one person who will support her after her departure from school. What does the minister propose to do for Carolyn Meredith? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Uh the honorable member has uh underlined an area that uh quite frankly is becoming particularly uh uh troublesome uh in terms of the resources that are available uh to meet the growing number of of people who are passing beyond that age when they can be supported within the school system. Uh and we are increasingly being faced with requests to uh provide similar support. I am not aware of the specific case and we'll certainly make a commitment to the honorable member to look into that uh case in particular. Uh but I would say that we are uh developing uh uh programs trying to look at a number of different ways in which we can uh assist those individuals whether on a one-to-one basis or in some uh uh uh group home setting. Uh I think that this is one that during the rest of this decade we are going to find increasing pressure uh and we are going to do our utmost to ensure working with our partners in the community that we can meet that need. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, the issue may be more urgent than the minister is aware. Uh because a month ago, the Merediths, the uncle and aunt wrote to him to tell him that as of June 25th, if there was no program available, this young woman would be deposited at the door of his office with all her luggage and he would have the care of her in his own hands. They are not alone. There are waiting lists for example at the Reena organization which is one of the bigger service agencies for daycare provision for such such young people. You don't get on the way into that institution unless somebody dies. The waiting list is almost permanent. In Hamilton there are waiting list to get on the waiting list. in the Metro Toronto Association for Community Living with 60 on the waiting list. They're expecting 40 more as soon as this school year ends. >> Supplementary is >> Mr. Minister, do people in this situation have to really resort to the threat or the actuality of dumping their wards, their children at your door in order to get real support for their real dilemma? >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. uh certainly uh no one wants to see that situation arise and I believe that we can all understand the uh the frustration and the concern that is faced by uh parents, relatives uh uh family, friends who who feel that there is no no other option. I can assure the honorable member uh that in each case that does come to the attention of our ministry, we do sit down to attempt to work out a solution to that particular individual's uh problem. Uh I would say that we are aware of that greater need uh and are trying to look at how we can better allocate our resources so that those waiting lists can be uh uh cleaned up uh and in in fact are there other ways in which we can assist those uh those individuals. Uh this is a a a real uh a real problem and a real issue and we are going to do our very best to ensure that the resources are there uh to help those individuals. >> New question. Member for Missaga South. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the uh Minister of Government Services in spite of the fact that the Minister of the Environment just jogged into the chambers. >> Question is, >> Mr. speaker. Um the Minister of Government Services has released a a press release as of an hour ago and unfortunately we now all know that we have another uh low-level radioactive waste site in the city of Scarbor in the district of Melvin and we are very concerned Mr. Speaker to know of this secondary location to Mccclure Cresant and my question to the minister is this. I understand that you have known about this site since the 22nd of March, which is now 12 days ago, and we would like to know what your plans are to ensure the security of the site and the safety of the area residents. >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the member knows, I believe she was fully briefed today that the the Ministry of Government Services had hired consultants to do some uh routine tests for environmental contamination on some vacant land owned jointly by the province and the federal government in the Val Malvin community in anticipation of some further development. Uh during the course of those routine tests, uh there was an indication preliminary indication that they felt there may have been uh some trace elements of radioactivity. Uh it was further examined by the joint uh uh team uh under the guidance of the uh lowle radiation unit from the federal government. As soon as it was confirmed that there were some spots with uh higher readings than uh than were accept acceptable. The sites were immediately fenced and uh further testing is going on and a joint team is working on coming up with some uh uh proposals for remediation. >> Supplementary Uh, Mr. Speaker, I'll give the minister the benefit that he didn't hear the question while he was coming into the house because the I the information you've just given me is in the press release. Uh, my question, however, is not in the press release. Mr. Minister, we have an example of the Mccclure Cresant contaminated soil that still has not been removed. The concern that we have is what are you going to do to guarantee the security of this site whilst you decide what to do with it? And can you guarantee the safety for the