Question Period Rewind - April 9 1990

Hi everyone, welcome to Question Period Rewind. I'm Donna Skellyy, the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Get ready to travel back to 1990. The Hubble Space Telescope launched into orbit and at home, technology was starting to evolve. Everyone was excited to try the first Microsoft Office released for Windows, bundling Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. We also saw Adobe release a new signature product, Photoshop. Now, let's see what the house was up to. [music] >> Oral questions. the me leader of the opposition. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Mr. Speaker, uh I have a question for the premier. Uh Mr. Speaker, the uh the premier when he established the holden inquiry uh last June >> stated that the reason for establishing the inquiry was because it was necessary to restore public trust and public confidence in the conduct of public officials. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the premier given that that was the purpose of the Holden inquiry and that the premier presumably decided that a police investigation uh was not sufficient and was not enough to satisfy that test. I want to ask the premier now why his government is rejecting out of hand the creation of an inquiry that would have the broad responsibility for reestablishing public trust and for looking into and detailing the relationship between the development industry and the Liberal Party of Ontario. >> Premier, Mr. Speaker, I say my honorable friend uh he's he's quite right and we established the inquiry as I said then and I say to my honorable friend now there are no secrets. If mistakes are made uh they should be there for all to see and restitution should be made. There's no question about that and we established the uh the commission and that was the basis upon which we established that obviously you and I have to take our direction from the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately on these matters. uh we uh went to the divisional court, it went to the Ontario Court of Appeal, it was upheld and the Supreme Court of Canada has created new law on this particular matter. So at the end of the day, we are obliged to take direction from the highest court in the land. >> Mr. Speaker, is the premier arguing is the premier arguing in front of this house that the effect of the Supreme Court judgment, the Supreme Court has basically said that it is not possible for the Liberal Party, the Liberal government of Ontario to establish a public inquiry detailing and outlining the links between his party and the development industry in this province. Is that what you're saying the Supreme Court of Canada is saying? Premier, >> I think what I don't pretend to be an expert on this matter, but as I understand what the Supreme Court said is you can't carry on a criminal investigation as the same time uh that you have an inquiry that has compellable witnesses in bearing on the very same subject. It was an issue of I guess in their mind civil liberties of of the particular people are under question. >> A supplementary >> Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, the premier is simply indicating that he hasn't understood what's happened. But I want to go back to the fundamental politics of this situation. You established a public inquiry the day after Gordon Ashworth uh was found to have uh received a refrigerator without having paid the bill for it. You you the day after you said you felt you'd been kicked in the head and the next day you announced the holden inquiry. That may explain the terms of reference for the holden inquiry. I don't know. But I want to ask the premier, the Supreme Court of Canada has simply said that the terms of reference are so restricted and named the individuals involved in such a way that that's not the way to do it. I want to ask the premier, does he not realize that the Supreme Court has also said very clearly, the province has the right to establish commissions of inquiry in areas of its own jurisdiction? Why don't you do that? Unless, of course, you've got something to hide. Premier, I think I think I think I think the honorable leader of uh the opposition revealed his view in the preamble to his question. He said, "Let's talk about the politics of the situation." Obviously, you think that you have a political interest in this thing one way or the other. But I think what we have to do is look at the legal side and look at the legal judgment. And I as I understand what it said is that you cannot do indirectly what you can't do directly. And in fact that is a law not your interpretation of it which as you said at the beginning of your question was politically motivated. >> Do you have a question? Leader of the opposition. Mr. >> Speaker the we know uh we also know for example that within the ministry of municipal affairs. There was a serious proposal for a public inquiry into the relationship between the planning process and developers in that in York region. And we know that that particular inquiry was nixed after a discussion between Mr. Ashworth and other individuals in in the cabinet. Now I want to ask the the the premier. We now know that the door was slammed shut back in 1988 with respect to that inquiry. We know that the premier having having uh heard the news about Mr. Ashworth then turns around and said well let's quickly let's get a public inquiry but let's restrict it specifically to Tridal to Mrs. Star and to Mr. Ashworth. Let's not have a broader inquiry. Let's have a very narrowly defined one. That was your decision, not ours. Yours. I want to ask you, the Supreme Court has said you were wrong to do that. You made a mistake in in so fashioning the terms of reference of that inquiry. I want to go back and ask you what is stopping you now from establishing a commission of inquiry that would reestablish confidence in the planning process, reestablish confidence in the integrity of the political process, and finally establish once and for all that maybe there are some laws and rules around here that need to change. >> I think you've asked me what's a what's a change and the answer is the Supreme Court ruling in this entire matter. Well, you have a different interpretation of this than uh many other respected uh uh uh jurists in this particular matter. You have your own view of of the law of the land. They have their view of the law of the land. And the Supreme Court is even supreme to you. >> Andre, >> Mr. Speaker, I uh >> I want to ask I want to ask the premier again. >> What is it specifically in the Supreme Court judgment that prevents you from establishing an inquiry that will do what you said what you said needed to be done. Public officials must be open to public scrutiny and in doing so must be found to be beyond reproach and acting in accordance with the highest ethical standards. Are you standing on your feet today and saying that you can't do that because the Supreme Court of Canada won't let you do that? >> Premier Speaker, I'm saying exactly what I have said and what and I'm interpreting with with assistance the advice of the Supreme Court of Canada who said you cannot do indirectly what you can't do directly. And that's very very clear. Well, I can say that my honorable friend opposite is not taking advice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He's following his own political dictates and instincts which he has every right to do. But you're entitled to your interpretation, but that's not the best legal judgments