Question Period Rewind - February 9 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] >> Oral questions. The leader of the opposition. Speaker, I have a question to the premier. Uh, Mr. Speaker, we've uh the mayor of Toronto uh yesterday spoke uh about the need for uh greater understanding with respect to race relations in the in the city and uh complained about the actions of certain police uh officials and police officers with respect to the black community. The premier has spoken uh certainly spoken out with respect to uh the opinions of professor Rushton. I'd like to ask the premier about his views of one of his own appointees and colleagues and members of the Liberal Party who was appointed by him to be the spokesman for the government of Ontario, the representative for the Liberal government on the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission. I'm referring of course to June Rollins. I wonder if the premier could comment on the views of uh June Rollins as they were expressed uh to the Clare Lewis task force uh on Tuesday when she said, and I'm quoting, "While the majority of the members of the black community are good citizens, there is a sector of youth that's out of control within that black community. There's no question about it. And they're causing a lot of problems." When questioned if it's any different from the white community, she said, "I think at this point that there is a problem within a certain sector of youth within the black community." I wonder if the premier can tell us whether June Rollins is uh reflecting the views of the government with respect to a sector in the black community that's out of control. >> Premier, >> Mr. Speaker, I I can't speak for the views of uh M. Roland's uh in this matter and as you know a number of people are speaking to the Lewis task force with their own views on um on this situation. Obviously it's a it's a very troublesome one and uh we are looking forward to the views of Mr. Lewis uh as he gathers up ideas and talks to the various communities. So I I don't want to say that uh uh we subscribe to any particular uh view that's being put beforeward uh before uh uh the Lewis commission and each will make their own views felt supplementary. Speaker, I'm I'm quite surprised at the premier who has been quite prepared to talk about how if he was in a position to do something, he would have fired, for example, Professor Rushton uh who has certain theories about uh about races and about uh uh their relative uh superiority and inferiority, views which I'm sure are repugnant to the vast majority of citizens in this province and certainly to those of us in this party. I'm a little surprised that he wouldn't have something very direct to say about somebody who in fact he appointed uh and who he is in a very direct position to fire if that's what he would choose to do. Can I ask the premier why he wouldn't dismiss uh somebody who speaking on behalf of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission would single out a certain sector of black youth in the in the black community as being out of control and responsible for uh for crime in the city of Toronto. >> Premier, you're right. the government appointed Mr. Rollins to to that position and we expect her and every other appointment to exercise real sensitivity in dealing with these kinds of those matters and um uh I I I say to my honorable friend that I I I'm not a position to either justify or to not justify it but that her uh her contribution I think to the community has is has been a is a been a good one. uh and I am hoping that uh as a result of the Lewis commission that there will be some very serious ideas that can be presented for discussion here and throughout the entire community. >> Final supplementary >> uh the premier has said that we should all display sensitivity. I think the premier would agree that at the very least Miss Rollins has not done that in this case. uh and this statement is profoundly counterproductive uh unhelpful and in fact uh raises great many questions in my mind as to as to the appropriateness and her appropriateness in that office. I'd like to ask the premier why he would not dismiss June Rollins from the police commission as a representative of the people of Ontario on that commission. >> Premier, Mr. Speaker, I I I don't I haven't seen behavior I think that that warrants that uh at this point. Um, obviously it's a situation that uh requires a great deal of sensitivity and she has a responsibility to the community uh to make sure that our police force are sensitized to some of these uh uh realities and uh and I'm sure that when the Lewis commission comes down u his words will be taken very seriously. >> New question. The leader of the opposition. >> Speaker, a new question to the Minister of Health. Uh Mr. Speaker, on December the 15th, the minister announced that the special authorization program would be coming to an end as of April the 1st and that uh a special committee would be established to review all drugs uh with respect to uh the new drug formulary as of July the the 1st uh 1989. Mr. Speaker, my staff have spoken both with the uh officials within the drug benefit plan and they have confirmed that all special authorization prescriptions are according to them only valid until March 31st. Now, Mr. Speaker, what I want to ask the minister is this. uh if I can just give her one just one example in terms of what impact this cancellation of special authorization is going to have on patients in this province. There's a young girl whose name is Christian uh Jerion uh Christian uh is born with very small kidneys. He's at home but is being cared for at the sick children's hospital. He must have liquid vitamins included with his formula and nutrition. These liquid vitamins are not included in the drug formulary and the cost of these vitamins alone is about $100 per month. >> He also has to take polyase powder which is on special authorization and costs about $25 a month. The question that I have for the minister is this. when she made her announcement on December the 15th that in fact all special authorizations would end as of March the 31st. Well, that's how it's being interpreted by by her staff. That's what her staff is saying, telling people. I'd like to ask the minister, did you not realize the impact this is going to have on literally thousands of patients across the province with respect to their having to pick up cost drug costs of $400 to $500 a month? >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh the facts of the matter are that in December I announced that we are reforming the special authorization process as recommended by the Loi inquiry. The goal is to ensure that drugs provided through the program are effective in improving