area residents in terms of health? And why don't you move both lots of soil mur and this site to the radioactive waste that's l the radioactive uh site that's licensed by Ontario Hydro. >> Minister. >> Well, thank you very much and I am grateful for the question and the member does know that the federal low-level uh radioactive waste management office does have responsibility for removal. The member also knows that we have been trying for years to get the federal government to move the soil out of Mccclure Crescent. Uh they know that these lands are jointly owned, 75% by the federal government, 25% by the province of Ontario. And uh uh I know that she will do everything she can as I will uh to press upon our federal counterparts the uh need to remove this material. I do want to say this though that the levels uh are uh uh do not uh as I understand it and on the advice that we receive from the officials involved on the team do not represent a health hazard. As a precaution, the sites have been uh fenced and uh we will work jointly with our federal counterparts as well as the local medical officer of health to make further determinations. And uh uh we are looking at uh ways in which the contaminated soil can be appropriately uh uh identified and uh uh if it's just a case of removing pieces of plastic tubing for instance that may be buried there'll be identified extracted and removed and disposed of elsewhere. >> Your question member for Lincoln. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. My question is the Minister of Education. On Monday night, an information session was sponsored by the Great View Parents Association. Representatives of the City of St. Cathine's Park and Recreation Department, Lincoln County Board of Education, Ministry of Education, myself were in attendance. We heard that for the last three years, Grape View School, which was given permission to be demolished in September 1989 was the Lincoln County Board of Education's number one priority. We heard that since 1987, 2500 new homes have been constructed, and that another 1,200 in the next two years will be built. The city of St. Catherine's and Lincoln County Board of Education are willing to cooperate with respect to a sports facility. Can the minister inform the House when he expects to announce his capital expenditure funding for the coming year? >> Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, well, it's that time of year again, and I must uh congratulate the member for Lincoln for making uh what shall I say, very vigorous representations on behalf of uh of his uh of his community. He's quite right in observing that the Great View school situation is is a recognized pressure. Uh uh the meetings to which he makes reference are meetings of which I am keenly aware. I expect uh within two to three weeks to be making uh the annual uh capital allocation for elementary and secondary school purposes. >> Thank you. U at the same meeting as I mentioned we learned that a new subdivision is under consideration in West St. Cathine's. Does the minister have any advice to either the Lincoln County Board of Education or Lincoln Catholic Separate School Board with respect to funding for new schools in new growth areas? >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, uh yes, I have some advice for my friend from Lincoln and our friend from Glengary who seems to be agitated on this subject. I would advise the member from Lincoln to tell his school boards that they would be very wise to make every effort to make uh full and efficient use of existing physical plant. And I really mean that. Uh I know something I know something of the the situation in the Niagara Peninsula. And while I recognize that there are growth pressures, I also recognize that there are taxpayers uh uh supporting both school boards in that area who would want me to say on their behalf that whatever we do, we take into account maximum use of the multi-million dollar facilities that are already there. Our friend, the member from St. Katherine's Brock was just sending me a note about some other pressures in that area. To the extent that there are going to be growth pressures, I would observe as well that as a result of recent legislation, school boards that face growth pressures should be looking to the lot levy as a way of assisting uh the relief of growth related pressures in that area. >> Thank you. New question, the member for Beaches Woodbine. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. >> I'm sure the Minister is aware that a unique daytime care program for victims of Alzheimer's disease operated by the Downs View Service Services for Seniors in North York announced last week that it had been forced to close the program because of lack of adequate funding support from your ministry. I understand that this very important program for Alzheimer's victims was offered only a 4% increase in its grant. >> Shame. >> Below the inflation rate and ignoring the fact that the service requires one to one uh operation and uh would cost $65,000 more next year. >> Question, >> Minister. uh as a result of this uh for these six Alzheimer victims the uh they may be forced into already overcrowded hospitals and nursing homes. What are you prepared to offer in the way of alternative services in their own neighborhood so that they can be kept in the community and improve the quality of their life? >> Right on. Right on. >> Thank you very much uh Mr. Mr. Speaker, and