Question Period Rewind - March 27 1990

Hi everyone, welcome to Question period rewind. I'm Donna Skellyy, speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Let's take a look at 1990. A lot of iconic TV shows and movies were being released. Home Alone was number one at the box office. The first Law and Order premiered on NBC. And across the pond, the TV cooking show Master Chef first airs in the UK. But here at home, our MPPPs had other issues to deal with. We'll now continue with routine proceedings and I'll call for all questions. the leader of the opposition. Question to the uh question to the minister of education. Uh Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would share my view that teachers and parents particularly parents uh should be entitled to uh inspect the uh schools which their children are attending. Uh should be entitled to have access to those schools. should be entitled to choose technical advisers with respect to the presence of asbestous in those schools. Uh and that those rights are ones that should be provided for. And if the minister does share that view, I wonder what he intends to do that to make that right effective today. >> Minister, I certainly accept the uh the view that uh rateayers to a school board uh have very clear rights to uh understand what's going on within the facilities of the board to which they pay rates. and schoolboard accommodation is a matter of uh of local board responsibility and I would expect the parents uh staff and students to take those matters up with the uh with the uh with the relevant school board >> supplementary. Well, Mr. Speaker, we we have an immediate uh problem today. Uh and and the problem could get very much larger unless the I would suggest unless the minister is prepared to take some positive steps to ensure that parents have access to information that they have access to independent advice uh and that in particular they are uh given a degree of of guarantee that uh they themselves can can have a look see at what's wrong and what's right and that they can get answers to questions and that if they seek independent advice that independent advice, the right to that independent advice will be respected. Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that the uh the Metropolitan Toronto separate school board has uh written to Mr. Gray or his their lawyers have written to Mr. Gray indicating that uh he is not welcome on any school properties and that indeed he will be regarded as a common trespasser if he appears on school property and in fact he had to leave a school in my constituency. My question to the minister is this. Does the does the minister believe that the parents of that school, Our Lady of Victory School, have a right to choose their adviser and that that adviser should have the right to access to the school on their behalf? >> I repeat, Mr. Speaker, to my learned friend, the leader of the opposition uh who knows very well that in this province we have locally elected school boards which under the education act have very clear responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is of course the facilities, the accommodation and uh there I would be the first to tell my friend from Riverdale uh what he would know and that is that uh the rights of of parents, staff and rateayers are very clear and I would strongly encourage uh parents and staff and others uh uh within a board jurisdiction to pursue those rights with the relevant authorities. In this case, so far as accommodation is concerned, that discussion ought to be with the uh with the particular school board. >> Speaker, I think the minister I think the minister of education has a has a leadership role here. We know, for example, that the rights of the teachers are set out in the occupational health and safety act. The rights of caretakers are set out in the occupational health and safety act. The right of PTAs and the right of parents who are members of parent teach teachers associations with respect to access to the schools in a matter of this kind is not set out in any legislation and the minister knows that and that's why I'm asking the minister this is a very sensitive issue and very important that parents have complete confidence that they have access to information and that they have the right to inspect and the right to choose their own adviserss and the right for those adviserss to be able to inspect. Otherwise, we're not going to get a resolution of this issue. I want to ask the minister, why is he so reluctant to play a constructive leadership role when that's obviously what's required? >> History, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite prepared to discharge my responsibilities uh uh in uh in in regard to the requirements of the education act. I said to uh the honorable me honorable leader's colleague from Scarbor West yesterday that over the past number of years the ministry of education has provided millions of dollars to school boards uh uh to to deal with the asbestous concern. My colleague the minister of labor has very clear responsibilities in so far as the uh the health and safety questions here. I would uh certainly expect that school boards would uh discharge their responsibilities and I repeat that the issues surrounding accommodation, access to facilities in these and related matters fall entirely within the purview of locally elected school boards and I would fully expect and strongly encourage those school trustees with these responsibilities to address the very real concerns of uh of rateayers in regard to