in the country. >> Last supplementary, >> Mr. Speaker, the the question again to the premier is this. The Supreme Court of Canada says very specifically that the province has the responsibility for establishing commissions of inquiry. Nothing in its decision takes away from that responsibility. You established a commission of inquiry because you said we have to reestablish confidence in the system. You didn't think the police investigation was adequate last June. Why would a police investigation be adequate today? Why would it be? I want to ask the premier, if you have nothing to hide, if indeed you have nothing to hide in terms of the connections between your government and members of your party and the development industry of this province, why not have a public inquiry? Premier, >> I think my my my answer is is still the same as it was before since you asked me the same question on on on four occasions. Uh we have nothing to hide. As I said to you before, uh we established the inquiry in all good faith. It went through two levels of courts and was supported. The Supreme Court of Canada had a different view and things that impinge on someone's criminality or bring compellable witnesses are not possible to carry on at the same time. That's their law. We have to respect that. You do and I do. >> You have a question. The member for Sernia. >> A question to the premier as well on the same subject. Mr. Speaker, the Holden inquiry. On Thursday, the attorney general came up with an interpretation of the findings of the Supreme Court with respect to the Holden inquiry that were the most narrow, the most limited, the most restrictive of almost any voice from the legal community that we've heard on this particular question. That being the case and where there is open to interpretation as to the Supreme Court's ruling that in fact an inquiry is quite appropriate and and an inquiry on behalf of the provincial government is within its area of responsibility and that there were problems with the restrictiveness of the wording of this particular inquiry itself. Are you prepared, sir, to look at some other avenue other than what was put on the table by the attorney general, namely the OP investigation, to follow through and bring to an appropriate conclusion this whole area of doubt which hangs over the government and the legislature of Ontario? >> Premier, >> the the attorney general will be happy to explain to the honorable member why he came to the conclusion he did. >> Mr. Mr. Attorney General >> questions asked today it seems to me is a misunderstanding and some of the press reports is a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court of Canada really said. It's not correct in my opinion and the opinion of my adviserss to say that the case is simply one about the terms of the order and council. The case begins with a thorough discussion about the interaction between an inquiry, whether it be federally or proincially constituted, and a pending current criminal investigation. And everybody knows that whether the terms of reference in this case are broadened or not, the allegations with which the inquiry will begin and be vested are precisely the same as the terms of reference of the police investigation. So that the court as it said focusing on the substance has made plain I believe that the criminal investigation must proceed first. It will proceed and we will see what results from the police investigation. At the same time as the honorable leader of the third party knows there are a number of other inquiries underway. The public trustees inquiry, the conflict of interest commissioners inquiry. uh the uh there is an inquiry in the election commission which is full power to consider a number of these matters. They will all I believe if there was material on which they should report be prepared to report. The >> attorney general knows full well that also contained within the report that was handed down by the Supreme Court was the very clear advice that an inquiry was appropriate on this or other matters to be undertaken as a responsibility of this legislature. The attorney general stands virtually alone in stating that his position is that an inquiry cannot go forward as a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling. Would the attorney general agree to at least inquire further to get a more specific interpretation as to whether or not a an inquiry can proceed by this legislature to look into these areas of very serious concern, not only to the to the political uh individuals who are involved in this legislature, but to the people of Ontario who have a right to know what happened with respect to all of these particular matters that before the inquiry. >> Attorney General, >> Mr. Speaker, as I think anybody can predict, if an effort were made to broaden the terms of reference of the inquiry, the evidence at the inquiry would proceed. And I suppose it would go on for probably 15 minutes before one of the council being one of the council who appeared in the Supreme Court of Canada would say this is precisely the thing that the Supreme Court of Canada has said you cannot do. conduct an inquiry into criminal matters or matters of misconduct when a police criminal investigation under which we may be charged is underway. And the reason you can't do that is the very reason the Supreme Court of Canada gave because you cannot be compelled to testify in a police investigation and you can be compelled to testify in a civil proceeding like an inquiry. Everybody knows that would happen if the inquiry started up again. And the Supreme Court of Canada has gone to some trouble at some length to discuss the appropriate interaction between a criminal investigation and a pending inquiry. Uh it cannot be done as long as the criminal investigation is underway in these circumstances. last supplementary. >> I say to the attorney general that the bottom line of this entire >> discussion that's going on in this house at the moment is a method by which we can collectively find a way to restore the public's confidence in the system. There have been personal comments made by some of those who were involved in this particular case where they in fact have admitted to certain errors in their ways that have occurred. Some have even indicated that they might do the whole thing again. >> Now that concerns me, Mr. attorney general because it means that it's going to be business as usual >> supplementary >> and there will be no restraints, no limitations in the activities of some people. I think that's wrong, sir. >> I really think that's wrong. Mr. Speaker, my question to the attorney general is would you and your government through you to the premier whom I'd hope to ask this question of this afternoon be prepared to look at a reasonable series of steps that I believe your government can take with respect to getting to the bottom of what this issue is all about. Namely, that some individuals influence your government with respect to their particular activities. Are you prepared to look with an open mind on some reasonable positions that our party will put forth? >> General, >> the honorable member will perhaps recall an exchange that I had with the leader of the opposition and the member for Nickel Belt about a year and a half ago when they very earnestly desired with reasons I understood why a coroner's inquest should proceed a police investigation and criminal charges. I took a line on that occasion which they did not find satisfactory and I understand their views. uh since