health and contributing to quality of life. >> Supplementary what's being said. >> Mr. Speaker, the minister is responsible for an enormous confusion right now out there in the healthare system. She may not be aware of it, but we have become aware of it and it is causing real problems. I've referred to the example of this young uh child with with kidney failure. Perhaps I could refer the minister to the example of AIDS patients. Uh most AIDS patients may be may be prescribed a cycllovere through special authorizations which otherwise cost $1 a capsule with patients taking as many as 12 a day which would be a monthly cost of $400. Uh many AIDS patients also take in ensure which is a caloric rich protein nutritional supplement which comes in cans. A case of 12 cans cost $30 and patients may use up to three a day. I'd like to ask the minister when she made her announcement, did she not realize that the end of all these prescriptions effective March 31st, 1989, which is how precisely how it's being interpreted by her own ministry and by her own staff and how it's being interpreted by people out in the field. Does she not realize the impact this is going to have on literally thousands of patients who are going to see their bills go up this much? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, let me correct for the leader of the opposition by reading into the record exactly what I said in that statement. And I quote, I said, I will be asking the drug quality and therapeutics committee to examine all drugs now available by special authorization to assess their therapeutic effectiveness and recommend whether they should be included in the July 1989 formulary. the between March the 31st and July the 1st, the drugs will continue to be available if the DQTC recommends that they should be included in the July formulary. The DQTC has from January the 1st until April the 1st to review the drugs presently available. It's very clear to them. I'm stating here today in this house that these assessments are being made by the experts on the drug quality and therapeutics committee and that no one will be deprived of effective drugs who are presently receiving them under the Ontario drug benefit plan. This is a reform which has been proposed by the Loi drug inquiry and which I would suggest to the leader of the opposition that he agreed was long overdue. >> Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister knows what's going on. Let's look at the time frame here. You're asking the drug quality committee to assess 1,600 drugs which are now being used under special authorization. And you are in effect saying all all them all these prescriptions are going to end as of March the 31st unless they advise people that their drug in fact is okay. Now, that date is not established until the July formulary. So, we have no way of knowing what's going to happen to those 1600 drugs and the thousands of patients who are taking any one of those 1600 drugs as of April the 1st. And I can tell the minister that if she doesn't think that there aren't hundreds, indeed thousands of patients who are confused because their doctors don't know what is allowed and what isn't allowed. They don't know who's going to pay or when they're going to pay. And they don't know what is authorized and when it isn't authorized. There is massive confusion out there. at least for three or four months, people are going to be in limbo paying as much as $2,000 for that for that period because those drugs aren't included on the July 1st formulary. >> Minister, Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the leader of the opposition. As of January the 1st, any new drug would have to be added on the advice of the expert drug quality and therapeutics committee. between January the 1st and April the 1st, the drugs are being assessed by that committee and they can give me their advice by April the 1st as to which have been refu uh reviewed and determined should be included in the July 1st formulary which they have not uh which drugs they have not completed their review and they require additional time to review before they say whether or not they will be included in a formulary in the future and which they believe are not effective and should not be included. The special authorization program is being reformed to ensure that any of the drugs available under special authorization will result in the very best therapeutic results for the people receiving them. I would ask for his support in reform of this and appreciate the opportunity to clarify for him and for everyone else that no one no one will be deprived of therapeutically effective drugs as this program is being reformed. >> New question. The member for Nepasing. M >> M Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the next chairman of uh Ontario Hydro or uh the next agent. >> And your question is to which minister? >> Senator the current treasur. >> The current treasurer. I read with interest uh I read with interest in the clippings of the Toronto Star January the 15th reports of the Treasurer statement that Ontario will likely merge its existing sales tax system with a new national federal tax. The federal finance minister is on record, and he is the only one so far on record as unequivocably saying that any new national sales tax will be revenue neutral. I would ask I would ask the treasurer of Ontario, will he make the same commitment to the people of Ontario that if Ontario goes along as the treasures indicated he would like to do with a new national sales tax plan that for Ontario taxpayers, the Ontario tax portion of that will be revenue neutral. >> Treasurer Speaker, >> Mr. Speaker, in response to the honorable gentleman who's running behind Tom Long in the leadership race for to be the third party, uh I uh want to say that asking about revenue to the Treasury of Ontario from the national sales tax is totally hypothetical that uh there has been no decision made as to whether we will participate as active partners in that tax. Now, if he really means uh is there would there be some additional revenue if the national sales tax were imposed as uh his party has announced that they intend to do so at the federal level that there might be a a very small increase of in revenue on the basis that our 8% sales tax would be applied on some uh goods where the uh federal sales tax of 12% now is not applicable and there might be a minor in increase in that respect. But um if he's asking me about the application of the national sales tax through enactment in this house, that's hypothetical and no decision has been made. >> Supplementary. >> Well, I find it ironic that only the federal progressive conservative party has stood up and said, "We want to reform the tax system. We like the national