Question Period Rewind - December 14 1989

Welcome to Question Period Rewind. I'm Donna Skellyy, speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Today, a segment from 1989, and that was a big year for film. Audiences saw the debut of the romantic comedy When Harry Met Sally, starring Billy Crystal and Me Ryan. There was also Dead Poet Society and Disney's The Little Mermaid. But the highest grossing film worldwide that year was Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. What was going on in Ontario's Parliament? It had nothing to do with archaeological crusades. Let's take a listen. >> [music] >> Next item will be oral questions. Leader of the opposition. Uh my question is a very particular one to the attorney general and that is relates to my statement. But I want to ask the attorney general why it is that the items which Ontario says is willing to consider to negotiate uh is uh different with respect to uh uh India native people on reserves as opposed to native people who are living in crownland communities. There is a significant discrepancy between those areas and I wonder if the attorney general can explain that to us. >> Attorney General, >> Mr. Speaker, as the honorable member knows, uh the significant native population in Ontario exists either on reserve where there is a land base, uh in communities on crown land, uh often communities that are substantially native in background or in urban centers. My writing in the heart of Toronto is one of the largest native populations of any writing in Ontario. uh it is obvious I think that when we come to discuss self-government the parameters of self-government discussion will be different from place to place simply by virtue of the existence of a land base. For example, the province of Ontario as the solicitor general will tell you has entered into policing agreements which provide uh some capacity to uh have native policing on reserve. it uh seems to me it becomes a much more difficult question to contemplate self-government with respect to policing in the city of Toronto. Uh therefore, judgments have had to be made about the parameters that are possible to negotiate. As I made in my statement, we are I think the first government in Canada to lay out the parameters that we think are appropriate. I have emphasized to the leadership of the native community that that this document is a basis for our discussions and we will be delighted to hear their views about it and we'll attempt to modify it to meet uh their appropriate expectations. supplementary. >> Uh our report today talks about the fact that some basic conditions of life which are assumed to be there for the vast majority of citizens of the province are not available are not present in many native communities whether they're on reserve or on crown land. Lands down house is not a reserve. Lands down house is on crown land. Uh Adawapascat is on is on reserve. Some of the communities are partly on reserve and partly on crown land. The question that I have for the attorney general, water and sewage, fire protection, garbage collection, and housing are four items which you state very clearly you're prepared to negotiate with respect to crown land communities. Those four items are specifically omitted. They're left out when it comes to what you're prepared to discuss with native people who are living on reserves. I'm asking a simple question to the attorney general. Why those emissions? Don't you think running water and sewage treatment are as basic to life on a reserve as they are to life in the crown land? [applause] >> As the honorable member uh is very careful not to acknowledge so we can get maximum bang for every rhetorical buck. The reality is that on reserve there are special parameters that have to be considered. The honorable member's own report released today is much more candid than he himself is. For example, speaking of federal hospitals on reserve, the report highlights a point that I was making the other day and which the honorable member just rejected as silly when it says, speaking of the people in Moose Factory and Sue Lookout, for example, where there are federally run hospitals, those people worry that by giving jurisdiction to the provinces, the federal government will wash its hands of responsibility to First Nation people. When I made that very same point in so many words the other day, the honorable member, as usual, said I didn't know what I was talking about and it was nonsense. Now, I don't know, though I've got a good idea who prepared this excellent report that the NDP has. It's too bad the leader of the opposition didn't have time to read it. >> Final supplementary, >> Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the attorney general uh is uh is someone for whom on occasion I have respect. I I regret that I can't say that in any way, shape or form today in terms of what he has said to me and what he has said to members of the house. I think it's just unbelievable. You say you're prepared to negotiate education and health and social services when it comes to on reserve. I'm asking you a simple, factual, decent question. You've laid out here what you're prepared to negotiate on reserve and you've laid out on the next page what you're prepared to negotiate on crownland communities. And what I'm asking you is why are these areas water and sewage, fire protection, garbage collection and housing not there. It can't be jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker. It can't be jurisdiction because you've already said you're prepared to negotiate education, health, social services, other areas. Don't tell me that water and sewage is any more or less a matter of provincial or federal jurisdiction than education. Come clean. >> Order, order, order, order. The questions would ask. Uh, >> the honorable member doesn't understand the nature of self-government negotiations. I'm sorry that I I don't get his respect, but I guess I'll have to live with that. What we are talking here is self-government. That is the capacity of native people when they are appropriately resourced to make decisions in areas for themselves. That is what they very much want to do. That is what the government of Ontario wants to do with them. Moving toward that process, we have had to make judgments about which subject matter are high priorities for them. We have listened to them and land for example and resources is a high priority and which subjects are perhaps not suited at this sta stage for self-government negotiations on crown lands or in urban communities. Now we have made the choice. The NDP will never have the responsibility of governing. So they don't understand. But we have made the choice and we have asked the native people to read this document and to read the very helpful document that the NDP produced today and which I know the leader will have a chance to read shortly >> because that will allow them to make submissions to us about the ambit of these very important negotiations. >> Thank you. Thank you. us more every day. >> Thank you. Remind the members this is question period not debating period. New question the uh leader of the opposition. Mr. >> Speaker question to the minister of education. I want to ask the minister this question. Uh he uh >> self he is uh it has to do with democracy as well. Uh I want to ask the uh the minister why he is rejecting the essential principle of I would have thought of of pension plans which is that each party that puts money into the plan has an equal right to a control of that plan and equal right to management of that plan and an equal right to to say what happens to the money which is put into that plan. Why are you showing such contempt for the democratic process in your rejection of the very reasonable request by the teachers that they have an equal access to control and participation in what is after all their own money? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, uh I have indicated as have other members of the government the desire of this government to uh proceed with the reform of the teachers pension plan in a way that will ensure this very excellent plan. a plan that few other people in the community could imagine having will be able to meet uh the expectations of it into the future. We have said for example that in the issue of the governance of the plan uh the government is quite prepared to consider a partnership but from our point of view it must be an equal partnership. It's not a collective bargaining partnership, but rather a partnership of equals where both parties would accept equal share of the risks and the rewards. And we do not believe as government since on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario this year, the treasurer of Ontario will appropriate something in excess of $575 million of the taxpayers money. We will put more money into the teachers pension fund this year than we will give to Mr. Bradley to run the Ministry of the Environment. So the people, the taxpayers of Ontario have an enormous stake in this and we are quite prepared to consider a partnership, but we are not prepared to accept as part of the partnership model a dispute resolution mechanism that would be binding arbitration that would transfer the responsibility for important decisions in this multi-billion dollar account to some outside third party. supp supplementary [applause] speaker. >> You're putting you're putting money into the plan. The teachers are also putting money into the plan. It's the teachers money which is at stake and at risk just as much as your own. They're putting money into the plan as well. So why are you saying why are you saying to the teachers, Mr. Speaker? I find it hard to believe, Mr. speaker that you would say to teachers the government has more rights to that to that plan more rights to that money than the teachers have in terms of its management. I don't think that's democratic or fair. Mr. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how your approach to uh to to what happens to the surplus to your right to not contribute to the plan if it if it if you if you determine that there is a surplus in the plan? How that's any different from the approach that was taken by Conrad Black or any of the other employers that led to the changes that we've had to make to pension law? >> Minister, [applause] >> well, let's let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. There's no surplus in this plan. This plan, this very excellent plan that provides 100% inflation protection is seriously in deficit because that inflation protection was not properly secured in terms of financial support 15 years ago. So the taxpayers are now going to pick up about a $4 billion unfunded liability. Let's be clear about that. I want to say in so far as governance I have said to the teachers that one of the other opportunities available to them one that we would encourage is let the teachers take the plan. We are prepar we are prepared to surrender to the teachers the right to run this plan. If they they want partnership we're prepared to consider partnership but to obviate the concern of my friends opposite. It might be a better alternative one provided for in the government bill is a member run plan. So they would then have the entire responsibility. They could have all of the rewards and all of the risks that go with a member-run plan. We will not however accept an argument where the government gets to accept all of the risks and the members get all of the rewards. That's simply not on. >> Final supplementary. >> What is on? I don't see why I don't see why anybody would take seriously your your decision. You're saying we'll let you run the plan when when you talk about partnership. Well, why would anybody take that seriously when when you talk about partnership, you make the rule. No, wait a minute. This is your definition of a partnership. You make the rules. You decide how much the contributions are going to be. You decide the you decide the terms of the plan. You say that if at any time in the future there's a surplus, you don't have to contribute to the plan. You make all those rules. That's what you've set out in your legislation and your amendments. And then you turn around to the teachers and say, "Won't you be partners with us?" What kind of a partnership is that? If you're interested in a partnership, why won't you agree that when two partners disagree with respect to what's going to happen to the money that each of those partners puts into the plan, we'll let somebody else decide? Why not do that? >> And I I have to say to my friend, and where does that leave the taxpayers bound by some third party for consequences that could have enormous impact on the consolidated revenue fund? I want to say to my friend, the leader of the opposition that uh under the plan that we've had, it is a defined benefit plan where the government, the taxpayers of Ontario, all of Ed Broadband's ordinary Canadians get to guarantee the benefits. And I repeat, under the current arrangement, Ed Broadband's ordinary Canadians are going to get to pick up a $4 billion unfunded liability while all of the benefits that have flowed from that unfunded liability have accred to the members. And I say finally, Mr. Speaker, we as a government are seriously prepared to entertain a real and genuine partnership with an equal sharing of risk and rewards. And yes, we are also prepared to give to the teachers a member-run plan where they run the plan, they accept all of the risks, and yes, they get all of the surplus and all of the rewards. [applause] >> Good answer, Conrad. >> Order. >> Good answer, Conrad. The member for Sarnia is waiting patiently for your attention. The member for Sarnia, a new question. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. That applause was most appreciated. My question is to the Minister of Industry and Trade. Mr. Minister, back in 1986, your ministry undertook a study with respect to the impact of the employer health levy. And at that time, the findings of that particular report indicated that uh the introduction of such a tax in Ontario would be harmful to business, more particularly to small business, would ultimately cost jobs and a slowdown in activities in some firms. I wonder if the minister as a result of this tax now having been introduced by the treasurer and by the minister of revenue, I wonder if you could in fact indicate whether any studies and or surveys have been undertaken by your ministry as an update to the findings that you were able to discover back in 1986. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, we [clears throat] haven't undertaken any studies, but I will say this to you that when you take a look at what has been going on with the funding of the the health plan, I think you'll find that fully almost 70% of those people who are working have had their premiums paid by their employers. We have a situation where really there is one sector that is really being disadvantaged by that. The treasur in consultation with his colleagues has decided that we will fulfill our promise that we will make the providing of health care totally across the board without direct cost to those participants. There is no question that the costs are coming out of the consolidated revenue fund and we think there has to be some equity. We are now as a result of that legislation picking up the slack where those people in the uh industrial sector, those employers who have not been making any contributions will be doing it in all fairness and in equity so that the burden will be spread across the total industrial sector >> supplementary. surprised that the minister would not follow up on a study which he undertook back in 1986 which indicated some very real concerns about the introduction of such attacks and the impact that would have on job creation in our province. I want the minister to know that my party did in fact undertake a survey in which we made contact with some 3,000 business operations in this province. fully twothirds of them indicated the tax would have a very substantive negative effect on job creation would slow down their growth and I want the minister to further be aware that some 80% of those two/3s that we contacted are companies which export and it's interesting to note that just this month for the first time in a long time the exports out of Ontario and Canada have gone down very substantially and that in fact our balance balance of payments is in a negative position and I would suggest to you it's partially as a result of this kind of move. I'd ask the minister how can you as the minister of industry and trade support such a move recognizing that your own studies and further surveys that we have taken indicate it's wrong and particularly wrong at this time. >> Mr. Speaker, I'd point out to the leader of the third party that this tax hasn't even gone into effect. So, as a result, well, then all of the dire consequences that you've attributed to it haven't happened as yet. But I should tell you this the now what I'm saying to I will say to you this that all in all of the discussions that we have had with businessmen not only in the United States but in all jurisdictions the one strong factor that we have in our favor is the relatively low cost of providing health protection to our citizens. It is the envy of the United States and all you have to do is take a look at people like Leia Koka who referred to the high cost of providing that >> yes it does it has it has plenty to do with that and I will say to you that rather than saying that it is a negative impact >> I can tell you that it is one of the strongest selling points that we have in trying to attract industry to this jurisdiction [applause] >> final supplementary I >> again appreciate the applause. The um minister may be interested to know >> that uh it's not me saying that this tax is going to be negative. It is your own report written by your ministry officials back in 1986. I quote, "A new payroll tax would deter small firms from hiring and impair job creation." That was confirmed by the survey that we took. That in fact is what's going to happen. Mr. Minister, I predict this well in advance of the impact of this tax being felt by the Ontario economy. I ask you again, how can you as the minister representing business in the affairs of the cabinet of the government of Ontario support this particular tax? >> Minister, >> speaker, I can support it very easily because I think it's fair. It's equitable. And what you haven't really commented on is the result of the infusion of the savings that are going to result in the taxpayers into the economy and what that will and what that will generate. And again, I say to you that we have a health plan in Ontario that has one of the lowest rates in all of Canada as far as uh the contributions that are being made by industry. And it is something that has stood us in uh in in in good position and that we use as a very effective tool in attracting industry to this jurisdiction. >> New question. >> I thought maybe the member for Missaga South had a supplementary or something. New question. The member for Burlington South. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the premier. Premier, your government notified uh over 150,000 teachers last September of 1988 the following in a letter. You stated that uh Dr. Slater's concept of a new partnership with joint trusteeship appears attractive to your government. Underlying this his proposal is the principle that teachers and the government should be full and equal partners in the amount they contribute to the plan in the way they share its risks and rewards and in the role they play in the management of the pension funds in the future. Premier, >> why would you as premier announce over a year ago that you were going to build this new relationship with the teachers of Ontario on something as fundamental as their shareholder rights and their pensions? And yet last night at 8:00, your government tabled legislation which not only took away the the the option that you were discussing, it removed rights that teachers currently enjoy today under existing legislation. >> Why order premier? >> Speaker, the treasurer could tell the honorable member about the extensive discussions that have gone on with the teachers. >> The treasurer actually, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty arose in 1975 when the then progressive conservative government did not establish a plan that paid for the very generous benefits that were uh given to the teachers in that election year. It was the inadequacies. It was the inadequacies of the payments that were made from the consolidated revenue fund and from the teachers that have led to the actuarial deficit that necessitated the new plan that is being put forward because it is our aim to see that these benefits are properly uh paid for and that they're available when the teachers retire as they should be. >> Sir, [applause] >> supplementary. Uh yes, it should be noted that the uh worldclass fiscal conservative who just answered that question supported fully that legislation in 1975 as the then leader of the Liberal Party. >> The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the premier should be aware that as of this morning, charges of bad faith bargaining. >> How did you vote on >> Just wait until everyone tones down a bit. He's a good guy. >> Mr. Speaker, >> you have a >> I would like the premier to know that as of this morning, his government has been charged with bad faith bargaining by the by the members of this plan because of the conduct of certain members of your government. Not only has your government contradicted the letter which was sent they believe in good faith back on September 26 of 1988. Your