Question Period Rewind - December 11 1989

Welcome to question period rewind. I'm Donna Skelly, speaker of the legislative assembly of Ontario. Get ready to travel back to 1989. The Sega Genesis was released in Canada. The Seinfeld Chronicles pilot aired on NBC. And if you turned on the radio, you'd probably catch Phil Collins with Another Day in Paradise. Now, let's take a listen to what the house was talking about. >> [music] >> The next item under routine proceedings will be oral questions. The leader of the opposition. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the of the premier, perhaps I might address my questions to the chairman of management board. Mr. Speaker, the former minister of tourism and recreation, who's now the minister for mines, wrote a memoran- received a memorandum on March 20th from the chairman of the board of Ontario Place, Ms. Patricia Starr. This memorandum has been referred to in the house before, and in that memo she said, "Dear Hugh." And in in large type she says, "Ontario Place has cut its deficit by just over $2 million for for fiscal year ending March 31st, 1989." And she closes by saying, "Thank you for your continued support. We're looking forward to a dynamite season." Well, Mr. Speaker, >> They certainly blew the Liberals out of the water. >> I uh >> He planted the dynamite >> Something Something something blew up. Uh that's obvious. But, Mr. Speaker, my first question to the uh to the ministers I wonder how he can explain how a senior uh uh public uh servant such as Mrs. Star was at that time could have been so completely wrong in her estimate of what the deficit for Ontario Place would be. She said that Ontario Place has cut its deficit by just over $2 million. In fact, the deficit was cut by uh 1.4 million. It's a $600,000 error. >> Mr. >> Have you any explanation for Mrs. Star's $600,000 error? >> Minister. >> Um Mr. Speaker, uh I don't know how the calculation uh was arrived at, uh nor do I uh recall actually uh being asked to compute any of the deficit reduction or otherwise. I do know that overall that there were a number of improvements made at Ontario Place, and there was an expectation, I think, that there would be an increase in in uh people attending. I do know that people at Ontario Place are quite well aware of the increased uh pressure for the entertainment dollar uh in a market which is uh quite actively occupied by several attractions, not only in this area, but in areas which are quite close. And uh from my point of view, uh there are probably some uh explanations which uh would would come uh from people who actually wrote the memo. I'm not in a position to uh to uh second-guess the person who wrote the memo, uh nor am I in a position to uh tell you in detail uh about the uh people's reactions from the Ministry of Tourism, but I will uh undertake to uh get back to you after I've had a chance to discuss uh this with the people at uh Tourism. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can explain, since he couldn't explain uh this $600,000 error by Mrs. Star uh in a in a memorandum which she wrote uh as the fiscal year was ending in the end of 1989, which is a rather significant uh mistake. I wonder how she he can respond to the following criticisms which were launched by the auditor, Mr. Speaker, against uh the administration of Ontario Place under Mrs. Star's uh management. He described saying related planning and rationale being much less developed and supported than would normally be sus- expected of a public section institution. He found that the processes followed did not ensure that money's were well spent or that fairness and equity were demonstrated. He found that on concession letting that the practices were so informal that we could not determine whether all potential operators were treated in a fair and equitable manner. He found that so many people had left or were fired, Mr. Speaker, that hiring procedures were less formal in order to meet op- operating season pressures. There were no advertisements and no fair hiring practices as is common in the public service. I wonder if the Minister can explain how it is that when a Deputy Minister of the Liberal government was on the board of Ontario Place, apparently approved of all these practices, many of which are questioned by the auditor, how could the government have been asleep at the till all that time for those two years when all these all these practices were taking place? >> Minister. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman is going through a number of items which I will look into with respect to hiring practice and other things. You know that we take the auditor's report very seriously indeed and we look into the issues that are brought to our attention by honorable members such as yourself and we know that you will be happy to receive my fuller report when I've had a chance to speak to the people at tourism with whom the Ontario corporation Ontario Place corporation have a uh a definite and legal connection. >> Final supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, the auditor finds all kinds of of questionable practices with regard to the letting of contracts, with regard to what happened to staff turnover, with regard for example, one example, Mr. Speaker, which I'm sure you will relate to and all members of the public will relate to. Baseball caps for the uniforms cost $2 in 1988 and they cost $11 in 1989. A woman's sweater cost $10 in the previous year '88, it went up to $35 in '80 '89. He questions the whole way in which this particular contract for $150,000 was let. Mr. Speaker, again, the government was there. The Deputy Minister is a member of the board. Here we have the Minister himself posing in full tuxedo regalia with the other corporate sponsors along with Mrs. Starr. Mr. Speaker, I want to know, why is it that the government is posing for pictures with Mrs. Starr? The cabinet ministers are posing for pictures with Mrs. Starr. You've got your Deputy Minister on the board and this kind of mis- mis- misbehavior is going on. >> Order. Order. Minister. Minister. >> Um Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman um has a series of uh questions about which I undertook to get back. But let me just say a couple of things that you're asking uh me to uh get back to you with respect to the turnover of a number of people uh for whom it was adjudged uh that uh there were difficulties in administration when the individual, Mrs. Starr, uh took over that there was a lag in the amount of uh business that was generated for Ontario Place Corporation. There were decisions made with respect to changing uh to uh upgrade and to uh become more vigorous in looking for people uh to attend uh the Ontario Place Corporation grounds. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are things which uh he would understand uh having been done to try and and uh increase the attendance at Ontario Place required some very quick action indeed. But I uh say again that uh I will get back to him. He knows that uh I'm not uh directly uh in charge of Ontario Place, but I will provide him uh with a report on what I determined uh to be the underlying causes of this with respect to other items about pictures being taken or otherwise. I will likewise request that he be included in the next series of official photographs at Ontario Place. >> New question. >> Leader of the opposition. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. Uh The the no photographs apparently involved >> Unless for Mr. Speaker, the the uh The Attorney General said in April of '88 when he introduced the Retail Business Holiday Act, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney I just want to remind the Attorney General of what he said at that time because he may have forgotten. He told us that the existing legislation has been flagrantly and systematically violated by numerous retailers particularly during the Christmas and post-Christmas shopping season. He went on to say each year disrespect for the law has become widespread. The act was in short a law whose application was becoming more and more impossible to enforce particularly in many large urban centers. Mr. Speaker, I could read the entire speech but I think I'll spare the house that pleasure. What I would like to ask the Attorney General is This this sounds very much to me like a description of of of this past weekend and indeed of the weekend prior to that. I want to ask the Attorney General why he has not done the one thing which will bring a stop to the number of illegal store openings across the province. Bring an application in the name of the of the Attorney General in the name of the government of Ontario that will apply across the province that will ensure that the law is in fact enforced across Ontario. Well >> Well, I've been the Attorney General for 4 years and I can always tell when it's Christmas because we have this kind of question from the leader of the opposition. The reality is that there is better compliance with the law this year than there has been in any of the preceding four years. That is not to say that No, no, no. The honorable member, and it's lucky for him, has a very short memory. But if the honorable member goes back to the circumstances that obtained in the last four years, you will find that we have a better compliance record that this year than we've ever before had. Now, we have difficulties in four regions. In two of those regions, the municipalities have acted to seek an injunction, and we have indicated that we will support them. I wrote to the region the regional chairman in Metropolitan Toronto on Friday to that effect, and we have indicated that more broadly. But we believe that the best way to initiate the process is for the municipalities to ask act first, because as the honorable member will know, you have to have the names and locations of the stores that you seek to have the injunction against. Now, I don't know what stores in Sault Ste. Marie the municipality want to have closed because they have a tourist area there. So, the municipalities must act first, and we have indicated that we will support them, and we will. >> Thank you. Supplementary? >> Mr. Speaker, I want the the Attorney General to know that he has far more authority in this matter than he's prepared to give himself. And I don't know why he's being such a shrinking violet and so modest in terms of what he can do. It's it this modesty, Mr. Speaker, is is completely out of character for the Attorney General. Section 8 Section 8 Section 8 Section 8 of the of the Retail Business Holidays Act sets this out. It says that upon the application of counsel for the Attorney General or of a municipality to the Supreme Court, the court may order that a retail business establishment close on a holiday to ensure compliance with this act or a bylaw regulation under this act. Now, Mr. Speaker, Judge Potts has ruled that if you want to enforce compliance under the act, it's the Attorney General who has to bring the application. Uh, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Attorney General, why not bring an application? Why not gather the information across the province? Why not gather that information and bring the applications in such a way that there will be no doubt as to where you stand. The public has the impression that you are not prepared to enforce the law. What are you going to do to end that impression? >> Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, we have made plain that where charges are laid, the Crown Law staff will vigorously enforce them. And you will have seen that something like 41 charges were laid over the last 3 days, over the last 2 days in the three regions with which we are primarily concerned, where most of the problems have arisen. We have also indicated with respect to those municipalities that propose to act, that we will support them. To go with them to court in order to seek an injunction. But my honorable friend seems to think that you you can get some kind of injunction that is directed to everybody. You can't. You have to list the stores and their locations in each community, which is information that can only be obtained by local police forces. Now, we have said to municipalities, and I say it again, if you take those steps, we will be glad to support your application so that an injunction can be granted. And the regions, you know, are cooperating, providing a better understanding of what's at stake than the leader of the opposition who just gets up on Monday morning and reads it in the paper and comes in and asks a question. >> Final supplementary. >> I never used that voice. >> Mr. Speaker, we're coming close to a season in which charity is the order of the day, but I wanted to say to the Attorney General that I find it I find it I find it difficult to believe. I find it hard to understand how this government when it's faced with full-page newspaper advertisements in every major newspaper which set out clearly and categorically the plans of stores to break the law in which corporate presidents are on television and are holding press conference announcing that they are going to break the law, that it is their intention to break the law because they don't like the law, and this Attorney General is saying, "Well, I have to wait to see what a local municipal council does." I don't understand that, Mr. Speaker. I have difficulty comprehending why the Attorney General is taking that position. I repeat, the law says you can bring an application. The Section 8 sets that out very clearly and specifically. Why aren't you personally using Section 8, the government using Section 8 in order to stop this nonsense right dead in its tracks? You can do it. >> Order. >> [applause] >> Attorney >> Let's take a concrete example where the issue in fact arises. In Metropolitan Toronto, we have indicated to Metropolitan Toronto that if their police officers will lay charges, we will prosecute those charges to the limit of the law and that we are doing. They have sought They have sought to obtain injunctions against two, not 25, not 55, two store owners and have run into a problem as a result of Mr. Justice Potts decision. We have indicated to them by letter that if they want our support with respect to the injunction application they have brought against two store owners, we will provide it. We have made the same offer to any other municipality in the province of Ontario and we are fully the public will want to know discharging our responsibilities under this law. >> [applause] >> New question. >> Too bad you didn't tell us how the law was going to work last year. >> New question, the member for Sarnia. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the chairman of management board as well. And I'd like to question the chairman of management board with respect to the auditor's report on the operations of Ontario Place and uh you know, truly, Mr. Speaker, the the litany of irregularities is truly amazing as outlined in this report and I'd like like to ask the chairman of management board if he in fact agrees with um the position of the auditor in connection with the number of irregularities which include inadequate tendering practices as pointed out earlier hiring without competition unusually high staff turnover. Do you agree with the auditor in his statements as they relate to those areas and others he's pointed out or do you take the position uh that supports Ms. Starr who indicated there were no irregularities as they relate to the operation of Ontario Place? >> Minister. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, as I'd informed the leader of the opposition, I will inquire more fully with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and provide some information for information for him plus the member representing the third party. I can tell the honorable gentleman that I certainly agree with the fact that there was a high rate of turnover at Ontario Place and that it in fact, in my view, coincided with a change in mandate to more aggressively market the great facilities at the Ontario Place Corporation grounds and we'll look more fully into the manner in which Sure, was replacement of staff at that facility. >> Supplementary? >> Hitting Ontario Place, it might be of interest to the Minister to note that uh that fees for the admission to Ontario Place were increased substantially, attendance went down. The number of irregularities that I'm speaking of relating to staff turnover as an example, some 58 people were either fired or quit in the senior management levels out of a staff of some 80 at that particular level of the operation. That's not only highly unusual, it's almost unheard of in the civil service that that many people would leave that particular corporation. And I'd like the the Minister to look into that as well, but one in particular, Mr. Speaker, and my question is related to this one. Will the Minister investigate specifically the purchase of some $40,000 worth of equipment at Ontario Place by Ms. Starr, apparently, which 1 year later was auctioned off for $6,000, a loss to the taxpayers of some $34,000. I want to know why that equipment was purchased and why a year later it was auctioned off. And of particular interest to me is who purchased the equipment for $6,000. >> I will inquire, Mr. Speaker. >> indicated that they were going to in statements that we'd heard earlier about Ontario Place that they were going to substantially improve the operations as a result of some of the changes that were taking place at Ontario Place. The bottom line is that that facility, which has run well, admittedly with a deficit over the years, but has run well without particular controversy, is now in a state of upheaval, the likes of which I have never seen before. How is it possible, Mr. Minister, that a Deputy Minister who would be there ostensibly as a watchdog for the government to protect the interests of the taxpayer would be in attendance at the meetings at which some of these things were carried out at which the meetings at which these decisions were in fact made. What have you or your government said to this particular deputy minister in connection with his responsibilities relative to looking after the interests of the taxpayer? >> Minister. >> Good question. Mr. Speaker, I know for instance that the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation spent a great deal of time in reviewing the activities at Ontario Place and in fact had series of concerns about the number of staff turnovers but that in conjunction with what you had already observed and that is the number of years in which Ontario Place had uh been unable to meet a balanced budget situation and in fact had actually declined in attractiveness to some of the people who would choose between it and another venue for their recreational activities that there was an understanding that there would be changes of personnel that in fact there were difficulties in marketing which had to be overcome to ensure that there was a more aggressive pursuit of increased attendance. I know Mr. Speaker that in the short term while there were changes being made with respect to firms who were providing services on the grounds and while there was put in place a capital plan which would reach into the future to provide some attractions on the grounds that there were debates within the organization about how best to manage in the short term. I can tell the honorable member that what we were trying to do was fully put in place a very active marketing strategy for Ontario Place Corporation. I do not know for instance about the particular equipment which you speak but I will inquire about that and inquire about some of the other activities which which you've asked and we'll provide a a fuller report to both you and the leader of the opposition at a future date. >> Thank >> Well, as expected, [clears throat] Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General in connection with the Retail Business Holidays Act. And I'd like to ask the Attorney General in view of the decision that Mr. Justice Potts has brought down in connection with this matter. How long does the Attorney General anticipate it will take the municipalities to have their bylaws in order so that they can in fact act in order to protect their interests on a local level and also comply with the directive as issued by Justice Potts or Mr. Justice Potts relative to the requirement for such bylaws. >> Attorney General. >> I think, Mr. Speaker, there is a misunderstanding about the nature of the decision. There is nothing in the decision that says the municipality must pass any bylaw. Nor is there anything in the decision that casts any doubt on the validity of the provincial law. Uh what his Lordship said, as I understand his reasons, was that the Attorney General alone could bring the application that is required to grant an injunction. That decision is not binding on any other judge in the province and there will be other judges who will make other decisions. I have indicated that in so far as that decision presents a difficulty for the region of Metropolitan Toronto or indeed any other municipality in the province, we will be prepared to lend the name of the ministry to any application they want to make that they are prepared to make to the court. Uh those applications can be brought at any time the municipality wants to bring them. >> Supplementary? >> Is the Attorney General saying that Mr. Justice Potts did not in fact require of the municipalities that they have their bylaws in place in advance of taking action against the individual stores. And if