issues of of this kind. New question. >> New question. >> Speaker, a question to the Minister of of Revenue. >> Uh, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can explain why the renter of a car in this instance, Mr. Speaker, it happens to be my colleague from Lake Nipagon who rented a car from the Avis Rental Agency. Why? Uh, no, I don't think it's a Mercedes. The premier asks, uh, >> Mr. Speaker, I >> North American car, of course. It's not even a limousine. David, >> I say to the say to the >> plant will scratch your beard. >> Mr. Speaker, uh the uh the car rental agreement provides for a uh a tax the sales tax in Ontario, the the minister will know, is 8%. But the this agreement provides for a tax of 8.3%. >> Which I understand, Mr. speaker is a a uh a surplus being charged by the rental company uh because of an agreement with the government of Ontario that that's how consumers are going to pay for the tire tax. I wonder if the minister can tell us is that the case is that the case and can you tell us under what legislative authority this kind of a of a of a sir tax is being imposed on consumers? >> Minister, >> Mr. uh Mr. Speaker, the uh matter that the uh honorable leader refers to is an agreement uh which was made by my predecessor and the uh industry and the uh matter Mr. speaker was uh one that received some considerable discussion I understand and it was felt that the tire tax could be collected in a fair manner having uh all persons who would be using and renting the cars pay a fair share of the tire tax and not having for example the first one renting the first person uh renting the vehicle paying the entire tax uh on the uh on the tires. Mr. Speaker, supplementary. >> It's great, Rabel. >> I thought we had tax fatigue in Ontario. Mr. >> Speaker, uh I know there's lots >> the uh this government's appetite knows no bounds. Mr. Speaker, >> what I would what I would like to ask the minister is this. Uh >> Mr. Speaker, >> order. >> Mr. Speaker, I over there. >> Are you finished? >> Order. >> Mr. Speaker, I was robbed in their own life. This is a serious >> order. Order. >> You could have asked the question. >> Supplementary. If I can't do it, >> I didn't know heckling from the chair was permitted. Mr. Speaker, >> Mr. Speaker, the question that I have for the minister is is this. I don't see in the act, and maybe the minister can point to me, the act says very clearly that you have to rent a car for at least 7 days uh before you should be charged a tire tax. It's my understanding from uh discussions with uh ministry officials that you have innovated uh invented a new system whereby people who rent cars for less than 30 days are all being charged this new special rate of 8.3%. Uh, I'd like to ask the uh the minister why it is that this secret tire tax deal has not been made public and what is your legislative authority for bringing in this secret tire tax deal? >> Minister Mr. Speaker, uh Mr. Speaker, there is uh no no secret uh tax. I wanted to say to the uh leader of the opposition that uh his colleague spoke to me uh late last week and uh brought the matter to my attention and I I promised uh I promised our colleague here in the house that I would review the matter and I have received some information uh not all that I've requested. I understand that these were the arrangements that were made at that time and uh when I'm finished reviewing the matter again I'll get back to the house. final supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, uh there is a very basic issue here of public policy. You have a rate which is sales tax rate which is set by the legislation. You have a tire tax which was imposed by the treasurer. And now we have a new rate. You might call it the Ramo rate. The rate that's being charged to people who who the people the rate that's being charged to people who are subject to a special deal. I want to know I want to ask the minister where is a copy of this deal? Why has this deal not been made public? And can you tell us how much money you are planning to raise under this deal as opposed to how much money you're planning to raise under the tire tax before you sign the deal? Those are facts which should be made public and you ought to make them public. >> Minister, >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, uh Ramo hasn't done anything except promise your colleague that I would review the matter. That's exactly what Ramo has done. That's exactly what Ramo has done. Your colleague uh your colleague spoke to Ramo last week and the and and the good minister of revenue Ramo said he would review it and that's what Ramo's going to do. Rainbow >> the emperor. >> Must have been quite cocky. >> Order. Order. >> New question. The member for SNIA. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the premier. Uh, Mr. Premier, there is a very disturbing report that has just been released by the Auto Parts Manufacturing Association of Canada. And in that report, it indicates very clearly that Ontario during the term of your government has deteriorated from being one of the best investment locations in North America to being perhaps the worst location in North America for new investment in the automotive industry. Surely this kind of report should be disturbing to the premier as well in that it will have a very specific impact on future investment decisions that are going to be made with respect to our province. Since your government paid for part of this particular report, I wonder if you could share with this house what you plan on doing to change the attitude of the auto parts manufacturing association since they now say no to Ontario. >> Premier speaker, I think the honorable uh treasur could help my friend uh and explain some of the things the report overlooked >> referred to the treasurer. Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad the honorable member raised the report because the perceptions that their report uh are uh disseminating are are uh erroneous in that in fact we are not the worst for business decisions to locate or expand here. I think the honorable member being a businessman himself would agree that uh we have taken great steps in Canada and particularly in Ontario to see that we have maintained our competitive position. Uh there are a number of specific matters that the report the honorable member refers to that seem to have been overlooked in the statistical aspects. Not the least of them being the fact that we have premiumfree Medicare here which as you know compared with any jurisdiction in the United States is attractive indeed. Not only does it provide excellent care, but that the cost to industries which choose to provide this service for their employees is far below that which must be paid in the United States and which is escalating at a rate in the United States of from 20 to 35%. Uh there is a list of these things that I would like to bring to your attention, but since the speaker is now glaring at me, perhaps we could let this go to a further part of your question. >> Supplementary. I'd like to point out since the uh question was referred to the treasurer that is as a result of his policies that the comparative advantage in investing in Ontario compared to Quebec has eroded from a 10% tax advantage in this province to a tax advantage which has virtually been wiped out as a result of the employer health levy and other initiatives that you have taken in isolation from other jurisdictions and without, I might add, giving consideration to our competitive position in an overall sense. The fact of the matter is this report will be widely circulated and will impact not only on the automotive industry but on other investment decisions made by other potential industrialists. Is it not a fact, Mr. treasurer that our competitive position forgetting about Medicare compared to the US but looking only at the province of Quebec has in fact deteriorated very substantially. >> Treasurer, >> Mr. Speaker, our position visa v Quebec still is an excellent one. And I want to quote from one aspect of uh the information that uh is associated with the report that is typical of some of the exclusions that concern me. In the Canadian Tax Journal, uh there is a reference to the fact that provincial investment incentives, including Ontario's current cost adjustment, have prevented Canada from losing its advantage relative to the United States in terms of the taxation of manufacturing investment in machinery and equipment. And that loss was on a basis of federal tax reform. It's a bit um uh inappropriate, I suppose, but I would say it anyway that the honorable member having read the report would have noticed that since it deals in perception rather than facts, although the facts as the uh authors see them are tabulated, uh uh asked the question specifically of manufacturers in the province of Quebec where they would locate uh if they had an opportunity to do so. And in a large majority of the cases, the answer was Ontario >> here. Here >> when uh final supplementary, >> no question. I uh I find myself able to agree with the treasurer on one point that in terms of geographic location, we do have an advantage. were at the position of your government and were in a position to so do you would probably move Ontario to the North Pole or someplace and get rid of that last advantage that we've got. When you introduced the employer health levy, Mr. treasurer. There was a report from the Ministry of Industry and Trade which indicated indicated very clearly that this was going to have a negative impact on the province, that it would slow down job creation and that in fact any decisions made with respect to new industrial uh and uh uh economic uh uh uh decisions in this province would not would not be favorable as a direct result of the additional $2.5 billion dollars that you're taking out of the economy. Why did you not listen to the Ministry of Industry and Trade when they shared with you their concerns about the additional taxes that you you extracted from industry in Ontario? >> Treasurer. >> Mr. Speaker, I think you'd agree and the members would agree that we offer services in this province that are far in excess of those available in most jurisdictions. And while companies seeking to uh locate and expand are concerned about taxation costs, an area in which we are uh completely competitive, they are also looking at other significant matters, particularly the uh currency exchange costs. And I was concerned today to see that the value of the Canadian dollar had moved up above 85. This is a substantial deterrent when it comes to decisions between the United States and Canada which uh must concern everyone. But so if the honorable member is not going to allow his uh anxiety to infect the whole province, I think he should be aware that the most recent report from Statistics Canada March 90 on a survey of investment intentions indicates that business plans to spend $33.2 2 billion on capital expenditures in 1990, a 5.5% increase over 1989. Uh perhaps we would like that at a higher rate. And as a matter of fact, in a couple years ago, the 5.5% rate was more