own minister of education has refused to meet with the teachers on more than one occasion to deal with the options which your government has tabled for their consideration. Your minister, responsible for women's issues, has refused on three occasions to meet with the women teachers of this province to discuss substantive matters regarding pregnancy leave benefits that they believe they have a right to. >> Can you explain why members of your cabinet, members of the privy council have refused to meet with teachers yesterday when it was your government's intention to table a bill that stripped away their rights that they have enjoyed in this province historically? treasurer. >> Speaker, although the honorable member continues to direct his questions to the premier, it's my privilege to respond. I think he should be aware that uh ministers uh of the crown have been meeting with the elected representatives of the teachers profession now for 18 months that I myself have met with them regularly and as a matter of fact their request to the premier himself uh resulted in a meeting in the cabinet chamber with myself and other members of the cabinet directly responsible for this important matter. Uh now the honorable member uh of from Renfruit, the minister of education has introduced legislation which has been debated already and approved in principle and as a matter of fact he has met with the teachers federation on two formal occasions. The bill is now before the house. It is not the time for backroom negotiations because we have put forward three alternatives. One, if the teachers insist the government will cons will continue to operate. Second, which we favor, is a fair and equitable distribution of responsibility and risk, which would not involve compulsory arbitration. this fund would have at its disposal, including including the uh employees of the province of Ontario, close to 20 billion dollars in assets. And surely it is irresponsible on behalf of the honorable member, no matter how much he would like to lead the progressive conservative party, to suggest that the decisions on that fund should be handed to some uh third party rather than the representatives of the taxpayer, the government of the day. I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, >> there might be time in a [applause] >> I perhaps we could try a short supplementary might bring about a short answer. Would you try please? Thank you, >> Mr. Speaker. As legislators, we create laws in this house to protect employees from their employers who are bad faith bargaining. >> There is absolutely no opportunity for the citizens of this province when a government is guilty of bad faith bargaining with any of its citizens. The fact of the matter is this premier should be aware that that in fact last night a plan was tabled that has never been discussed with the teachers of this province and your minister of education confirmed that in committee last night. The fact of the matter is that this government all along has decided to not offer a joint >> question model but in fact a governmentrun model. Why has your strategy for the last year been to invite confrontation with the teachers of this province? How can you call your actions as consultative when >> in fact >> Mr. Speaker, what the honorable member says is totally incorrect. The bill as he knows has three options. We have uh met with the teachers for over 18 months. The minister himself in the last two weeks has met formally with them twice and they have refused the partnership option. They have also indicated that they are not ready to take over the pension fund entirely themselves as the bill provides directly in its sections. That leaves only one alternative and that is for the changes to occur under the eegis of the government direction. That is really the the choice of the teachers. Now, I want to say something about bad bad faith bargaining because the honorable member has only recently arrived at this discussion and isn't even wise enough to listen while the discussion takes place but continues to interject that I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that for the Ontario Teachers Federation to indicate after the work that has gone with them over 18 months in trying to construct a suitable and modern method of uh looking after these important matters pertaining to pension. for them to call for the resignation of the Minister of Education in my view is irresponsible that we have never had a better Minister of Education than the one we have now. And he SHOULD [applause] and he and he should certainly command the respect of all of the teachers as he certainly commands the respect of the taxpayers and as he commands the respect of every sensible member of this. >> Thank you. >> [applause] [applause] >> Order. >> New question. The leader of the opposition. >> I thought I might give the treasurer a chance to explain why why he has it in for Chris Ward, but I I won't do that. I'd like to ask the uh the premier a question if I could about the GST. uh he'll be aware, I'm sure, of the uh of the many reports that the federal government is contemplating changing the original proposal uh changing it from 9% to 7. Uh the treasur has apparently made some uh proposals to the federal government with respect to other possible changes to the plan. I wonder if the premier can tell us does the fact that the rate uh will will be going down from 9 to 7 change the stance that the government of Ontario is taking with respect to the GST. Premier >> speaker >> supplementary >> is is no. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the premier can explain why it is that his party voted against uh a very clearly worded motion standing in the name of my colleague from Nickelbelt which stated very clearly that the government of Ontario would have no truck nor trade uh with the GST. Do I take it then that you are continuing negotiations with respect to the GST? Premier, Mr. Speaker, we have uh in this house we have uh free votes. I respect every single member and if the majority of the members think that what you put forward doesn't make sense, frankly, I agree with him. >> New question, the member for Sarnia. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Revenue. The Minister of Revenue will be familiar with Bill 64, which is the education assessment bill that has been brought forward by your government. I'd like to ask the minister in view of the information that has come to my attention that some 45,000 information notices have in fact been circulated with respect to this bill. How would the minister and his ministry be so arrogant as to do that prior to the to the time when the bill was brought before this house? How can you submit a bill and the information contained therein for circulation to the Ontario public prior to this house dealing with that legislation? What kind of nonsense is that? >> Order. >> Minister. >> Well, I'm not sure if the honorable member has uh his facts quite straight, Mr. Speaker, but I will uh take the matter under advisement and I will report back to the House. I want to advise the minister that I do have my facts correct that in fact there was information printed some 45,000 copies of which were circulated Mr. Minister and those copies not only are not worthwhile because they they they contain errors since the bill was in fact amended after the printing of that particular circularized item. And I say to the minister that when the same thing happened in respect to the GST at the federal level, when that was introduced by the government and before passage and when in fact advertisements were circulating, the speaker of the house, I might add, reprimanded the government for taking that action. Will you stand up and apologize on behalf of your ministry for doing something that is dumb and stupid as what you did? >> Well, Minister, Mr. Speaker, I I believe if he's talking about the ad, if the honorable member would just kind of relax for a second, I believe if he will um if I if I recall the ad, it says the bill is before the legislature. If there are some uh matters uh in the announcement that um that may be incorrect, I told the honorable member in my first answer that I would take his concerns under advisement and get back to the house. I doubt if anything we do over at the Ministry of Revenue is uh in fact as exaggerated as the honorable member tried to make the case today. Mr. Speaker, >> new new question. The member for Peterbor. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, some time ago, the Minister of Education allocated considerable funds to the separate school board in Montreal for a new high school. The uh the school is is required because the present building is very old and decrepit and enrollment is increasing. Mr. Speaker, there appear to have been delays in the allocation of these funds. My question to the minister is could the minister give us a status report on the new high school for Peterbr? >> Minister, >> pleased [snorts] to have the question from my friend from Peterborough. Uh because it is true that some time ago a submission was made by the area separate school board for a replacement of the St. Peters High School in London in Peterborough rather. an outstanding minister of education, the member from Wentworth North responded very very >> completely and and immediately to that request by announcing an allocation uh of in excess of uh 1517 million to uh provide for a uh I think 1,400 place secondary school as a replacement for St. Peters High School in Peterborough. uh it is uh my understanding that uh that project is proceeding and if there is any difficulty uh I would be interested to know about it because certainly it's our expectation that the allocation that has been made will be proceeded with >> supplementary excuse for >> Mr. Speaker, >> I'm sorry if I confuse Montreal and Peter Burrow. >> Is [laughter] >> can the minister assure the house that if and when the board submits acceptable plans for the new school, there will be no delays in the flow of funds. Minister, >> I would want my friend and the good people of the Peterborough area to know that uh that my predecessor was very anxious to accommodate the very legitimate secondary accommodation concerns of that community. He uh very wisely addressed the need by indicating that a very substantial allocation. I would only encourage my friend the member from Peterborough that uh that uh if there is a difficulty at the board level that they should make a an immediate contact with the regional office because the government is very anxious to move forward as quickly as possible and to replace St. Peter's High School with a modern and up-to-date facility. >> New question, the member for Windsor Riverside. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Housing and it concerns a developer in London by the name of uh Zman Holdings Limited. Uh this particular developer um over the last number of years has received $2.4 million in loans from the provincial government under the Ontario Rental Construction Loan Program, the Canadian Ontario Rental Supply Program, and the Rent Enterprise uh program to build apartments in the London area. I'd like to ask the minister, why would the government of Ontario loan a developer like this money when this person has had a long history of charge being charged with collecting illegal rents and being convicted of charging illegal rents? >> Minister, >> um Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, at least uh two of the programs which the honorable member mentioned uh were those that were in uh in place uh several years ago. Uh I can't say why in fact they were done. I uh the Renterprise program however I think was introduced in ' 86 I believe and I would certainly want to check to find out what the criteria was when that money was given >> supplementary. >> Well while the minister is looking into this particular uh these particular programs and this landlord. Could the minister also look into the fact that this landlord is now being charged again with collecting illegal rents in 200 units of other buildings that he owns? And would the minister use the influence that he should have since the loans are still uh interest free? They're interest free loans for 15 years. Use the influence he should have to secure a settlement and get the tenants the money that has been illegally charged by this sleazy landlord. Minister. >> Um, Mr. Speaker, I will uh certainly uh attend to the matter that the uh honorable member has drawn to my attention. Uh and if in fact we have the legal or fiscal capacity uh to leave or the kind of result that he has suggested, I will certainly uh see whether or not that's possible. >> Question the member for Missaga South. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister responsible for disabled persons. The minister knows that the report independent living the time is now which was submitted to her predecessor in March 1988 is still being reviewed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The minister also knows how crucial independent living assistance is for disabled persons to live a full and productive life. My question to the minister is simple. Given that it has been 21 months since the independent living report was released and that the John Lord report found and I quote the number of people who require attendant care exceeds the level of current service by three to 10 times. Why has her government taken no concrete action to improve and increase the provision of attendant care? >> Minister. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned once before in this house, Mr. Speaker, um myself, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and the Minister for Seniors Affairs have been working on the long-term care initiatives. In fact, the minister for uh social services just made an announcement last week in this house and the uh reports that the member has referred to attendant care uh is a part of the whole long-term care initiative and it's being looked at in that context. >> Supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, the disabled persons in this province are fed up with being asked to wait and wait for actions. We have lists of reports that the current status is under review, currently reviewing, etc., etc. They are still waiting for this Liberal government to implement the recommendations of the freedom to move is life itself. And that's two and a half years after the government received the report. My supplementary question is this. Given that the TTC was recently criticized as being one of the four least accessible transit systems in North America. When will the minister and her cabinet colleagues take steps to fully implement the recommendations contained in the freedom to move report which they've had two and a half years. >> Minister, >> Mr. Chairman, uh there is the freedom to move report and the lord report as already mentioned. And I think I've already given the member an answer as to how those reports are being d addressed at this time and and within what context. I just want to remind the member that in 1985 this government was spending approximately $7 million on attendant care. As of 1989, we were spending over $14 million. And I think that is a substantial increase. Though we all are aware of the fact that much more has to be done. Mr. Chairman, the uh TTC report is out. There have been public hearings and it's up to Metro Council to decide how to move on that report. >> New question, the member for High Park Swansy. >> I'm sorry. >> Actually, it's High Park Swansea. >> I recognize the member for High Park. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship. Mr. Speaker, you have recently recently received a 493page report from the task force on access to professions and trades chaired by Peter The report provides an extensive review of the barriers faced by Canadians trained outside Canada. When seeking a job, they rightfully want a fair opportunity to compete on a level playing field with other Canadians. As the report demonstrates, many Canadians have specialized knowledge and skills which Ontario needs but which are not used because of the lack of formal recognition of credentials and as a result both those individuals and our whole society lose out. Mr. Minister, I was concerned about a recent media report which suggested you plan to wait a full year before considering what kinds of changes are awarded. Mr. Minister, could you advise the House what your expected timetable is? >> Minister Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the honorable member for his specific interest in this uh issue. Uh first of all, get the facts clear. Let me uh make it very clear that out of the 85,000 or so immigrants who are coming into the province of Ontario every year, there are thousands of foreign trained uh people who uh would be qualified to work in Ontario, but who have met artificial or other inappropriate barriers that have prevented them from seeking proper and full employment in their respective trades and professions. As a result of this, two years ago, the government u initiated the task force report. I think it would be good for all of us to help tear down those barriers so that we can enable these people who are very skilled and talented to uh seek and be employed in these positions. Now, the task force report, Mr. Speaker, came up with 104 recommendations, most of which would pertain to seven ministries of this government. It is our intention to move as quickly as possible uh not to take the length of time that the newspaper article inappropriately indicated but as soon as these recommendations have been properly evaluated and analyzed the government would certainly indicate its course of direction. >> Supplementary. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The coming report raises a number of complex and fundamental matters. It proposes a new approach to evaluating the skills of people, a new approach to testing these skills, a new approach to language testing, and much more. And the report also acknowledges that no legitimate standard of excellence should or needs to be sacrificed in this process. And as you've indicated, uh there are over 100 recommendations aimed at furthering these objectives. Mr. Minister, can you confirm that in formulating the principles of reform and later the means of implementing those reforms, the government will continue to take into account alternative proposals that may be provided by other interested parties? >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before the government implements any course of action, I wish to assure all honorable members that the government would certainly be in touch with the um uh professions and trade organizations who of course are involved. Many of the community and uh other individual groups who would be affected by any changes uh also other stakeholders in the system. I might mention Mr. speaker that uh we must be cognizant of the fact that in uh the European economic community in the by the year 1992 all of the countries which are a part of the EEC are moving toward complete mobility of skilled personnel be between its member nations must also recognize that in other jurisdictions other provinces of Canada like Quebec, BC and Alberta they have already implemented some systems for recognizing foreign credentials again they've done so in a way that benefits their particular provinces in a cost-effective way. So from Ontario's standpoint, we must make sure that we do this so that we can harness these skills for the benefit of Ontario. Thank you. >> I certainly appreciate the assistance from the member for Nickel Belt, but we've been managing. All right, >> new question. The member for Well and Thoral. Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Industry Trade, Ortech International, formerly the Ontario Research Foundation, received significant funding from the provincial government and has its governors uh appointed by the provincial government. Now, I'm sure it was after some significant study uh that it located in the Nagra Peninsula in the Brock Industrial Park around a year ago. And that study undoubtedly would have indicated to to it and to the government there was a need for its services because of the uh dense industry uh located uh in the Niagara region and and certainly uh uh in the southern part of the golden horseshoe. Now after about one year uh Ortech indicates that it's going to leave Brock industrial park abandon uh uh the Nagra region. Uh my question to the minister Mr. speaker is why is the government permitting that to happen? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I uh thank the member for the question. I'm sure he's aware that I have a copy of the resolution passed by the authoral city council and you should know that Ortech notwithstanding that it reports uh through my ministry is really an armslength agency and I don't really have uh day-to-day on hands responsibility for it. I have uh heard the representations from the city council of Thorald. Uh I have certainly will communicate that to them. Uh but that is really their decision and it's their decision to make >> supplementary. >> Well, I know the minister has got the thorough city council resolution because I sent it over to him at the beginning of question period today and I know that Thorald City Council wrote to him and that he replied. I should uh should let them know that this is of grave concern not only to the city of Thorald but to uh the regional municipality. They uh sincerely and believe that the decision of Ortech is illfounded and not based on reality. The fact remains that the government contributes significant financial resources to Ortech and uh is is far more intimately