then and decided that the criminal investigation must proceed to its completion before the coroner's inquest can be held. The Supreme Court of Ontario has only two weeks ago held precisely the same thing in the Beckan inquiry which says that as long as investigation is pending, a coroner's inquest is no right to consider the question of murder or suicide. That is followed last week by this decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada has said that there is that it is not simply a question of the terms of the order and council. There is another question which is the juxtiposition of a criminal investigation which may lead to police charges in a criminal court on the one hand and at the same time a commission of inquiry where people who may ultimately be accused can be compelled to testify against their will with penal sanctions and that it's in that context these two conflicting things happening at the same time that the Supreme Court of Canada spoke My honorable friends will surely concede that it wouldn't make any difference in reality in substance. As Mr. Justice Lamair said if this commission had been established by the federal government, though the argument was dealt with in a section 9192 context, the court was addressing a major problem about the inter relationship between a criminal police investigation where people have rights not to testify and an inquiry going on at exactly the same time. This is not like Nellis here. It's exactly the same time where people have the right under our constitution and criminal code not to testify and it was that juxtaposition that presented the problem in this case and still presents it. >> Thank you. New question member for Paris. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the premier. Mr. Premier, I'd like to uh address the issue of Meech Lake this afternoon and I would like to read you a quote from your colleague, Premier Wells from New Foundland. I'm quoting him out of a Toronto Star article dated March the 27th just a couple of weeks ago. Frankly, I don't see how we can pass the Meech Lake Accord as it is and address the concerns of Newfoundland or Manitoba in a parallel or companion accord. End of quote. Do you agree with that statement, Mr. Premier? >> Premier. >> Mr. Speaker, the answer is I don't know for sure at this moment. Obviously, he has the right to speak for Newfoundland. He is the first minister there and I assume he speaks with the uh support of his cabinet and his um his party in that regard and I regret very much that he has chosen to take the actions that he has done particularly when others uh like premier McKenna are searching for constructive solutions to this very very difficult and complex problem. Uh so I I the hope was obviously with uh respect to the introduction of the u of the U motion by Premier McKenna that it would be able to gather some consensus around it. Now it was not pres presented as a take it or leave it proposition. Others may choose to add to it. As my honorable friend knows, today in the uh in the federal parliament, committee hearings have started to discuss that particular matter and the hope is that some consensus would be gathered around that process in the next few weeks or so. But I cannot tell my honorable friend with any certainty the outcome of that of those hearings or those discussions. >> Supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Premier, you've just stated that you regret that Premier Wells has taken the position that he's taken. Do you do you think it's appropriate for you to participate in a $1,000 fundraising event in Toronto on April the 17th build as quote Meech and Marimentment mixing to quote the Globe Male cocktails with constitutional crisis? Do you think that's appropriate for you as first minister of this province at a very difficult time in our constitutional history? >> Do you think that's appropriate, >> Premier? >> Of course. There's absolutely nothing inappropriate whatsoever except maybe you and John Crosby. John Crosby is the new arbiter of good taste in this country. Good lord. I mean, that is the most pretentious aspiration I've ever heard of anybody in my life. It's like John Crowe complaining about mortgage interest rates being too high and uh he is a a fellow premier and I have absolutely no problem with with that whatsoever. We have a strong difference of opinion on Meech. There's no question about that. >> Very strong different views about uh about the nature of this country and the kind of solutions we can find together. But I tell my honorable friend that doesn't uh preclude me from trying to work together with my colleagues in other matters and try to build a stronger Canada. supplementary. [applause] >> Nobody in this house this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is quoting John Crosby, unless it's the premier himself. Maybe he puts himself in the same class. >> Do you do you think this is particularly appropriate is what I asked you as first minister. And do you think turning a constitutional crisis into a frivolous partisan event entitled quote mecha and marrynt? Do you think that's appropriate? And does that present and send the sort of signal that we want to send to the other province to Ontarians and to Canadians about this issue? >> Won't you reconsider about partaking in this event on April the 17th? Premier? >> Absolutely not. Uh really my friend is I mean you are getting more like John Crosby every day except you're not funny. uh you have bad judgment but you're not funny. Uh and that is one of the difference. Let me tell my honorable friend. I think that he gets too carried away with this and really doesn't understand the reality of trying to build consensus, trying to build strong things that we have in common across this country. >> New York question Nickel Belt. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> I have >> over the falls you people are doing >> questions. >> You'll get down the bottom first. Order, please. >> I have a question for the premier concerning his government's opposition to the goods and services tax. >> Wow. >> The premier will know that uh all across can all across Canada today, ballots are being held in the workplace against the goods and services tax. >> My bottom line >> and yet your government has refused to allow your employees to vote on the job. And um >> way to go. Yes. One moment your treasurer saying that he's opposed to the tax but falling all over himself to collect it. You say you're opposed to the goods and services tax, but you won't even let your employees vote against it on the job. Could you please tell us how serious are you in your opposition to the goods and services tax? Are you more serious than you were in your opposition to the free trade agreement? Less serious? About the same? How serious are you? What are you going to do about it? I think uh the honorable uh minister in charge of the civil service can help my honorable friend out on how that uh decision came about. >> Minister >> um Mr. Spe uh speaker we have uh maintained our opposition to the GST but in relation to the request that came to us as employer. There was a request that there be time given off uh job uh duties to vote and well actually the request was for at for between 15 minutes and half an hour for each of our employees to vote and that it is true because I saw the letters. I have seen the draft letters that came through to the people and you have the one that's probably for public consumption, but I know what was requested of people. There