sales tax plan." As did the other two parties in the House of Commons. Clearly, clearly you treasurer said you are supportive of that concept and and and thought it was a good way to go. You're on record three or four times having said that. We all understand that the concept is to broaden the base and if you're going to then be revenue neutral, you must reduce the rate. Now, I find it ironic that only Michael Wilson >> has said that in this reform, it's to it's to broaden the base, lower the rate, put more fairness in, and I will guarantee that it will be revenue neutral. I don't know why you cannot make that guarantee to the people of Ontario. >> And I would like to ask the treasur since you don't seem to be prepared uh prepared to make that. I would like to ask you if you are still of the view as you were at the Empire Club two years ago that if you join the national sales tax on behalf of the government of Ontario >> that the possibility of a lower sales tax rate for Ontario is a very real possibility and that you will in fact follow through on that. >> Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, I simply say again that the province of Ontario is has no decision in this respect. We have no details from the government of Canada and frankly I would expect when Mr. Wilson uh uh meets Parliament again when it resumes later in the spring that he may be making some announcements in that regard. But one thing's sure, if the finance critic of the third party is under the impression that the national sales tax as described by the minister of finance for Canada is revenue neutral. He is wrong. All he has to do is read the statement made by the minister of finance himself. He said it would be revenue neutral over the whole tax spectrum of the federal jurisdiction. Certainly if you uh apply a sales tax at somewhere between 8 and 10% which is what he has said in his white paper to all goods and services except groceries, pharmaceuticals and one or two other minor items, the revenue will be substantially larger than that which is returned by the present um uh tax system. Uh I'm not being unfair in any way to the minister of finance because he said the neutrality will lie over the whole system and I don't think I'm being unfair to the questioner when I say he obviously doesn't understand how the tax that has been described by his party federally would work. >> Final supplementary. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. Clearly I do understand. Clearly I said the commitment that he made was that over the whole spectrum he would guarantee the new proposals would be would would result in a revenue neutral the total taxation. He made that commitment and you refuse to make it. That clearly is the facts on those two and I don't understand why question. >> Let me uh by way of final supplementary uh Mr. Speaker, tell the treasurer that every member on this side of the house was astonished to learn in your January 15th uh musings of your concern about the possible impact of a national sales tax on new home buyers. You said that was one of the great concerns you had and that would have to be resolved before you would agree to participate. For the treasurer who hiked the land transfer tax last budget added 3,000 to the cost of a new house, whose government has been accused of profiteering in the housing market, who is proposing now a lot levy that could drive up house prices by an additional 5 to 10,000. This new found concern, >> do you have a question? >> Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. Represents a conversion that we don't understand. Perhaps it came about in your last European junket. And I would ask you, treasurer, given that your your record and your government's record and your credibility is zero on that concern. >> Thank you. >> Order. >> Guarantee in this house that you will order. >> Would the member take a seat? Wilson order. >> Order. treasurer. the uh I'm trying to uh discern uh where there's a a question in that spontaneous outpouring of enthusiasm from the honorable member. But uh I can simply reiterate the commitment that I as treasurer have made and supported by the premier and all my colleagues that we will continue to pay the bills of the province on a tax base that demonstrates fairness and equity for all and that is substantially supported by the rightthinking taxpayers of this jurisdiction. >> New question. The member for London North. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Uh, Mr. Minister, on January the 16th, you stated with regards to the Social Assistance Review Committee recommendations that opportunity planning and disincentives for the disabled and single parents going back to work are the two areas of priority that you would like to see implemented of the transitions report. >> What we really need is a blueprint, Mr. minister with a costbenefit analysis and we expect you to address the total report. Mr. Minister, are we just going to be getting a reference to only two parts of this report or are you going to be addressing a total overhaul of this archaic social assistance system when you make your report? >> Minister, >> Mr. Mr. Uh, speaker, my uh my recollection of the honorable member's previous question was to invite me to give her a list of my priorities, which I did. I at no time suggested in giving those priorities that we were unconcerned about all of the other elements of the report. As a matter of fact, I've said on a number of occasions that the report has a wholeness to it that has to be taken taken all together. But uh again, if she asked me what parts of it that I think we should move on most quickly because it will most uh impact the largest number of people, it was the ones I mentioned. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for that clarification, Mr. minister because the public attitude as as a I suppose because of the question I asked you is in fact that the government is not prepared to overall overhaul the social assistance uh um system and now you've reassured all of us that you are. So my question is Mr. Minister now that we know better uh when will you be making this announcement? >> Minister >> I uh I believe Mr. speaker that uh under previous occasions I have indicated that there will be um some indication of the direction we'll be going uh in either or both the throne speech or the budget speech. >> Final supplementary. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, um it seems to me that we're approaching the six month mark since the uh report was released and I'd just like to make an observation uh to the minister. In the 1988 estimates, the social assistance review board budget uh increased by more than 50%. It went from some 2.3 million to $4 million. Now, we all know that people, poor people appeal decisions that this government make for two reasons. either they're not making enough money or because of the unfairness in the system. Uh Mr. Minister, we were advised by the SARKC committee that those two things happened. The benefit structure was not adequate and in fact there is unfairness in the system. My question therefore, Mr. Minister, and this is what we're facing on a day-to-day basis now, is do you prefer to put our tax dollars towards the bureaucratic costs such as the social assistance review board, or are you prepared now uh to bite the bullet and not wait longer than 6 months, which is another week from now and put our tax dollars into a benefit structure which in fact will help poor people in this province? >> Question. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I would uh suggest to the honorable member that we're talking about two very different things. that when I became minister, one of the uh priority issues that was brought to my attention was the uh the great concern expressed by people all across the province both within and without my ministry as to the efficacy of the then existing social assistance review board and that the the kinds of changes that absolutely had to be made in that board because it was a fundamental component of justice in this province. that if if my ministry officials or if municipal officials were making decisions about people's income that there had to be a a totally independent and functioning and effective board for them to appeal to. That's what we've done. We've put a new chairman in place. We've put full-time people there. We've given them legal resources. We've given them clerical resources. Uh twothirds uh of the decisions are in favor of the uh of the clients. All of that has been improved dramatically. that is apart from the adequacy of the system itself and must be considered apart from it. >> Eve, uh, I did recognize the member for London North earlier. I'll now recognize the member for Scarbor West. >> Mr. Speaker, I thought we were moving on to second supplementaries there. I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Madame Minister, it it's about refugees. By law in the province of Ontario, the Ministry of Education gives access to any refugee child to our education system and at some considerable difficulty these days to the boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto. Your ministry on the other hand by law makes it very very difficult for refugee children to attend post-secary education. Can you explain to me why it is that a young woman named Deayanthi Parioan who went to grade 13 in this province last year and received marks which would have made her an Ontario scholar is having to pay the foreign student fee of $10,000 >> to attend the University of Toronto this year instead of the $1,800 that any other Ontario resident would have to pay. >> Minister. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can't explain uh the reason why a particular individual who who may have to pay the differential fee and that's relates to the fact that uh while there is certainly no denial of of access in terms of applications to our post-secondary system that uh the policy has required that an individual have the hearing for convention refugee status in order to have a waiver of the differential fee. uh otherwise they are considered to be um applicants of of uh non um non-ntarial citizenship. Once that hearing has taken place of course and refugee uh status is granted that differential fee is waved. I also Mr. Speaker feel it's important at the same time uh to recognize that that has created a problem because of that very large backlog that has existed in terms of having those hearings take place. That is something which we are very concerned about and it is our hope that u that with the new approaches by the federal government in this area that that backlog will be cleared and that the concerns in this area will be alleviated. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that this family has been in the country for a year and a half now. They had their interview a year ago tomorrow. Uh they've still heard nothing. Three people in that family are working and paying taxes, including one sister who can't afford to go to university at all. and is except is paying for two courses at $1,000 each again as a foreign student. Can the minister tell us whether or not she is willing to bring in a program to reimburse these families once they receive refugee status who have been held up so long on these waiting lists or is she going to continue to treat all refugees as secondclass citizens unlike our ministry of education which opens their arms to them? >> Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honorable member and the members of this house that because we are concerned about the implications of our policy, while it has been difficult to have a an alternate policy under the current situation, we are in fact reviewing that policy. We are looking very carefully at changes in the federal uh legislation to see whether or not that alleviates the situation. We are also looking at whether or not that policy needs to be changed in relationship to different points of of um of access and waiver of the differential fee. We will certainly undertake to look at at specific concerns um that arise because of this policy. >> Your question the member for Perry Sound. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Minister, as you're probably aware, in 1984, a four-year $2 million commitment was made to fund the blood glucose monitors for diabetic patients. The program at that time just included children and was expanded in 1987 to include all diabetics, but no extra funds were allocated to the program at that time. Of the original $2 million commitment made in 1984, some $264,000 was not spent in the first and second years. Your ministry has indicated that they will not give the Canadian Diabetic Association the balance of the original commitment. Even though the association has over $160,000 in outstanding claims, that doesn't include claims that they haven't taken since December 31st. They had to suspend payment because they don't have the money. My question to you is, will you make the commitment today to fund the outstanding balance of that amount that was originally committed? >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Diabetic Association in fact runs a a program to provide these monitors. Uh the reality is and the facts are that the program was originally designed for children. The uh Canadian Diabetic Association informed the ministry that there were uh excess uh funds that were available and the ministry uh permitted the Canadian Diabetic Association to expand their program within available funds. This is a question of program design and we are reviewing that at the present time. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite accurate in just about every respect. >> Uh in fact, that's just what I said during my question. But but but the problem is >> I mean the minister talks about preventative medicine and community- based healthcare. As she said, these monitors allow diabetics to test their own blood sugar levels in their own homes. They allow diabetics to monitor the effectiveness of their diabetic control so they can adjust their insulin or see their doctor if the need be. >> It's an important preventative tool that they can use to offset some of the to prevent some of the side effects of diabetes such as kidney failure and blindness. The premier made a commitment to the Canadian Diabetic Association, the Ontario chapter, of which he's an honorary patron I might add, on January the 16th that they would get this money that hadn't been spent in the first two years. But your ministry officials in the meeting on January the 31st said they were not sure that they could give them the money. Will you make a commitment today? Fulfill a commitment that your premier made on January the 16th to provide that $264,000. >> Minister. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Diabetic Association has assured the ministry that adequate funds are available in this fiscal year to meet program needs. >> New question. the member for Essex Kent. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the honorable Minister of Agriculture and Food. Uh farmers in southwestern Ontario are making their plans now for their 1989 crops, and their marketing boards are entering negotiations uh for processors on price, terms, and conditions of sale. And they're understandably nervous. U Mr. Minister in view of free trade now being a fact and in view of mergers they see in the beverage industry which of course is part of the food industry. They see for instance the claim by US processors that ice cream is not a dairy product and therefore in their view our market is open to us ice cream producers to increase our options in marketing our products. Uh can the minister tell us what his ministry is doing to promote Ontario's food products in world markets? >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, in this uh brave new world of free trade where there was supposed to be a harmonious relationship uh between the United States and Canada, we now find the swords are drawn and Canada and the United States are now taking each other to get over the importation of such products >> as ice cream and yogurt. And the very member that's in interjecting, the member for Stormmont Dundas Glengary is the one that supported free trade despite the fact that it's going to cost the agricultural food industry of this province $100 million. >> But Mr. Speaker, the only thing that's going to save our industry is producing a superior quality product. And I'm pleased to say, Mr. speaker that we are moving our superior product into other countries amounting to about $2.1 billion every year to the Ontario economy. Uh my ministry has conducted 56 outgoing trade missions and promoting 37 different countries around the world. In 1988, 77 Ontario companies participated in these intern Speaker, I got a lot of [applause] >> order supplementary me. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. [clears throat] Minister, a few few months ago I uh called your office to get in touch with you. I said you were in Japan, found him in Japan. I wonder if you can tell us what happened on that particular visit to the benefit of >> minister. Well, the honorable member is quite correct. Uh Mr. Speaker, I did accompany a trade mission uh to Japan, Hong Kong, and South Korea uh early early last year. >> And uh we certainly learned, Mr. Speaker, that prospects for increased sales to these markets are excellent. >> Hong Kong imports almost 100% of its food. Japan imports about 30% of its food. a potential market for this country without a question. >> The participating uh >> Ontario companies reported more than $1 million in new sales to Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan upon their return from this trade mission. As well, these companies reported that they could easily increase sales to the part of the world by 25% >> in 1989. This is just one example of our successes, Mr. Speaker. >> Thank you. >> [applause and cheering] >> Maybe we can have the whole load later. >> New question. The member. >> Order. Order. You're wasting the time for other members who'd like to ask questions. >> Order. >> I can wait. >> New question. The member for Cambridge to the Minister of Correctional Services. For several months, correctional officers have been protesting cutbacks in staffing and overcrowding in jails and detention centers. I draw to the minister's attention a recent incident at Metro East where two officers were pulled off the floor, leaving one officer on night shift to cover a special needs area with seven 70 inmates. Some of these inmates were sharing cells and all could be classified as either potentially suicidal in active psychotic states or as violent and aggressive individuals. Can the minister explain how such a situation could occur? just one year after the inquest into the death of senior cardinal who committed suicide in the early hours of the morning and in which the coroner's jury recommended that additional staff be on duty at night and will the minister recognize that this incident the one I have described is symptomatic of the dangerous situations in which we place correctional officers as a result of staff cutbacks. >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question from my critic and the official opposition party and I would be happy to look into that uh occurrence for him >> supplementary. >> The minister claimed during the recent estimates debates that our institutions are presently housing a much higher risk population than was the case just a few years ago. Contributing to this situation is the increasing number of inmates requiring psychiatric treatment. The minister should be aware that the majority of worker compensation board claims among correctional officers are usually in circumstances involving inmates in need of psychiatric care. Will the minister recognize the fact that his policy of staff cutbacks and overcrowding puts correctional officers at risk? And because the injured officers are ending up on workmen's compensation, it is a policy that is not only dangerous, it is also a policy that is very expensive. >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. I I would like to um to argue with my critic about the uh staffing arrangements in our uh institutions across the province. uh as I would hope the critic uh had remembered from our estimates uh we've had an increase of 34% of our correctional officers over the last 5 years in institutions while at the same time a very marginally small increase around 2 or 3% of people incarcerated in our system. So we have really greatly increased the level of supervision of offenders in the Ontario situation. Our job is to make sure that we manage a system and manage a system across this province and I think we're doing a good job at that. New question. The member for Burlington South. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health. >> Mr. Speaker, Elizabeth Mucel is a young constituent of mine. She suffers from a very rare condition which has uh which results in an excess of iron in her blood. a condition which her doctors say is fatal for her without proper treatment. In order to stay alive, Elizabeth requires a one-year only supply of the drug Desperol, which is her life's blood at this point, and a $3,000 special infusion pump to administer it. Elizabeth needs access to your drug benefit program to to pay for this treatment. Will you personally intervene and examine this matter to find out why Elizabeth's barrier to this uh life-saving treatment has become the denial of access to your program? >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the member would know, at present, the Ontario Drug Benefit Program covers approximately 1 million senior citizens over the age of 65 and those people on social assistance uh uh through the Ministry of Community and Social Services. One of the concerns that I have is that uh uh people have access to the uh very best therapeutic results as a as a result of the drugs that they're taking. Many questions have been raised and that was the reason that I established the lowey drug inquiry. As the member would know, uh, recommendations from that inquiry are being implemented at this time. And I would suggest to him that if there are any specific cases he'd like me to look into, I would be pleased to give him the answer on an individual basis. But that if anyone or any group wants to make presentation or brief to the Lowey drug inquiry to raise this issue, I think that's the appropriate forum and that's the reason that I established the inquiry. >> Supplementary. Madame Minister, Elizabeth doesn't have time, her doctors tell her, in order to make a brief to your ministry. So, I appreciate that you look into it specifically. She's having as much trouble fighting the barriers set up by your ministry as she is is in fighting this life-threatening condition. She cannot qualify for the drug benefit program because she is not on welfare. Just because she's not on welfare doesn't mean that she can afford the $60,000 one treatment that's required. Second, your secondly, you will find that your ministry has been unable to decide whether the necessary medical apparatus, in this case an infusion pump, can go on the approved list of your assisted devices branch. Your ministry is taking its time, but time is running out for Elizabeth. She is caught in some red tape created by your ministry. And my question is that thousands of people, many in life-threatening situations, have to deal with delay, with phone lines that are always busy, and with health officials who can't make up their mind. Madame Minister, what support mechanisms are available for people who need to cut through red tape created by your own ministry, especially when it comes to life-threatening situations? >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because of my desire to make sure that people have equity and access to the effective quality drugs and drug therapies that they need and the medical services that they need, I established the Loi drug inquiry. On an individual basis, I'm always pleased to look at the the cases to determine whether or not there is a program that that individual uh applies for and I would ask the member to send me details. I would say to him that the Ontario drug benefit plan is available to seniors and social assistance recipients. It is not a uh a plan which is available uh to individuals beyond that. There are however some hospital-based programs for the provision of drugs for special uh needs such as the AIDS program uh in the hospitals as well. He knows that I announced the uh uh hospital-based programs for boththalmia and cystic fibrosis. If there is any uh group who believes that uh uh financial barriers access to needed uh drug therapies, I would advise them to contact the lowi drug inquiry. If there are individual cases, please give me that information. >> A new question. The member for York East. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Energy. Mr. Minister, if Ontario is to strengthen its competitive position, we must have a reliable, secure, safe, and costefficient supply of energy. We must also develop and use that energy in an environmentally safe way. Given the concept of sustainable development, as contained in the Brentland report, there is an increasing need to develop new indigenous alternative renewable energy supply options. Could the minister tell the house what the recently introduced amendments to the power corporation act and memorandum of understanding do to encourage the development of alternative energy supply? >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like to thank the honorable member for her very serious interest in this matter. [applause] I wish to assure the legislature that the new amendments to the Power Corporation Act will continue to asssure that Ontario will have safe and reliable supplies of electricity at reasonable costs and provided in an environmentally sound way. This government has attached a great deal of importance to the development of new indigenous and uh alternative and renewable sources of supply. These projects, Mr. Speaker, tend to be smaller in size, require less capital, and can be put into operation quicker, so they give our electricity system some flexibility. The new amendments to the Power Corporation Act will ensure that Ontario Hydro is responsive to government policies and to public priorities. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the legislative package on this matter will require hydro to provide a long range strategic plan that includes targets for conservation and parallel generation and will give the utility the authority to provide such financial incentives and techn. >> Thank you. Order seems like quite a full answer. Supplementary. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary to the minister is to ask what Ministry of Energy programs are offered and how much funding is available to the public for research and development of alternative energy supplies. >> Minister, >> the um major ministry program is Enter a successful multi-year program which provides assistance to the private sector for the research, development, testing and initial demonstration of innovative energy technologies in Ontario. The enter search program has been in operation since January of 1986 and to date 196 proposals from the private sector have been received. 47 projects have been approved for a total government contribution of 5.3 million. Estimated expenditures under the interarch program in the 8889 fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, are about 2.5 million. Uh the ministry also contributes to research and development funds directed towards alternative transportation fuels. Uh the ministry has contributed $125,000 for example to the Canadian Gas Association technology R&D fund, 75,000 to the research fund of the propane gas. Uh >> once again it sounds like a fairly complete answer. New question, the member for Atobbico Lakeshore. Mr. Speaker, on September the 22nd, 1986, the Minister of the Environment announced that he had approved construction of a pipeline to bring drinking water from Lake Huron to the town of Wallisburg. >> Oh, I remember that. >> And he also promised that he would pay 75% of the cost of that pipeline after deduction of the federal contribution. >> I remember that >> the municipal contribution was subsequently achieved, but of course, we had no commitment from the federal government. And so two and a half years later, the pipeline has not even been begun. Mr. Speaker, we were glad to hear that the Minister of the Environment was meeting with his federal counterpart this week, and I would like to hear from the minister whether or not he obtained a commitment from the honorable Lucen Bousard to finally construct the Wallisburg pipeline. Normie, you're >> Mr. Speaker, it's most appropriate that I get a a question today from the member for Atobbico Lakeshore because I'm wearing my Atobbico tie today. >> Just in here >> just uh in recognition of all of the Atobbico members who are in the house today specific specifically uh looking at the question that you asked, have I discussed this matter with federal officials? The fact is that our officials have been in contact with the federal officials on a number of occasions >> to determine whether they are prepared to make a contribution to what we consider to be a desirable project. We have proceeded from our end in terms of engineering in terms of looking at all of the plans to lay out for this particular project. The municipalities in fairness to them have most certainly done their part by putting together their proposals in terms of funding and by uh giving the kind of cooperation that is necessary. in the specific meeting with the minister of uh the environment for the federal government yesterday. Uh I did not receive a commitment from the minister at that time in that specific project. But we talked about uh and it was a private meeting but I I think as a number of occasions we have discussed the possibility of the federal government becoming more involved financially in assisting to meet environmental goals and objectives and obligations of an international nature. And I think the member would agree with me that though in this specific case we have a lot of >> thank the minister. >> Thank you. Your apology is accepted. Um supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that at the very least the minister raised this specific project with the with the federal minister. And the point I'd like to make with with this Minister of the Environment is that while it's all very well to wish that the federal government would live up to their responsibilities and make a contribution, the fact remains that the people of the town of Wallisburg are still not able to get pure drinking water from Lake Huron. In 1986, Mr. Speaker, the estimated cost of this pipeline was 22 million. The amount of federal contribution the minister was seeking was 2 million. Would the minister not agree that perhaps it might have been better for the environment and for the health of the people of Wallisburg to have forgot the negotiating nicities and put up the 2 million, built the pipeline because his share 75% must be rising so that he could in fact have covered the 2 million if he'd got on with the job three years ago. >> That's right. >> Well, the first part, Mr. speaker of the uh answer I want to deal with is the question of the uh quality of water in the uh Wallisburg community. You would know that under the drinking water surveillance program of the province of Ontario, we do do testing uh rather frequently and one of the places that is tested is Wallisburg. The water has met all of the objectives of the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario as it has in other communities across the province. And in in that specific uh situation, and that specific situation uh we have a quality of water which is uh acceptable as to the standards and guidelines that we have established. Now uh what has been perceived as the problem is the potential for future problems that might exist. I hope that the MISA program and other initiatives that are taken in terms of uh of uh control orders will be of some assistance, some considerable assistance in uh solving that. What we offered was the flat 75% uh regardless of where the other 25% came from. We put our money up front. Our money has been on the table all this time as the government of Ontario. I'm disappointed the federal government hasn't participated. Thank you. >> New question. >> The member. >> It appears there's >> It appears there are some members wasting time so that other members can't ask questions. I the member for Stormmont Dundas, Glengary. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Beef Vote Committee and its background information on the vote says, and I quote, "Mr. Minister, within the scope of this vote, the Ontario government is not committed to providing funding to achieve cost production. A central aim of the beef producers for change is cost of production. Do you, Mr. Minister, have any plans to give beef producers a proincially funded cost of production support?" >> Minister, >> simple answer, no plans whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. They will get their they will get their cost of production out of the marketplace the same as they do in the dairy and in the eggs and in the chicken and in the turkeys. All of them under national supply management. All of them get their cost of production out of the marketplace. That would be the same with the beef if indeed they chose to go that route. >> When in doubt, yell. >> The mayor first. When a doubt yell to the same >> order >> to the same minister of supplementary >> supplementary >> thank you Mr. Speaker, as I said in response to uh your earlier statement, without pre federal guidance, I guess you're going nowhere and you have no plans at all. And that's an admission. Seems quite surprising that the minister would agree to give the beef producers a marketing board, a supply managed marketing board after making many statements saying that marketing boards were a thing of the past. How is this going to work? Mr. Minister, you don't have a plan. Minister, >> the only one that doesn't have a plan over there is the member for Stormmont Dundas Glengary. I've never >> I've never seen anybody so out of touch with agriculture in all my life. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, if if this beef commission if the voters chose to vote for a beef commission and if they chose to vote for the second item on the ballot to have this beef commission strive for a national supply manage program, then they'll have to get all provinces on site. And if all provinces agree to a national supply management program, which is permissible under legislation, >> then of course they will get their cost of production out of the marketplace. Is not the governments that pay them cost of production. >> That's right. [clears throat] >> New question, the member for Scarbor Ellir. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister of industry, trade, and technology. Last week, the minister returned from Davos, Switzerland, where he hosted a delegation of business leaders at the International Conference on World Trade. This event was organized by the World Economic Forum, a Swiss nonprofit and nonpartisan foundation, and it was attended by some 800 executives from 64 countries as well as uh 100 political and university leaders. Minister, can you update this legislature on the objectives of the Ontario delegation at this conference and how well those objectives were realized? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I'm sure uh members will know that once a year the World Economic Forum is held and last year we were a featured jurisdiction. Uh this year British Columbia is a feature jurisdiction and Premier Vanderam uh Premier Barasa and several of their ministers as well as representation from the province of Ontario was there to discuss economic factors that really impact on global trade. The major thrust was 1992 and what the impact of that was going to be as well as dealing with such subjects as third world debt and the prospects of gap. I should tell you that we had a very very substantial Ontario delegation. We had an opportunity to meet with world leaders both in the field of business, academia and politics. And what we really did was establish and reestablish connections that we have had that we think are going to stand us in goodstead in the future. >> Supplementary. >> By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mr. Minister, I understand that the uh with the advent of uh Europe 1992 conference uh which I believe is here in Toronto, there will be many changes in global trade structures and relationship in Europe and throughout the world. In fact, Lester Thoroughl uh a Massachusetts economist is quoted as saying GAT is dead and that the multilateral trade system is splintering into separate trading blocks. Uh could you minister advise the house if you cons if you concur with this view and could you outline how the restructuring taking place in Europe will affect our global trading practices here in Ontario? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, Professor Thurlo of MIT made a statement in a forum that in his opinion GAT was dead. Uh that was a very provocative statement and the world media picked up on it and there were headlines literally around the world saying an opinion of uh leading economists gat is dead. What they didn't report is in that same panel there were several world authorities who disagreed with him. Uh one of them was former premier of France Raymond Bar who immediately took him to task and felt that 1992 was going to provide not fortress Europe but a stronger Europe. Uh I attended the GAT meetings in the midterm review in Montreal and without question there are some problems but certainly it is my feeling uh that GAT will survive. It's the feeling of other people as well and we certainly are looking forward to participating in those ongoing discussions and as the member has already stated in uh later on this year we will be holding a major conference dealing with 1992 what is going to happen in Europe and how we in Ontario can respond to it. >> New question the member for Al. >> Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the fact that I have a question a very important question minister of mine. >> Uh the minister will know that uh despite the fact that Al Steel Corporation posted a profit of 772.7 million on sales of $1.4 4 billion in 1988 and despite the fact that uh the Alma or division in Wawa has uh uh improved its productivity substantially. So it is probably the most productive iron ore mine in northern Ontario. Al Steel's vice president last week announced that the corporation will be making a a study between now and June about the future of Alma War division in Wawa. The minister will know that the uh subsidy for the Alma Central Railway runs out in 1991. Can the minister tell us what the government's plans are in in to in in order to ensure the viability of Aloma or division in Wawa after 1991? What happens with regard to the freight rates and what have what discussions has the government had with Aloma Steel Corporation and the ACR regarding the future of Wawa after 1991? >> Minister, >> thank my honorable friend for his uh for his question. I want to say to him that uh under the uh the leadership of uh my colleagues and the government generally we have taken a number of steps to uh to uh revitalize the uh the economy of the uh honorable members area I can think of and I won't take the time of question period to detail a number of the initiatives that we have taken in the ministry of northern development and mines to stimulate mineral exploration and development in the honorable members writing. He's aware of that this government under the leadership of Premier Peterson has uh has moved over the last few years to provide very specific support uh to the honorable members uh area of particular interest in this question. He knows of our interest. He knows that we've had a number of discussions uh with the economic development authorities in the area and he can be assured that we will continue to do in the future what we've done in the past and to provide the very highest level of support for the growth and economic development in the Alma area. >> That completes the aotted time for oral questions and responses.