involved with her operation than the minister would appear to have us believe. In the in view of the fact that this is of such great concern to regional municipality of Niagara to the city of Thorald, of such importance to the whole Niagara region, the question, >> would the minister agree to facilitate a meeting between himself, Ortech and representatives of those two communities, the city of Thorald and the regional municipality of Niagra as soon as possible so this matter can be discussed. >> Mr. Speaker, again I want to point out that contrary to what the member has said, we do not have a very very intimate relationship in the way that Ortch is run. It has its own board of directors, its own chairman, and it runs as an armslength agency. Certainly, I am cognizant of your concern. I will convey it to uh the people at Ortech and if we can arrange a meeting, I'll be happy to try and facilitate it. New question, the member for Carlton. >> Thank you very much. Uh my question is to the Sister General, will he call an inquest with regard to all matters surrounding the death of Christopher Stevenson and the uh the handling of Joseph Frederick's, the man who has been convicted of murdering uh this young uh young boy in Bmpton. Minister, >> as the member will be aware, the uh the uh calling of a of an inquest is is one which is uh within the responsibility of the coroner of this province. The coroner, I understand from reports, is currently taking a look at the matter and is expecting to make a decision uh in the next while. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. uh Mr. Mr. Speaker, under section 22 of the Coroners Act, if the minister has not already referred to that act, and I believe inadvertently misled the House, uh you have the power to call uh you have the power to call under section 22 of the corners act uh corer's inquest. There seems to be ample evidence uh with regard to the matter that there is a significant problem that could be could be addressed with with regard to the release of Joseph Fred Frederick's uh from the penetanguishing mental hospital and the handling of this this uh this man over a period of of years uh leading to the death of Christopher Stevenson. Why, Mr. Minister, don't you take that step at this time? because there is public concern not only outside this legis but within the legislature to get to the bottom of this so that this can never happen again in our province. >> Mr. Speaker, without dealing with the subject matter of the of the member's question at this point, but I will in a moment I find the the first comment of the member to be somewhat offensive in his supplementary. I would like to indicate that the coroner is charged with the with the responsibility in making a determination in certain instances where death has resulted. taking a look at uh the subject matter, taking a look at uh public interest and public safety. The coroner is charged with that responsibility. I am advised through report that the coroner is currently taking a look as to whether uh there will be an inquest called in that matter and I believe that it is uh in the best interest of all of the members that we do await the coroner's discern uh decision in this matter. >> I I was not intending to be offensive. I was trying to point out to him what his his rights were under section 2. >> Thank you. Thank you. Order. Let's not, you know, other people might want to ask questions. I I distinctly heard what the member said and he came very close to the line. Very close. >> Order. The member for Parkdale. New question. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. I have a question for the Minister of Health. Recently, the minister responsible for the province's anti-drug strategy announced a number of initiatives aimed at coming to grips with the drug abuse in our area. Included in his announcement were funds for a prevention program which would involve the district health councils. Can the minister tell me and in fact all of those persons who are interested in a strong anti-drug strategy what kinds of initiatives we can expect from the district health councils? >> Minister. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I would like to acknowledge the efforts and the leadership of my colleague, the minister responsible for the province's anti-drug strategy. Uh as I answer the question and also acknowledge the interest of the member from Parkdale. Uh the Ministry of Health has contributed $1.2 million uh through till March of 1992 to fund the activities of community action groups. The district health councils will be making recommendations on proposals to support prevention activities that were announced and will in fact be uh seeking to participate in the development of uh community action groups fostering them in their communities. They're also what Mr. speaker going to be uh developing three-year plans for drug and alcohol services. That is the district health councils of this province. The present time they're uh very active in planning for the um uh enhancement appropriately of the kind of initiatives which have been included in the uh provincial anti-drug strategy. >> Supplementary. >> Yes. Uh thank you very much madame minister for that announcement. I'm specifically interested in treatment centers. Last week, I received a letter from the Metro Police stating that, and I quote, that in the western of Toronto, there are no facilities for rehabilitation of drug addicts. Can the minister indicate what direction her ministry plans to take in terms of increasing funds specifically for treatment and rehabilitation centers? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm very proud of the initiatives that the Ministry of Health have undertaken and of our commitment to addiction programs generally. This year, addiction programs will total some $43.3 million. I should note, Mr. Speaker, that that's an increase of uh some $17 million over the funding that was available in 198788. Because of my desire to always try to improve the effectiveness and to improve in fact the quality of everything that we do, we're also developing a database at the ministry to allow us to better evaluate the effectiveness of all of our programs. This is because of our commitment to develop quality assurance programs so that we can ensure the taxpayers of this province that in fact we are providing effective and appropriate uh care to all of the residents of the province and the addictions approach that we are taking. The addictions program is just one example where we are trying to uh evaluate and monitor and then demonstrate that effectiveness as we uh further enhance our funding initiatives. New question, the member for Sudbury East. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Labor. I'd like to raise with him another case under 86N of the act, workers compensation act. Mrs. Vedera was injured on January 16th, 1981 while hauling bags of fiberglass. Full WCB benefits were paid on and off in 198182, but in April of 1983, these were reduced to 50% of their original value. The reduced benefits continued until September of 1983 when Mrs. Baderka was then pensioned off by the board. Her representative appealed to the Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal for for full benefits between April and September of 1983. The case was won in December of 1987. The WCB stayed the decision in the payout in February of 1988, and no money has been paid out to her to date. I'd like to ask the Minister of Labor why he's continuing to allow the board to do this. >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. I I I think uh we must go back and remind ourselves that that uh I think it was in 1985 that we made some substantial changes to workers compensation board procedures. We established the appeal tribunal. We put in place some several mechanisms to allow a full and and a comprehensive look at all of these particular claims. In this particular case, we're dealing with a matter that I've I've mentioned several times in the House before, and that is is the issue of who has the final authority at workers compensation board. I've I've said in the House before, and I'll say it again today, that is a matter that is still in some dispute and is a matter that I've undertaken in the house that will be part of our review of workers compensation board. green paper as I said before will be issued in 1990 and that particular matter will be reviewed but I go back to the changes that were made in 1985 where we established the workers compensation appeal tribunal substantially enhance the appeal mechanisms and in that particular case we are looking at what's called 86N Mr. Speaker >> supplementary >> supplementary Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the minister mentioned the green paper because I'd like to say a little bit about that process. The green paper committee made up of labor and employer reps was set to look at this particular question and also many other issues under workers compensation. That committee has not met in ages. It is not meeting now. It is not scheduled to meet in the near future. And the second problem is that both groups, labor and the employers already presented to the Minister of Labor their final submissions about 86N and those other issues. The fact of the matter is that the employers believe 86N should continue. Labor believes that section 86N should be repealed so the independence of the tribunal is guaranteed and the tribunal will have the final say. The minister will have to choose whose side he's on. And I'd like to ask him here today which is it. Are you with the employers or are you going to be with labor and working people for an independent tribunal? >> Minister, it's a silly proposition. Absolutely silly. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, it it it it reminds me of the the challenge we all face and I I I believe strongly in consultation. I believe in giving individuals and organizations a chance to comment on and participate in the background and in the decision-m in matters such as this. So we can't have it both ways. We can't say that that the minister has received advice and now it's up to him without consultation and have consultation. My approach, Mr. Speaker, is to prepare the green paper, to issue the green paper, and to give the individuals and organizations the full and opportunity to comment on that and input in it. So, as I say, you can't have it both ways. We can't say we want consultation and input and then not allow consultation input. I can't think of a better mechanism, Mr. Speaker, than the proposed green paper to ensure that we have broad and comprehensive input into this very important decision. >> I don't know more you could want. >> New question. Greg, they're not even meeting anymore. The meetings are >> Is the member for Sudbury East finished? >> Shelly, I'm out of time. Sh. >> Uh, the member for Sudbury East head the supplementary. Fine. A new question. The member for Missaga South. >> Question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister has one of the most important portfolios in this government. His mandate is to protect human health and the ecosystem by ensuring that acceptable standards of air, water, and land are maintained. Yet his ministry is one of the most difficult ministries to obtain information from. Will the minister tell us why he has not tabled an annual report in 4 and 1/2 years? >> Minister, >> I certainly can, Mr. Speaker. I consider a annual report a waste of money. The reason I consider it a waste of money is that all an annual report used to be in the Ministry of the Environment was about 15 pictures of the Minister of the Environment saying what a great job you're doing. And uh it's essentially used to be government propaganda. and when you had an annual report. [clears throat] >> I think and also keeping in mind that it's just what the ministry thinks it's doing well and the services that it's providing. I can say that in speeches across the province. I can say that by providing direct information to people and I just consider it a waste of money to put money into an annual report which uh when I used to when I've looked at them over the years I must say Mr. Speaker, they've been very good for photographers and very good for ministers of the environment, but I can't say that uh in fact they have been particularly useful. Other than that, we do have a number of documents that we provide. We have a a number of uh of uh publications that we put out through our library and in other ways and we're prepared to continue to do that. I hope the member for Carlton will respect the rules of the house. >> Thank you. The supplementary, the member for Missaga South. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, Mr. Minister, your staff are uncooperative and rarely return phone calls. And there's a rumor that you've closed down your ministry's full service library at 135 Stlair. And the fact that you haven't tabled the report is a concern for everybody. By law, we realize you don't have to, but the previous ministers of the environment all published annual reports as part of their duty to keep the public informed. This government obviously feels it doesn't have to tell anyone what's going on. The minister should know and I will be tableabling an amendment to the Ministry of the Environment Act today to require you to report each year to this assembly. In the meantime, my supplementary question is, can you tell us when we will see a report of your activities over the last four and a half years? >> Well, you you will get that kind of report, Mr. Speaker, through the uh estimates of the Ministry of the Environment, through questions that are in the House, through speeches which are made, through the various publications that we have. But if you're asking me, am I going to to put out a propaganda piece on behalf of the government of Ontario, a a show document, >> a show document, the answer is no. I'm not going to do that >> for a very good reason. I mean, I happen to believe when I was in opposition that they were a waste of money, that all they did was promote the government, that all they did was make the minister look good. >> And for that reason, >> he doesn't need that. He is a good minister. >> For that reason, he's doing, >> Mr. Speaker, >> I am not going to >> I'm not going to waste the money of the >> It appears that many members many members are not interested in what's taking place. That completes oral questions and responses.