was a request made for 15 to 30 minutes off job time to vote on this. Now, we take this as a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, in relation to what should be registered in terms of disappointment with the federal authorities on this tax. But we don't think that it is something that cannot be done either prior to or after the regular job time. that in fact it doesn't relate specifically to the job that is being done by the Ontario public service. We had been requested for this uh permission to have time off and we had been requested uh to have the ballot boxes in the workplace and we felt that it could be accomplished other than in that place and in fact I think there are a good number of people who will take advantage of voting their discontent with the GST but it doesn't have to be done during job hours >> supplementary. >> Yeah. Well, I expect you to applaud that, >> Mr. Speaker. Uh it was our understanding that this government, I know that the attorney general certainly that formerly great civil libertarian is in favor of allowing more civil rights uh for uh political rights for for its employees of the province of Ontario. Uh, I wonder if you could uh >> wonder if you could tell us how is it that Ontario joins the Nova Scotia Tories as the only other government in Canada that's refused to give permission to its employees to vote on the job on this very important matter. >> Minister, >> well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that uh there is ample opportunity for people >> have a vote on their affiliation with the NDP. >> Perhaps as the honorable member from St. Catherine's had just noted a vote on their affiliation with the NDP should be allowed. But I can tell, Mr. Speaker, the full member, >> in our view, >> in our view, registering a descent against the GST is well within anybody's rights and should and must take place if a person feels strongly about it, but that there is a no real particular need to allow somebody between 15 minutes and 30 minutes off work to to do that. That was what the letters in draft form were given to the stewards on the job. And in fact, Mr. Speaker, we think that there is real merit in people registering their concern and protest about the negative implications of the of the goods and services tax otherwise named by some honorable members in the federal house and even chairman of of committees there. But the people can register their dissent and in fact I think they can find good ways and reasonable ways of pursuing their dis their discontent about the the goods and services tax at the federal level. >> New question for Simco. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I'll direct my question to the premier. Mr. Premier, uh, I want you to know that we're pleased that the, uh, province has finally agreed to the to the bid and support of the worth very worthwhile Toronto Olympics. On Thursday, the minister said that the province would provide up to $125 million of lottery revenue for the construction of additional facilities. The minister has already decreased the share of revenues to provincial culture and recreation activities in this province by designating a portion of the lottery revenues to the health care system. and within the last couple of weeks has taken an additional slice uh with bill 19 amendment for to put money into the environment. My question, Mr. Premier, is how many slices can you take from an increasingly smaller pie and who is going to be hurt by this additional designation of funds, cultural groups, healthcare, environment? >> Mr. Speaker, the answer, my honorable friend, is and I'm glad he supports the Olympics and I I assume he's not against increasing the budget for the environment because I know he cares passionately about that. But the answer is everybody wins. >> You see, one of the realities of the Olympic bid, Mr. Speaker, is there are going to be addition of new facilities. There will be new facilities around the province. There will be an ongoing legacy for amateur sports. My friend is well aware that a great number of the sites, the high school facilities and others across Toronto, across the province will be substantially upgraded for the Olympics. So I think my honorable friend can go home and tell his colleagues that with the Olympics it will be wonderful for all parts of this province and no one uh will be decreased and matter of fact there will be a far larger contribution into sports and and recreational facilities across the province. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. The treasur says everybody wins. Uh really what the uh premier is saying and confirming what the minister said that the problem problem with the province is they will assume any debt really what you have done you've given an open blank check I'm asking you Mr. Premier, if the if the deficit is a billion dollars, will you provide the funds for that? >> Premier, >> I can assure my honorable friend, I don't plan to have a baby over this. I tell my honorable friend that uh there is a specific commitment of uh of funds in this particular regard. Uh there is was that commitment to the city of Toronto. But I want to tell my honorable friend at the very same time. There are very s there sufficient controls built in that that we don't believe it's going to run into that situation. And we believe that this can be run where as I said every on a on a a self-contained basis that there will be no money lost. The funds will not come from the taxpayers. What will be in from lottery funds and the capital commitments there will be an ongoing legacy for all and we're very comfortable uh with the assistance that we've given to the city of Toronto in this regard. >> New question the member for Brford. >> Question is for the minister of health. April is cancer month in Ontario and recently I was speaking with Dr. Goodyear of the Hamilton Regional Cancer Center and he told me that most forms of cancer are on the decline or are under control. The one big exception is lung cancer which is on a steep rise upwards. I know that the Ontario government has shown leadership by banning smoking in in all of our workplaces which which we have under our control here at Queens Park and in different ministries. Could the minister inform the house as to what she is doing as Minister of Health to encourage the banning of smoking or require the banning of smoking in all healthcare institutions across Ontario? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Uh I want to commend the member for his uh question and in fact the comment that he's making about the importance of people uh not smoking. Quitting smoking or not starting smoking is probably the most important thing that you can do for your own health. And the member is quite right. This is uh cancer month and it's an opportunity for us to be very aware of the many initiatives that have uh been underway. I can tell him that the ministry of health has shown great leadership under the uh leadership of the former minister was declared a smoke-free workplace uh the first in the government of Ontario and has been very supportive of the legislation in the province uh both internally within government and also uh in the workplace as well. We have been encouraging the uh hospitals of the province to follow the lead and I'm pleased to tell him that many have declared themselves smokefree workplaces. >> Supplementary supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister as well. Uh last fall I had the privilege of attending the groundbreaking ceremony of the expansion of the Hamilton Regional Cancer Center. I believe the premier was there and uh in talking to the doctors there they say that treatment facilities are are very scarce and that we need resources for cancer treatment. Is it much not much better to prevent cancer in the first place? We know that smoking causes cancer. Uh why not provide a little more emphasis, a little more direction to those health care facilities, perhaps even require them to ban smoking on their premises? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The member with when he stresses prevention I think is doing a great service to the people of this province because in fact cigarette smoking has been directly linked to both cancer, heart disease, emphyma and respiratory diseases as well. And that is what our healthy uh um uh health promotion campaign and our programs are all about. As you know we've undertaken uh public education campaigns to give people the information that they need so that they will stop smoking. And I believe that the both the hospitals of this province and other healthcare um providers are uh taking a look at how they can promote good health and encourage the people who use their facilities to in fact quit smoking. As the member knows, hospitals are autonomous. They're run by boards of directors. And I would encourage all of the members of this house to ask their hospitals what their smoking or no smoking policies are because I think they'll find that many are progressive in eliminating smoking in their institutions and facilities. >> New question the member for one third. >> A question of the premier. Mr. Speaker, hundreds perhaps thousands were the victims of almost unspeakable horrific violence when they were in the care and custody of St. Joseph's and Alfred during the 50s and 60s. Sergeant Al Crocker of the OP says that Mount Casual is nothing compared to what took place at St. Joseph's. No action was taken by the government in response to the complaints back then of physical and sexual abuse. These same persons, now adults, live with the open wounds inflicted on them by the staff of that facility. We know that a criminal investigation is being done by the OP, but at the same time, people in Ontario have a right to know the extent of the violence at St. Joseph's and similar institutions. The victims of that violence have a right to appropriate remedial care. Why won't the government commit itself to a public inquiry with a view to determining those two very specific things which are so essential at this point in our province's history and in the lives of those victims? >> Mr. Speaker, to my honorable friend, uh I don't think the government rules that out by any stretch of the imagination, but obviously whatever is done has to take into account uh the new ruling of the Supreme Court in this particular regard. Now, as my honorable friend knows, there is a police investigation going on at the present time. Uh I have enormous sympathy for those uh gentlemen that I I've seen speaking on television as you have. I know there was a request coming forward from assistance with respect to counseling and we will do anything we can to try to help those people and I've instructed the ministries today to try to be as sensitive as responsive as we possibly can. As I said there is a police investigation there. Uh uh it is proceeding a pace so I'm told. I can't tell my honorable friend where that will go. Uh but at the end of the day obviously subject to the new constraints uh uh we don't rule out um anything at this point but we have to obey the new laws. >> Supplementary >> speaker community and social services reported back in May of 1989 after the SEP death uh that there were serious inadequacies in standards and procedures in young person's facilities across Ontario. There is no mechanism existent in Ontario right now that would prevent another St. Isn't a public inquiry the ideal process with which to develop such a mechanism? An independent body in which to investigate the complaints of youngsters, children about this type of violence? Premier, >> I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand my honorable friend's suggestion, if he has one in his question. He may have some better way to to do these things. I find what happened there absolutely deplorable. There's no question about it. And the fact that that it only comes out recently, some 20 years ago or 25 years ago again is a is a major question uh for our society. Uh anyone who responds to the question of little children being abused by people in authority I I'm I know finds it absolutely repugnant. Now I there are a number of mechanisms and systems in place. I'm not arguing with my honorable friend. They're effective. Any luck they're more effective now than they were 25 years ago. Um, but I think what we want to all of us be as sensitive as we possibly can and if we can improve the system surely that is our responsibility. >> New question. The member from Missaga South. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment who's standing under your gallery. >> As the minister knows, his officials tested the air in Elmmyra on April the 3 mobile air testing laboratory. The Environment Ministry has now released the test results which indicated that the air contained traces of NDMA, a chemical which is known to cause cancer in animals and may also cause cancer in humans. Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of the Environment did not provide a public interpretation of its Elmyra air quality tests. This is totally unacceptable. The people of Elmyra and the surrounding areas are left wondering whether their air poses a threat to human and animal health and safety. And my question, Mr. Minister, is this. Can the can you as Minister of the Environment tell this house why your ministry did not interpret the significance of its findings on the Elmyra air quality test? >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, as the member would know, we sent the Tega machine in as we do around the province, various places where there are requests for it or whether there's a need which has been determined for it. We sent it into this particular area to identify the uh a source if there is a source of NDMA in the area. In fact, the source was identified at the uh plant Uni Royal plant itself. There was uh testing done in the area around and there was non-detectable in the neighborhoods or areas around it was right on the plant site itself. the medical officer of health I'm informed uh was informed the citizens liaison committee the local citizens group and we've informed health and welfare Canada of the preliminary results and have requested their advice uh on this matter >> we have identified the source right at the plant itself >> well Mr. Speaker, I think identifying the source isn't answering the question. We feel it's irresponsible to announce the results of those tests for a chemical which is known to cause cancer and then to subject the people of Elmmyra to worrying about whether their air is safe to breathe without providing some interpretation of those results. I ask the minister again, what is it that your environment ministry is doing to develop safety standards and guidelines for the presence of NDMA in air? >> Minister, >> as you know, we consult with with the uh Ministry of National Health and Welfare in these matters who would recognize that there aren't many people in this world who are looking for NDMA. In fact, we're probably one of the very few jurisdictions that does. We wanted to present the information to the people uh in the area at the earliest possible opportunity. Uh I read uh one of the reports uh that uh compared it for instance to uh uh being in a room where there was smoking taking place and other things of that nature. But uh the member would know that there uh are not around a number of pieces of information which are particularly relevant in this case which is why we consult health and welfare can on it. We felt that uh it would not have been wise to simply say well we're not going to provide the results until we have interpretations there and we did notify all the people identified it in the specific area and the company at the present time is addressing that particular source. >> No question the member for Bmpton South. >> I think I'll just bathe in the applause for a moment. Uh Mr. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Minister, I've received calls and I've also had questions asked by members in my writing with reference to Bill 68 as to um as to what impact, if any, that will have on their their accumulated sick leave. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people uh uh who are interested in this uh particular issue because they have been informed that they must use up all of their sick leave uh before they take advantage of insurance under the uh car insurance program. And in fact, that doesn't have to be the case that there are options available to people to take unpaid leaves. And in fact, a request can be made uh and if granted then they would uh access the no fault uh weekly benefit reimbursement which would take them up to 80% of their uh gross wages uh if in fact uh Mr. Speaker uh they did not purchase optional additional coverage that would mean tax-free $600 per week. So in fact there are Mr. speaker. Uh a number of options open to those people who are concerned about sick leave and in fact uh they should pursue those and understand them more fully than either the opposition or some of their own advocates are providing them uh information on >> supplementary. I I'll probably have to read that answer and answer it because the official opposition was making so much noise, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't hear it. My the people from my writing are interested in that answer. perhaps the opposition or not. A second question or a supplementary I'd like to ask you, Mr. Minister, is the fact that I've had seniors and housewives and students who really may have no form of income uh concerned about the question of how they would be treated under the bill 68. Could you explain that to us? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of this program has been that we have added substantial increases to the benefit level and particularly for homemakers who are unpaid. there will be increase to the level of $185. The same is true uh for seniors who did not participate in no fault benefits before that will go as well to uh uh $185 a week. The same with respect to students and again with respect to those people who are unemployed there will be uh up to uh $185 per week paid. Mr. Speaker, there is a good bit of misinformation out and about in the communities and one of the problems has been that people will not acknowledge that we have expanded substantially the no fault benefits on this program uh to take the place of what had previously been an adversarial uh process wherein suit uh established between at least two lawyers if there were only two parties or more could take up a tremendous amount of time and in fact penalize the innocent victim by making him or her wait uh not only several months but in some cases years to receive any payment and by that time there could have been substantial loss to their own ability to keep mortgages uh in goodstead and also to protect their own businesses. Mr. Speaker, we have payments being made quickly under the no fault benefits. We have an insurance commissioner who in fact will ensure that payments are started within uh 10 to 30 days depending on the type of request that is made. And the benefits, Mr. speaker are real and they provide people with money in their pockets when they need it most and that is at the time they are recovering from injuries as a result of car accidents. >> Before we proceed with the next question I would like to bring to the attention the member for honorable guests from the house of commons in Ottawa in the members galleries east Dr. Morris Foster the member for Al Mr. Bob Wood the member for Neping. Welcome to the house. [applause] >> New question. The member for Windsor Riverside. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Housing, and it's concerning his gutting of the tenant uh hotline program to offer information to tenants in the evening. both in Ottawa and Toronto. The programs were run by the Ottawa Carlton Tenants Association, the Federation of Metro Tenants, as well as the Metro Tenants Legal Services. The minister's argument last week is that these programs could be gut gutted because he was going to pick up the slack with his own hotline run by his ministry. Well, the Ministry of Housing's uh 1989 internal review of its rent review services public education program states that client service staffers are temporary, that there's a high turnover rate, and they have inadequate training and orientation. Further, there was a study or conducted by the Parkdale Community Legal Services which showed that calls going to the Toronto Rent Review Office uh from tenants often got incorrect and incomplete answers. Now, Mr. Minister, the hotlines that were provided by in Ottawa and Toronto by the tenants were trusted by the tenants and gave a high quality of service admitted by yourselves. Why are you taking away that high quality service and instead putting it into your ministry with a service that has already been condemned by your own internal reviews? >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I find it uh a little unusual that that kind of criticism would be coming because the honorable member may be aware of the fact that it was m ministry of housing staff who trained the people working the telephone lines for the tenants association. In other words, they see the same training. They received the same training from my ministry staff as our own staff did. That's the first point. The second point is that the uh program was started in 1988 as a as a 12 year 12-month uh uh pilot program to determine exactly what kind of response there would be and what kinds of costs we would uh we would face. Uh we discovered that in fact after two years uh because there were two two extensions that the uh tenant hotline in Toronto was receiving an average of six calls a night. uh the uh the provincewide hotline that was set up last week is receiving 17 half of them coming from the Toronto area and so therefore there is obviously a match there uh a higher match as far as the numbers are concerned as far as the cost is concerned uh we are able to set up across the entire province in both English and French and with the device for the hearing impaired uh a program that will cost no more than what we're spending in Toronto alone and uh I think that's a reasonable and efficient use of the dollars that we have. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, the the minister obviously doesn't understand what uh the tenants require in this province. They don't need to call bureaucrats who are running a program designed to already uh hurt tenants in this province. There's no confidence in your rent review system. There's no confidence in the bureaucrats that administer that inadequate service. Maybe the minister would uh would understand if he'd go visit these services and talk to tenants who have confidence in people who are prepared to advocate on their behalf and not just give bureaucratic lines designed by your ministry. >> Now, Mr. Minister, this program cost $102,000 to run and provide service. You can argue about the numbers of calls. They don't agree with your analysis whatsoever. You have underspent your budget in the last four years by $133 million. Mr. Minister, the tenants need this service uh for their development. Would you not reconsider providing the service to tenants? And if you think it should be provided across the province, why don't you establish tenant controlled information lines across the province and not gut the ones that exist now? >> Yeah. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, as as my uh honorable colleague well knows, uh it isn't just the hotline with the tenants association. We also have hotlines through the legal aid clinics offering the same kind of advice. Uh the second point across the province, >> the second point I would draw to your attention is that while we have hotlines in Toronto and Ottawa right now at the very cost figures that he had indicated, we have requests at the moment from several other municipalities, places like places like Kingston and uh and Hamilton. Uh and the cost would go up exponentially if we do that. Uh the honorable member uh made the observation that uh uh that there was a a surplus in this ministry's budget in previous years. I can tell them that there is no surplus this year. As a matter of fact, there's going to be a a shortfall that I've got to make up. On top of that, we are already anticipating despite the fact that we're getting a a a significant increase from the treasur, a shortfall from some of the services we have to provide next year. It's my responsibility as a minister, as a good manager, to use the resources I have most efficiently. If I can provide a service to cover the entire province in both English and French and here and and assist the hearing impaired and do it for the same dollars I'm doing for Toronto alone in addition to the fact that the tenants have their program during the day, the legal clinics have their programs. I think that's an efficient and a well-managed use of the resources of this province. >> New questions. >> Member for Dur. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Corrections. Mr. Speaker, you stated. >> Order. >> Order, please. >> Order. >> Member for Durm East. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You're always so obliging. Now a question to the minister of corrections at well it helps to know your colleague the deputy speaker. Mr. Minister you indicated last week and as reported in the press by amongst other people Claire Bickley and Robert Mloud that uh mentally ill prisoners comprise up to 18% of the prison population in this province. And I have a couple of specific questions for you. And if you do not have the information, if you would be so kind to advise me at another time. Particularly, how many meetings have you had with the Minister of Health on this issue? When were those meetings held and on what date can we expect a decision on the establishment of proper facilities for treatment of mentally ill inmates? >> Minister, >> a little. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member from Durham East is becoming quite precise in his questions, which is quite interesting. And first of all, I have I have uh I have not had an opportunity to meet uh directly on this particular issue with the Minister of Health. However, as I think uh the member knows, we have an interministerial committee that is looking at the impact of uh those people who have behavioral disorders in our particular institutions. I think, Mr. Speaker, it may be important to clarify something that uh different terms mean different things to different people. I think it's important to understand that uh in the community at large there are a number of individuals uh who have disorders but are able to be stabilized and function to some degree. Uh from time to time many of these individuals uh perhaps go off their medication, commit some kind of offense and by way of the court end up in our particular care and uh we have a whole system to try to respond as effectively as we can with them. And I noticed that the >> deputy speaker is uh waiting for me to respond to your supplementary to continue on. >> Mr. Minister, and I can only say that your answers are beginning to sound like the way I used to ask questions in a previous life. Now, I'd like to ask the the minister uh with this great revelation that you gave to us last week and with my inquiry of you on the possibility of selling the location of the of the institution, the Whitby jail in Whitby. with those funds opening up a brand new facility on property located at the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital so that we could provide a facility not only conducive for inmates to be trained properly so they won't be repetitive but also uh close at hand to the Whitby Psychiatric Institution to alleviate the kinds of problems that you expressed last week. Would you be so kind to uh forward to the committee that's investigating this overall approach on the possibility of the sale of the Whitby jail and a long-term approach to providing a new facility at the Whitby psychiatric location? >> Minister. >> Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would pre prefer to to see the economics of the the member's friend in real estate uh who believes that the sale of that particular site could replace a whole new facility. uh the information I have is that the economics are just not there. If if that is erroneous, I'd be happy to receive any other kind of an analysis on that. Number one. Number two, uh the member wants some very specific information related to some of the treatment programs we have and I would point out that we have a vast network of centers that I believe any hospital would be proud to have connected with it. the uh the Ontario Correctional Institute which has 220 beds and is known to be a very effective institution in terms of treatment of people with certain kinds of disorder. The G assessment and treatment unit has 76 etc. There is a new uh northern treatment center that is is being established at the moment. We hoping to open up fairly soon has 96 beds. So you can see that over the course of time there are additions to the services in recognition of trying to be as positive as we can as effective as we can in treating some of the people who have certain kinds of behavioral disorders. >> New question the member for Oxford. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last week I had a meeting with uh a number of my farmers, various commodity groups, and the question came around to this matter of the $500 million that the Federal Minister of Agriculture is proposing for financially stressed Canadian grain farmers. Is the minister aware of the details of this proposal and what steps has he taken to ensure that our Ontario grain producers are treated equitably, that we get our share? >> Minister, Mr. Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to respond to the uh inquiries of the member of Oxford. >> I guess it is. >> Um Mr. Speaker, when we're at the minister's conference in Ottawa a couple weeks ago, Mr. Mazenowski literally threw this at the last minute upon the table, this $500 million offer to the provinces across this country. And basically, Mr. Speaker, we do not know the details of this program other than that the federal minister agrees with me that it should be national in scope. It should also include those grains that are fed on the farm and also preferably rather than just a straight ad hoc program, we would like to see such a uh funding program flow into a national tripartite stabilization program so that we can get on to permanent farm financial programs on a national basis. >> Supplementary. Well, is there a timetable for these federal provincial discussions? >> So that uh when is this going to take place? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I have asked our officials to as quickly as possible to get the criteria from the federal government as to uh how and when we could possibly access these uh these monies. As the member knows, one of the conditions placed uh on this program by the honorable Don Mazenowski was that the provinces match dollar fordoll uh any program funding. And so obviously we would have to have those discussions once we know what the criteria are. I would just like to add, Mr. Speaker, if you'd allow me that I will be meeting this week with the representation of uh all the commodity groups of this province to get their input on how we should proceed. Good. >> New question. the deputy in Hamilton West. >> Merc, I will have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The McMurray Sprouts Daycare uh this morning brought 46 children to this legislature to uh tell the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Liberal government that it's the failure of uh this government to respond to to deliver its promises for pay equity for uh daycare workers that is the nub of their problem. Uh their workers, like most in nonprofit uh daycare, make about $18,000 a year. They looked at their workers and they said, "Surely they are worth as much as garbage collectors in this same city who get $10,000 more or farm workers who get $14,000 more per year." So they decided to give them a very modest increase which put them in a deficit position and now they in order to recoup that deficit because of no subsidies which have flowed to them to meet their crisis uh they are going to have to lay off 10 subsidized spaces. the minister the attorney of the attorney general um has said it's too damned expensive to meet these these costs of pay equity for uh the workers in the day in the nonprofit daycare system >> and they should find their money elsewhere. Is that the attitude of the minister and if so where does he think they should go to get the extra money? >> Minister, >> thank you very much. Uh Mr. Speaker, I think that the uh record of this government over the last uh number of years in terms of the funding of the child care sector has been a a very laudable one and we recognize the problem around the uh salaries for uh those who are working in the child care centers and that was one of the reasons that we brought in the direct operating grants and this year this adds some $61 million uh to that sector. Uh as the honorable member has pointed out, there has been a problem under the uh uh the pay equity u uh [clears throat] program. Uh what we are looking at on a continuing basis is how can we recognize uh much more adequately the contribution of the childare workers uh in terms of the uh compensation package that they receive. uh that remains certainly a commitment uh of of myself to see that they are appropriately uh uh uh salaried and that they have the kind of support uh that they need. Uh we're going to continue to look at that and to ensure that we can can make more progress both this year and in future years to do that. >> Supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, peace meal topups and so on, which has been the history of this government in the past with respect to daycare workers simply is inadequate. uh and it's not a good enough answer either to say that there can be no comparisons found uh to meet the salary needs of of daycare workers. It's true there are no comparators directly speaking in the in the nonprofit daycare sector. But where there are comparators in the municipal system, those comparisons have been made and the salary level is up in this area to $24,000 a year. Surely at least as a first step toward pay equity for daycare workers in the nonprofit sector. The minister would uh would use the municipal daycare salary as a comparator. It's been made on a legitimate pay equity basis. Use that as your model and subsidize accordingly. That would get McGar sprouts out of their problem. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh we [clears throat] are looking at uh a number of approaches uh in terms of this specific uh problem. uh I remain very concerned about both this sector and that of uh of homemakers where we have a great number indeed uh almost 100% of those working in those areas are uh are women and while we have been able to cover a tremendous number by by far the largest number of of women uh working under the pay equity uh uh program uh there is an important group that uh is not covered and that's why we have to continue to try to find the means to to give them more money and more remuneration I make a a commitment to the honorable member as I have to those in the child care sector that we are going to find ways to do that. It's not going to happen overnight, but I remain committed to ensure that their salaries go up. >> New question, the member for Wellington. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question is solicitor general. >> Mr. Speaker, had intended to ask the attorney general, the premier somebody, but the solicitor general will have to do. >> He's the only one around. the only one around. >> We're back in the rivalry tower. >> The solicitor general may recall that in Thursday, November the 17th, 1988, almost a year and a half ago, my resolution dealing with the compensation of victims of crime was debated and unanimously supported by this house. In fact, I believe the solicitor general is PA at that time spoke in favor. The resolution called for review of the compensation for victims of crime act. Question is, does the solicitor general know if the attorney general ever intends to refer this legislation to a committee of this legislature for the purpose of a review? >> Attorney General. >> Well, thank you very much for the question. I think uh I think that your question as you posed is one which is uh most properly before the attorney general. But when the member does talk about uh assistance to victims and uh that whole area, I think the the member should be very well aware that in the new police services act which I introduced last December, there is a specific acknowledgement of assistance to victims. There is a whole new uh impetus and direction not only uh uh with the police services across this province but in a wide range of uh of other areas uh where this government has shown its initiative and uh its momentum in addressing this very important uh important issue. We have addressed that particular matter as a principle in the new police services act. I have addressed the the issue in the whole area of uh victims of sexual assault and I certainly appreciate the members support in the initiatives which this government has already taken in this very important area. >> This completes the time allocated for oral questions.