the honorable member raises uh an issue that is very important to the work of uh of our ministry and to many of the community associations with which we're most involved. The honorable member would want to know that we uh fund something in the order of $400,000 to that particular association and officials from my ministry met with them uh earlier this year, I believe in January or February to look at a number of the programs that program areas that they had and to talk about uh the need for more funding that they they did have. Uh that funding uh is continuing. Uh we are continuing to work with the association. Uh what we did say was that they might want to look at uh uh some of the programs they were doing in terms of whether there were other services uh in the community and they could focus on some of the unique things that they were doing. Uh it is our belief in uh through my officials in the area and working with them that we will be able to accommodate the individuals you referred to. But I would want to stress that our funding of that organization continues. Uh it is uh one that we have been working with for some time and will continue to work with. >> Supplementary. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Minister, what I'm talking about is six Alzheimer victims for whom uh services will not be provided in this particular agency. And those six uh will have to go into hospitals or nursing homes or stay at home with no assistance at all to their caregivers at home. So that we're talking not about whether that in that organization, the Downsview services will continue, but whether these six will receive services on the onetoone basis that is required for their care. And therefore, I'm asking that you consider in your long-term uh care review, instituting a program to help such victims of Alzheimer's disease in order to keep them in the community. >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. certainly within the context of long-term care and the kind of support that I believe we'll be able to make to a number of organizations in the community and Alzheimer's daycare being uh one very important component uh that we would be able to to do that. I will certainly uh look into the specific uh case in terms of the of the six to see uh what uh what can be done to to help them. As I say, it was my understanding that we would be able to find support uh for all of the people involved. But I uh understand from what the honorable member has said that there is this specific problem and I will get back to her. I think when we are looking at the strategic document I will be releasing shortly around long-term care uh that this is one of the critical areas that we want to make sure that we can do uh more uh throughout the province in terms of helping those who are providing uh important daycare programs uh not only in the Alzheimer's area but in many others. >> New question the member for sorry privilege >> Mr. Speaker, I may have inadvertently misled the house earlier today when I indicated that uh with regards to tonight's reception for the vice chairman of the Lithuanian parliament that the invitation was accept uh extended by the member from High Park Swansea. In fact, it's being hosted by the minister of citizenship. It was done on very short notice because of uncertainty about the itinerary and I apologize for any inconvenience unavoidable though it is that this may have caused members. >> Thank you. >> Member for Carlton. >> Thank you very much. I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. Uh, Mr. Min, Mr. Minister, uh, people in the greater Toronto area may be very happy about hearing about $5 billion in expenditure for the Greater Toronto area, but I'll tell you, the people in Eastern Ontario are sick and tired of being treated as second fiddle to this area. Yesterday, yesterday we had the fifth fatal accident on Highway 17 between Armpri and Renfruit. The people in that area have been asking you for a four-lane highway there for years. >> Mayor Terry McKenna Pembrook says we have to be realistic. >> Four lanes are necessary. The the county warden Kevin Hall described the accident as outrageous and the people of Renfruit County are more determined now than ever to have a four-lane highway. My question to you is why are you going to waste $10 million on intersection intersection uh changing and and threelaning certain parts of it when in fact the number of accidents in that area is horrific and a four-lane highway is needed right away. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, very clearly I very much regret the uh the very tragic accident yesterday in which unfortunately number of individuals lost their lives and have asked for and received a preliminary report on the causes of that accident. But my honorable friend would know that uh because we have had discussions on this that we have put together a very aggressive plan of improvements along that stretch of highway and uh my uh friend and colleague the minister of education has taken a great leadership role in ongoing discussions with me because he is very very concerned as well as our honor all honorable members from that area about this issue. We have uh Mr. speaker uh put in place a very aggressive uh schedule in which we plan to fourlane the highway uh to um to Iron Prior and uh the honorable member would know that we expect that to happen by the middle part of this decade at a cost of some $150 million. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, he would want to know and he does know that we intend to put in place a number of passing lanes. I believe an additional 12 passing lanes uh along along the stretch immediately west of Iron Prior in an effort to reduce the kind of trag tragic situation which occurred yesterday. Our experience, Mr. Speaker, has been in the past that that those passing lanes do reduce those situations. >> Supplementary. >> Well, uh well, Mr. Speaker, the $10 million that are expected to be spent between Iron Prior and Pemrook represent 1if of 1% of the expenditures that you're going to spend in the greater Toronto area over the next 10 years. 1/5if of 1%. >> The the uh the uh Mr. Mr. Mr. Minister, uh you know that this area of uh of uh the Highway 17 is becoming known as a killer strip, >> that there have been a number of fatal accidents along that way. >> Why on earth would you not would you not look ahead and listen to the local politicians of the county of Renfruit who are not getting support from the member from Renfruit in terms of their quest for a four-lane highway? the uh the town of Renfruit and the town of Pembrook. Use the extra help in terms of uh spurring economic development in both of those towns. Why not build it now and prevent this kind of accidents and the economic development that that area so sorely needs? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, one is terribly tempted to remind the honorable member that in the days when he had the responsibility as a member of the executive council on this side of the house that the uh that highway 416 went absolutely nowhere. And one would be tempted to remind that same member that highway 417 went absolutely nowhere. And one would be tempted to remind him that all of the improvements now taking place within the regional municipality went very very very uh uh slowly indeed. Mr. Speaker, I would also remind that my honorable friend and ask him since perhaps when he returns home this weekend to remind the government of Canada who have put money into the TransCanada highway system in every other province other than this that they too as we move forward uh as we move forward with very aggressively all over Ontario with the kind of improvements that he wants and that I want that we could use uh uh even a few million dollars of help uh from the federal government. New question. Member for Hamilton Center. >> My question. My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of of uh responsible for women. Madame Minister, a significant part of the Canadian film and television industries in Ontario, and I've always been proud of the contribution of women to this industry. Yet, a recent 1989 study prepared for Toronto women in film and video shows that women in this industry are under reppresented and paid less than men. In light of this report, I'd like to know what the government is doing to improve conditions for women in the film and TV industry in Ontario and to encourage young women to consider entering this career. >> Minister, >> question. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My ministry, the Ontario Women's Directorate contributed $15,000 toward the preparation of this report. The report provides valuable data that we will use to improve employment patterns for women in the film and television industry. My ministry will also continue to work with the Toronto women in film to encourage initiatives, particularly within Ontario government agencies that will respond to the findings of the report. We need to encourage women to take part in non-traditional careers such as film in order that we can have a strong economy and contribute to the financial and economic equality of women. The Ontario Women's Directorate is involved in developing a number of tools such as videos, manuals, role modeling programs for use by educators and trainers in their work with young men and women so that we can encourage young men and women to base their choices of educational and and career decisions not on narrowly defined stereotypical ideas about what is men's work or women's work, but instead on their talents, abilities, and interests. supplementary. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we're aware that uh when you take a look at the representation that women are notably not present in the higher management and creative positions and I'm wondering if which amounts in some in some extent to role uh stereotyping and I'm wondering if the minister could specifically tell me what kind of action she would foresee to encourage women to uh uh take a look at the management and creative positions that are available to them. >> Minister Mr. Speaker, the report did indicate that there is some improvement. Last year, 34% of the graduates from film and uh broadcasting courses was 34%. The year before, the number of women graduates was 23%. We are working uh with the data that will come out of this report to encourage more women to enter and to graduate from uh film courses along with role modeling programs. We're working with various communities with trainers, with educators to provide them with the tools to make those encouragements to young women and to young men to look beyond non-tra beyond the traditional into the uh the non-traditional. Our economy needs to make use of all the human resources in order to keep our economy competitive. >> This completes the time allocated for oral questions.