in fact he's saying that and that the provincial government will have the ultimate responsibility to bring action in cooperation with the municipalities, why sir will you not take the advice that we offered you in a spirit of goodwill some weeks ago where we attempted to get you to act under section 8 where you could in fact in cooperation with local police forces uh make sure that those laws were in fact being enforced properly at the local level where the municipalities did not want to have those stores open on a Sunday. Why would you not act under section 8 as you have the authority to so do? >> Attorney General. >> Well, I guess the honorable member was preoccupied preparing his questions when the leader of the opposition well ahead of him asked precisely this question. And the the reason if I can just approach it again is that in order to make an application for an injunction uh the local police must essentially do two things. They must first of all lay criminal charges or quasi criminal charges or be prepared to explain why they have not not only against the persons against whom the injunction is sought but against anybody else in the community as well. They must secondly conduct an investigation to determine that the store is open in breach of the bylaw. Only municipal police officers can do the work that is necessary to found an injunction. I have no power nor has the governor of the government to instruct local police officers as to what they may or should do. That can only be done by the municipality itself in those places where there is a municipal police force. We have said to the municipalities, we have said since Friday and before, although it it did not appear to be necessary before, that if they wish to act, if they wish to instruct their police to give priority to this, if they wish to prepare the information necessary to obtain an injunction, we will support their applications so that the technical requirement of Mr. Justice Potts' decision will be met as long as it remains the law of the province. >> Final supplementary. >> Well, I I I want to thank the Attorney General for bringing to my attention the fact that he had answered the question previously. Neither my party, nor I believe the official opposition, or the people of Ontario are happy with your answer. That's why I asked the question again, and I'd like to ask the Attorney General, just so he could clarify for all to hear, what in the world was the purpose of putting section 8 in the act if if for purposes of having the province take any initiative whatever in regard to enforcement, you have no intention of acting in a in a province-wide manner as has been suggested by many many individuals who feel that that's the only way that you can bring the the present chaotic situation under some kind of control. You know full well that local police forces can lay charges which are, in fact, then pursued in the courts by the province of Ontario. You continue to play with words to indicate >> Order. Order. Question was asked. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, which is the same as the power of the municipalities under section 8, is simply designed to be applied in the event that some municipality should, for example, say that we are not going to enforce the act or our bylaws at all within the municipality, then it would be open to the Attorney General to act. That situation has not yet occurred, and of course, when it does, we will have to address that situation. The other possibility, and it's getting very difficult for anybody to hear because the leader of the opposition is yelling at the top of his lungs again. Uh but I will try. The second reason why the Attorney General might intervene to bring an application is if a single store or a single chain indicated that it proposed to open its store on in on Sunday all across Ontario in every municipality. But that situation as well has not occurred. Uh we have the capacity, but so has the municipality. Insofar as there is a technical difficulty as a result of Mr. Justice Potts' decision, which was not anticipated, we have indicated to those municipalities that we will support their application if they bring it. >> New question, the member for Hamilton East. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question for the Minister of Labour. On April 1st, 1986, Mr. Tarlock Swabra was seriously injured at the Brampton plant of Johnson Matthey Limited when material he was preparing for melting exploded in his hand. 3 years later, on November 24th, the Ministry of Labour has decided not to proceed with charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Immediately after the Ministry withdrew those charges, Mr. Swabra was fired from his job. Mr. Speaker, not only have workers in Ontario faced with the risk of losing life and limb, but they must further the suffer the further indignity of losing their jobs because the government of the government's inactivity. Can the Minister of Labour tell this house why Mr. Swabra's case was dropped and the employer remains unpunished when there was clear evidence that the employer did not comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act in Ontario. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not familiar with the details of that case. I assume as any case I've looked at that the legal branch of the Ministry of Health of the of Labor would have looked at that case and have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. I'll look into the matter further, but I must say that as I've looked at the statistics for the Ministry our prosecutions actually have increased quite substantially, Mr. Speaker. So that rather than than leaving the impression that in fact we've proceeded with fewer prosecutions, I think actually the opposite has been the case. But in that specific case, I'll look into the matter. I I I can only assume as as I said earlier that our our legal officials examined carefully the evidence and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, Mr. Speaker. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, this question was first raised in this house on June 1st, 1986 when my colleague Eli Martel asked the then Minister of Labor why 2 months had passed without charges in this rather serious case. The then Minister of Labor, Mr. William Ryan, responded by saying, and I quote he did not view a little over 2 months to be an extraordinarily long period of time. Well, what about 3 and 1/2 years, Mr. Minister? The company certainly doesn't want this disabled person working for it. Your Ministry deliberately stalled a well-investigated case, helping the company to achieve its goals. With you, Mr. Minister, and your colleagues so obviously in the company's pocket, who is to initiate prosecutions and to provide the protection that Ontario workers are entitled to and require? >> Minister. >> Find the comments rather offensive, Mr. Speaker. I I I just took a look at the statistics over the past 3 years and our our our prosecutions, Mr. Speaker, have more than doubled in the last 3 years. Our convictions have have have virtually doubled, Mr. Speaker. To suggest that the Ministry of Labour is doing anything other than enforcing to the best of its ability the maximum of its of its opportunities the Occupational Health and Safety Act, I find frankly rather offensive, Mr. Speaker. So, those are the overall statistics. In that specific case I can only conclude that our legal branch, as they do in each case, examine the evidence clearly. And you can see by these statistics doubling the number of of uh prosecutions, Mr. Speaker and virtually doubling the number of of uh convictions. So, those are the the facts, Mr. Speaker. In that particular case, I certainly will look into to the matter, but I think we will find as in all other cases that our legal branch have done their work as they as they do so well. And as these numbers suggest, they're they're being successful at. >> Hear, hear. The question the member for Sarnia. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. In in view of the findings of the Stella Lacroix inquest and the uh very clear statement that has been made in connection with the non-existence, if you will, Madam Minister, of the so-called hotline. And recognizing that the Minister shared information with this house which was contrary to that which has now been proven in the inquest and uh uh recognizing as well that one of the recommendations of the inquest is that such a hotline be established, is the Minister prepared to indicate that either she misinformed the house when she shared that information with us or alternatively that the information the minister was given was incorrect and certainly indicated a situation that was far different than what was in place at that time. >> Minister. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would very much like to commend all of the caregivers as well as the coroner's jury for their fact-finding efforts. I would like to say to the leader of the third party that I've stated in this house on numerous occasions how important it is for all information given in this house to be accurate. The coroner's inquest confirmed that the information that was given to me in the letter by the Toronto General Hospital, the Toronto General Hospital stands by the information that they submitted. That information was shared in this house in good faith. He would know as well that um the inquest I think provided an important opportunity for all the facts to come out and I think, Mr. Speaker, that our commitment to the establishment of regional hotlines across the province, which was announced last June, will go a long way to improve the quality and the effectiveness of care available to the residents of Ontario. >> Supplementary. >> Well, the minister didn't answer the question. I guess I didn't expect that the minister would answer the question. At that particular time when this issue was was relatively current in terms of the of the death of of Stella LaCroix, the minister may recall that the premier said that Dr. Nesdoly did not use the system that was in place. >> Didn't know. >> The system was not in place, Madam Minister. You are referring now to steps that you supposedly were going to take back in June preparing the province for some kind of a province-wide hotline, which is still not in place to this day. Dr. Nezdoly's reputation was called into question in this house as a result of the statements that were made by both you and the premier of this province. Subsequent to that, the inquest has now indicated that Dr. Nezdoly should be receiving a commendation for the actions that he took in the attempts that he made to save a life. Are you prepared now to do the right and proper thing and simply apologize to Dr. Nezdoly for the statements that you made? >> Mr. Speaker, I would say to the leader of the third party, as I said before in this house, that neither I nor any member of this government ever blamed anyone, and just because he or members of his bench say that doesn't make that true. He knows, in fact, that we shared with this house in good faith a letter from the Toronto General Hospital, and that the Toronto General Hospital stood by the accuracy of that letter in the fact-finding effort of the inquest. I would say further to him that I, in fact, commend all of the health care providers who have provided very important emergency care to the people of this province, and I would say to him, Mr. Speaker, that I will say again that I believe it's extremely important that information which is shared in this house should be accurate, and I would refer him to Hansard. >> Are there other members waiting to ask a question? New question, the member for Oakwood. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Every year the government of Ontario spends many billions of dollars on goods and services. Um in the past year, there were organized outreach programs to reach more than 2,000 potential suppliers who are small business people to educate them about the opportunities for them to do business with the government. As the minister will know, business people within the many ethnocultural communities in Ontario are also seeking to expand their opportunities. Um, my question to the minister is, what specifically is this ministry doing to help entrepreneurs from this sector have an equal opportunity on government contracts? >> Minister. Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Speaker. As the member will know, purchasing from the Ontario government is very significant indeed, totaling some $2 billion annually. Over the course of the past, uh, year and a half, uh, we have undertaken a very extensive exercise to, uh, try to make, uh, entrepreneurs throughout this province more aware of the opportunities that exist in terms of selling to the Ontario government. Uh, recently, uh, we have undertaken, uh, seminars entitled how to do business with the government of Ontario. Uh, these have been held in virtually every region of the province. We've had an overwhelming response. Some 2,500 business people have, uh, have shown up. Uh, we placed ads, uh, not only in, uh, the, uh, local daily papers, but in the ethnic press as well in an attempt to, uh, reach, uh, all corners of the business community throughout Ontario. >> Perhaps before I ask for the supplementary, I see there are two conversations going on very close to the minister. It might be helpful if, uh, Thank you. Supplementary. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is there a way in which the businesses in the ethnocultural communities can have better and more frequent access to the plans of the Ontario government in this area? >> Yes, there is, Mr. Speaker. The ministry is currently in the process of compiling a, uh, a centralized list of all, uh, government suppliers. Uh in the coming year, we'll be contacting all media, including the uh ethnic media, to ensure that all businesses of aware are aware of this list, and to ensure that everyone has equal access to it. >> New question, the member for Windsor-Riverside. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Premier, who's not here, so I'll ask the question to the Deputy Premier, who's also in charge of Ontario's economy. Um I'm sure that the uh provincial Treasurer saw the uh unemployment statistics last week, and will have noted that uh my home community, Windsor, has now an official unemployment rate of 9.6% nearly 10%, nearly double the provincial unemployment rate, and we're a community in southern Ontario. I'd like to ask the uh Treasurer, what is this government's uh response to the unemployment crisis that exist in Windsor, the plant closure crisis, and the downturn of the auto industry? What are you prepared to do now to avoid the kind of depression that we had in that community in the early 1980s? >> The minister. >> Mr. Speaker, I think the honorable member would uh want to know on a broader basis that the same report that uh uh brought forward the statistic that he's referring to, which is a very serious uh level of unemployment, indeed, indicated that on a net basis in uh Ontario in November, uh we gained 5,000, approximately 5,000 new jobs, and that this is the seventh consecutive month when there has been a net gain in employment. The figure that was provided for me as Minister of Economics that this year so far, there are 87,000 new jobs in Ontario compared with the same period last year. That's not much comfort for the honorable member who is speaking for Windsor, and uh I can simply say to him that we feel that uh the downturn in certain aspects of the automobile market is a matter of concern there and in other centers as well. Uh as usual, Windsor being the automobile town traditionally and historically is bearing the brunt of the early circumstances and that if he wants me to talk about uh the various programs of the government uh for training and retraining and for assisting in the strengthening of our competitive position vis-a-vis other states and other jurisdictions, I'd be glad to do so. >> Supplementary? >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure uh the people of my community will not be interested in hearing about how good large parts of Ontario are prospering, namely Metro Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, and communities like Windsor are not sharing in that prosperity and we haven't for the last number of years. And your answer is just simply reinforced that. What I'd like to ask the Minister, why don't you use the power of government to help a community that is not prospering during this time in Ontario? Avoid the millions of dollars of cost and individual uh circumstance, uh health problems, and all the rest of it that come about with the recession um by moving in now and helping us to diversify our economy. Are you prepared to go down to Windsor and meet with community officials and look at some of the public sector jobs and see if some of those jobs can be increased in our community to help us diversify our our community. >> Treasurer. >> Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion put forward by the honorable member to make the basis of diversification uh giving a greater emphasis to the provision of uh public sector jobs is a good one. That's the sort of thing that we used I feel as a government quite effectively when many communities in the north were suffering from a very slow reaction to economic uh re-strengthening and uh it's obviously one of the things that has to be given very careful and positive consideration. >> New question, the member for Carlton. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Attorney General. Uh Uh Mr. Attorney General, la- last November 17th, you were were at a legal conference in uh Mont Ste. Marie, Quebec, uh with the many of the members of the legal profession from the Ottawa-Carlton area. Well, I am a member of the bar of the uh Carlton area. I I get quite enough of you here, uh Mr. Attorney General. I did not attend that conference. But, uh I I think you wish that I had attended that conference because evidently you said about Bill 68, the no-fault uh insurance bill, that it provides, and your words were, "Worse coverage than the That is than that which is available under the current automobile insurance system." My question to the Attorney General, uh quite simply, is, "How can you support How can you support Bill 68, the no-fault insurance bill, when you yourself have admitted to the bar in Eastern Ontario, that it does not serve the public interest in a beneficial manner?" >> Attorney General. >> I'm delighted to be here to answer that question, and I'm delighted that the honorable member has asked it of me because that is not, as I recall, an accurate account of the impression I intended to convey. The point I was making, which is a point that has been made frequently by the minister in this house, is that in order to deal with the insurance crisis, the selection of a threshold system of insurance was the development of a new kind of policy. Many of the benefits under the threshold policy, under the government's plan, are in fact a significant advance on benefits that presently exist under policies of insurance in the province. What I was trying to say was that the threshold scheme was a different kind of insurance scheme, as it clearly is. And I'm very grateful that the honorable member uh asked me the question so I can correct that. I should say to the honorable member, uh, he doesn't only miss the meeting at Massawippi when I'm there, or, uh, I would have, uh, he would have been there on previous occasions. I understand he hardly ever goes at all. I've been there for the last four or five years. I've never seen you. >> Supplementary. >> Uh, Mr. Speaker, I don't have the, uh, the expense account, uh, the, uh, the the limousine, the car and driver to take me up to Massawippi and spend spend a weekend at the taxpayer's expense. I'm glad the, uh, the, uh, the leader of the opposition Uh, Mr. Attorney General, then you are telling us that no one in this province will be denied or will be dealt with in a, {quotes} worse manner than they are presently under our automobile insurance system with Bill 68 in place. You're saying that everybody is going to be as, as well off as they were under our existing system whereby anybody who is hit in an automobile, uh, can utilize the courts in order to seek compensation. Is that what you're telling us? >> Attorney General. >> Well, while we're on the subject, I understand that the honorable member used to miss the Massawippi meetings even when he was a minister. I was anxious to go this year. I was anxious to go this year because I wanted to pay tribute to you before your peers in the Ottawa Valley for the important help you gave us, uh, in the courts of adminis- courts of justice bill, uh, for which we are very grateful. Uh, but as you were almost unknown in the community not having been at the meeting for so long, when I spoke well of you, there was some question about who you might be, but I I did make that plain that you were a devoted servant of the public of Eastern Ontario. >> might be >> I did not make plain uh, the answer that the honorable member would want to put in my mouth because it's not what I intended to say. What I intended to say in a full and thoughtful discussion on all sides of the government's plan was that the threshold scheme which has been adopted in many American states and is something short of the scheme that the regime has in Quebec is a new scheme which contemplates a new kind of insurance policy which we believe will serve the public well. And that's the the plan that the government proposed and to which I was speaking. >> That's what he usually says. >> New question. The member for Ottawa Rideau. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for women's issues. Last Wednesday, December the 6th, at the University of Montreal, Ecole Polytechnique, 14 women were brutally murdered in an extreme act of violence. The women were targeted. Can you suggest, Madam Minister, ways in which we can ensure that such a senseless act of violence never takes place again? >> Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, today, on this day of the funerals in Montreal, we must each be asking ourselves, what can we do? We must work to change society's attitudes toward women. Changing attitudes begins with understanding. We must understand the context context in which this extreme act of violence targeted at women happened. Our society allows and even condones violence against women. Women suffer and die singly behind closed doors in this country every day. >> Supplementary. >> What are you, Madam Minister, the what the person responsible for women's issues in our government doing to eliminate violence against women? >> Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, as a society, we need to work to change sexist attitudes. This government is committed to working to eliminate violence and harassment and other threats against women's integrity and safety. It's clear from the speech from the throne that we are committed to eliminating violence against women and to providing safe and secure communities for the people of this province. We are in the fourth year of a 5-year strategy to prevent wife assault. For the last number of months, we have had an interministerial committee working to address the issue of sexual assault of women. I will be taking recommendations from that committee to my colleagues very shortly. Women should not have to live in fear of violence in the streets, in our institutions of higher learning, in the workplace, or in our own homes. Together, as legislators and as people who represent the women and men of this province, I believe that we can work together to make a difference. >> New question, the member for Sault Ste. Marie. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Education about Bill 66, the Teachers' Pension Act. The Minister knows that an impasse has been reached with the various teachers' federations in the attempt to achieve agreement on joint management of Ontario's teachers' pension plans. With amendments under consideration in committee this week and the bill due to have final reading next week, why has the Minister refused to meet with the Ontario Teachers' Federation so that a mutually agreeable joint control formula can in fact be achieved. >> Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my honorable friend from Sault Ste. Marie for providing me with an opportunity to address this most timely issue of public policy. Because it is not true to say that I or any of my colleagues in the government have been unwilling or unprepared to meet with the Ontario Teachers' Federation. I myself in the last five or six weeks have met on two different occasions at length to hear from the Ontario Teachers' Federation about their views on this matter and at that time I made it very plain to the teachers that it was the view of the government that we would proceed as follows, that we recognize the teachers' pension plan in Ontario to be one of the best pension plans in the free world. It was a pension plan, however, that was in real trouble because the indexation that had been provided 15 years ago was very badly funded and that there was now something in the range of a four or five billion dollar unfunded liability that we as government were prepared to accept, but that we wanted to ensure that for the future, Mr. Speaker, this very good plan would maintain its health, would be able to meet the obligations expected of it, and I told the teachers that we would offer to the committee three different plan managements and we would be very anxious to hear from them at the committee as to what their views were. >> Supplementary. This minister has refused to meet with the Ontario Teachers' Federation since November the 15th during the period that the key questions dealing with the three options were being addressed. The joint management agreement is not a joint agreement if it doesn't have a a dispute settlement mechanism in it. This government refuses to recognize that it has to give up some control in order to have a joint control model. Why will the minister do something on behalf of the teachers of this province and give them a really negotiated joint control model rather than being the pawn of the treasurer of the province of Ontario and insisting that the Ontario government continue to have absolute and total control over the teachers pension plans in the province of Ontario? >> Mr. Mr. >> Mr. Speaker, I'm just appointed to have to observe that my friend the learned doctor of philosophy from Sault Ste. Marie is strangely and completely confused on this matter because the government and I myself have in no way refused to meet the teachers. We have met countless times over the past 16 months and I repeat that just 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago I met for several hours with the teachers and at that time I made plain to them that we would consider a number of options not the least of the options being a member or teacher run plan where the teachers could take complete responsibility for this multi-billion dollar fund. I have said Mr. Speaker, I have said Mr. Speaker on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario that recognizing and representing the broad public interest if we are going to have a partnership model for governance, we in government are not prepared to accept what the teachers want which is a is a binding arbitration mechanism. We're prepared to consider partnership absolutely. Mr. Speaker, we're quite prepared to consider partnership but it's got to be a partnership of equals where we both accept an equal share of risk and reward. >> Hear, hear. >> [applause] >> Well, it's hard to win them all. >> Sorry to make the member wait, but we'll just wait once more. >> Partnership with one partner. >> Listen to my colleague here. >> Going to be a good question. Going to be a good question. >> Go ahead, Al. It's your >> New question, the member for Simcoe East. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Solicitor General and it concerns a disturbing number of false alarms that Ontario police forces responds to. Minister, I'm concerned that the high cost of false alarms and the disabling effects they have on police morale, your predecessor indicated that action would be taken to curb the rising number of false alarms and she vowed to help solve this costly problem. I would like to know, Minister, if uh you agree with your predecessor that action must be taken and are you aware of any legislation that's on the books? >> Minister. >> Well, thank you very much, uh Mr. Speaker. In response to the question, uh firstly, let me indicate I'm quite aware of the issues surrounding uh the whole question of false alarms and uh the cost that it does impose uh in dollar terms uh to a number of municipalities. As the member will be aware, there is a report by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, which specifically deal with this issue and I'd like to inform uh you, Mr. Speaker, and to the member in response to this question, we are currently looking over these recommendations and uh we are currently assessing and analyzing uh that particular issue. >> Supplementary. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the Solicitor General agrees that there should be some action taken, I would like to know if he plans on supporting Bill 88, which was introduced in this house sometime ago with regards to legislation pertaining to alarms. And if he will take the time to to look at this legislation and see if it is acceptable to his government and if it is, will he support it? >> Minister. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, dealing with the particular legislation, as the member will be aware, there are a number of issues surrounding the whole question of of false alarms. Certainly, those types of issues which which deserve a great deal of analysis and examination before any final determination is made. I would expect that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police would expect no less and I expect and see that as my responsibility to act in on this very important issue. >> New question, the member for Kenora. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Mr. Minister, there's a great amount of importance and emphasis placed on recreation centers in Northern Ontario communities. Communities such as Sagkeeng First Nation and Sandy Lake, which are in my riding, incorporate recreation to the day into their daily activities to promote a more healthy lifestyle. These communities, Mr. Minister, depend on lottery assisted grants to build and maintain recreation centers. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister if he would like to expand on the programs and to advise the house on the program process for applying for these grants. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Hear, hear. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to to respond to the question. First of all, each year we do allocate lottery funded grants for both capital recreation projects in the conservation area and in providing new recreation facilities. I should tell them that the grant applications are processed through the regional offices of my ministry. They are evaluated there very carefully and then those results of those evaluations are brought to Toronto where they're looked at in terms of both the the regional level and also the provincial level. >> Supplementary? >> Yes, Mr. Speaker. Um Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Minister that two of my communities, the two I mentioned, Sachigo Lake and Sandy Lake, uh the ones in my riding have made application to receive lottery assistant grants for capital recreation program. In light of this, uh could the Minister please respond to the inquiry regarding the anticipated date for a decision of these applications? >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh the staff in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is in the process of reviewing the grant applications at the present time. We would anticipate that early in the new year, uh perhaps as early as the middle of January, we will be in a position to take a final look at those applications and hopefully make announcements uh toward the end of January. >> New question, the member for Algoma. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the expenditures by her Ministry, just dealing with her Ministry, uh for the environmental assessment uh uh proceedings with regard to timber management. Is the Minister aware that uh uh the expenditures for the years 1986 to '89 for salaries was almost $2 million for her staff? And the And for travel and accommodation was almost $5 million. And for the first 6 months of this year, salaries are half a million. And uh travel and accommodation $1.2 million. Uh can the Minister explain Uh can the Minister explain uh what effect this uh very large expenditure is having on uh the uh forestry management program in her Ministry since so much staff time and money is being spent on the EA rather than direct forestry management. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There's no question that the demands of the class environmental assessment on the Ministry of Natural Resources, particularly in these the initial months of the assessment have been fairly significant both in terms of of demands on staff time since the Ministry of Natural Resources have been the primary witnesses up until very recent point in time in the in the environmental assessment hearings, and also in terms of the travel so that those hearings can be heard in in Thunder Bay, which is an issue we've discussed in the house before. In terms of the the effect of the cost of the class environmental assessment hearing for our ministry and its relationship to our forestry management budget, quite clearly our forestry management budget last year was $230 million. That That was a high point. That money continued to be expended on our forest management. The class environmental assessment hearing information is a fundamentally important part of our future forest management decisions, including our our timber production policy. So, I don't consider it in any way irrelevant to the management of our forests. >> Supplementary. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, at no time did I suggest they were irrelevant. Uh >> The minister surely knows that the we're not just talking about figures for the first few months of an EA, but rather for first 3 years. Uh and for the first 6 months of this year, can the minister confirm that it appears that now that the environmental assessment process will continue perhaps until the end of 1993? And that if that's the case, projections on the figure spent so far would mean that the total cost for the her own ministry's budget for the EA would be over $20 million. And if that is the case, um can she assure us that the uh uh recommendations of the environmental assessment process about for which so much has been spent will in fact be incorporated in the 20-year plans now being approved and finalized for April of 1990? >> Minister. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the length of the hearings. The hearings will obviously continue to the point at which they feel they have heard all the evidence and have made the recommendations that are necessary. I would not anticipate at this point that they would last until 1993. I would certainly indicate that the uh figures that the honorable member has cited represent probably a peak in the expenditure for the Ministry of Natural Resources because it reflects the period of time at which the Ministry of Natural Resources was providing the primary evidence. The costs in the earlier years were in fact quite uh significantly less and they're projected to be less in this year and in subsequent years of the hearing. >> That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.