like 12%. But this is a clear indication that we're not being abandoned by those people who have the responsibility to invest capital which has assumed international uh importance. and we are among the leaders of that sort of expansion. >> New question, the member for Cernia. >> Question to the premier, knowing how modest his government and cabinet members are with respect to the the economic affairs of the province of Ontario. I want to ask the premier about uh courtroom security in Bill 187. You indicated in a uh comment that you made in Kingston that you were not prepared to review the grant structure for municipalities as it relates to this additional burden, this additional cost which you have simply passed on to municipalities. Since the time that you have made that comment, there have been courtrooms which have not been opened or were forced to close as a result of inadequate funding for those particular facilities on a local level. Are you prepared now in recognition of the fact that some of the numbers are before you and that you know exactly what those costs are and having heard from the attorney general on this earlier where he indicated it would not be an additional cost to municipalities. Are you prepared to do what is right and proper and pick up some of the burden that municipalities are faced with in funding your program of courtroom security? Premier >> attorney general can tell my honorable friend, bring my honorable friend up to date on this matter. I know he's concerned about referred to the attorney general. >> The uh question betrays two assumptions that are unfortunately not correct. The first is with the exception of the city of Toronto with whom the previous government of unhappy memory entered into an agreement to deal specifically with courtroom security. Courtroom security has always been a municipal responsibility in Toronto and funded under the unconditional grant. And I'd remind the honorable member that that was acknowledged in 1985 when the honorable member's party desperate to cling to office one more year. uh indicated to the municipalities that it would expand the unconditional grant by I think 50% 50 cents per household to take account of the additional costs of courthouse security. So the the one thing the honorable member will want to know and if he'd like to phone Mr. Timberl he's if he's not running a conference he can tell you that this has always been a police responsibility in Ontario. The the other assumption I seem to be getting some activity over there, Mr. Speaker. Some signs of life. Some signs of life. >> Okay. Shall I reserve the rest for the inevitable supplementary here? >> Our standing orders do allow that. So I will recognize the member for Sarnia, your >> Attorney General that the inevitable supplementary is going to uh incorporate a quote from one of your cabinet colleagues who uh early this month in North Bay said and I'm quoting from the Minister of Municipal Affairs who sits very close to you that with respect to the funding for courtroom security and I quote, "In my travels around the province, presumably Ontario, I've learned the total resources required is more than what's built into unconditional grants. I've reported this to cabinet that we need to take another look at it. Does the attorney general agree with his colleague, a learned, honest, straightforward gentleman? >> Or or or is he in fact going to attempt to fudge the issue and pretend that this program is not costing municipalities literally millions upon millions of dollars, which you have simply foisted it off? >> Attorney General. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a lot easier and certainly more comfortable to agree with my colleague than with the leader of the third party who again has it wrong. Uh, as I was saying before I was interrupted by the cacophinous refusal to listen to my previous answer. The second the second assumption in the the second assumption in the honorable member's question is that courtrooms are not operative or or are closing because of a resistance on the part of municipal authorities to provide in the traditional way the courtroom security that they have always in my 25 years of practice provided. In fact, out of the 235 courtrooms in the province, there were two courtrooms. One, I believe in east of Ottawa and one in Belleville, Alexandria, and one in uh Are you happy in the party, Mr. Villanov these days? Since the leadership candidates have started speaking about French language services, the honorable member hasn't asked a single question. But as I was saying, thank you. >> Order, order, >> order. >> Final supplementary one, surely. With respect to the uh cost of courtroom security, you can attempt with your verbal gymnastics to do whatever you wish. Mr. Attorney General, the fact of the matter is that Metro Toronto is going to pay an additional $4.5 million. The city of London, which has, as one of its representatives, the premier of this province, $120,000 for Niagara region, it's a million dollars. The great community of Suss St. Marie is going to pay some $300,000 more. The community of Sarnia some $400,000 more. That is only the beginning of the cost which you say is nothing more than a figment of my imagination. I wish you'd say that directly to the municipalities because they're the ones who are going to have to increase local taxes in order to pay for a bill which you have passed on to them. Will you not accept the responsibility as attorney general? Speak to your benchmate, the treasurer, get some additional funds and those unconditional grants and absorb these increases which are your responsibility. >> Attorney General. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, the the statements that have been made about the additional costs that are imposed are precisely that the court administration officials in my ministry, you will want to know if you'll just get that crowd quiet for a minute, have met with municipality. You see, here we go again. Can you just uh >> Is this time counting, Mr. Speaker? >> It is. >> Yeah. All right. that court administration officials have met with municipalities all across Ontario who have told us that they will be obliged to spend these large sums of money and in fact in almost every case arrangements have been made. So the increases in cost are either non-existent or relatively modest. And uh the honorable member will want to know that before he suggests that the costs in this bill are exorbitant. And the minister for municipal affairs quite appropriately visiting across the province heard that the complaints were made. And I am confident that in the discharge of his duties, he will analyze over the course of the year what additional expenditures in fact are made and then propose an appropriate solution. But the case I'm making is that there will in most cases be no additional cost whatever. >> New question. New question. The member for Windsor Riverside. >> Order. >> All members may wish to know the clock is still running. >> New question. The >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Housing and it's regarding uh his rent review uh system and the impact that it's having on a lot of tenants in Ottawa. The minister will be aware that the financial loss provisions of your rent review legislation encourage the sales of buildings and then the tenants pay for the increased cost of the mortgages. Um you might say that your rent review legislation encourages uh owners or developers to buy high and sell higher because the tenants are going to pick up the costs anyway. One example is our tenants that live at 300 Cooper Street in Ottawa. their 37 unit apartment uh sold in 1985 for $1.5 million. Obviously, the landlord was hoping at the time of the new owner to convert uh and that wasn't possible. So, now he's gone to rent review and he was able to get under your financial loss provisions a rent review increase that will allow him to get 10% increase over next each of the next four years. So, 40% in rent increases to those tenants. Is the minister uh not going to agree that tenants are getting really ripped off by this section of your rent review legislation? And what are you going to do to uh protect tenants under these circumstances? >> Well, Mr. Speaker, um two points. The first one is the uh honorable member is probably aware of the fact that back in 1982 when we had quite an apartment flip situation in this province. Uh there was no limitation whatsoever on how much a uh a landlord could request through rent review as far as financial loss was concerned and some of the uh uh some of the approvals were were quite high. uh as a result of that particular activity back in ' 82, the legislation was changed to put the 5% per year limitation on. uh when the uh when the legislation was reviewed once again in 1986 and the honorable member will recall at that time there was representation from both sides both landlords and tenants and uh no one is suggesting that everyone was represented but there was representation from both sides and when the question was put about the 5% financial loss neither side could come up with a better option to deal with the situation therefore it was left in and that's why it's still in there because it is better than what was there before and no one has been able to come up with something better. >> Supplementary. >> You mean you haven't been able to come up with something better? >> Well, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the best way of dealing with this problem is to scrap your rent review legislation, which is not protecting tenants, and bring in real rent control to protect tenants across the province of Ontario. >> In the absence of that, Mr. Speaker, um I'd like to ask the minister, what is he going to do to protect tenants like those at 781 and 783 Somerset in in Ottawa where they're going to be paying an additional 10% for the next 15 years, so a rent increase of 150%. Or the tenants at 290 Gloucester, which are going to be paying 100% over the next 10 years. Um, and I've got two pages of buildings in Ottawa where tenants are going to be paying between 40 and 150% in rent increases because of this loophole. Doesn't the minister realize the law has to be changed because landlords have found this uh loophole and they're taking advantage of of it at the expense of tenants and you're the only one that can protect those tenants. >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, let me uh share with my honorable colleague uh that uh some of the cases that he has drawn to my attention have have come to my attention from other sources and we are certainly taking a look at whether or not there should be a limitation in how many times this can take place. But I want to share with them that uh recently a request came from Toronto City Council that we ought to look into this same situation. But there was an in there was an interesting statement made by the staff of Toronto City Council with respect to their motion. Let me share it with the honorable member. At the present time, there is little hard data which would help support or counter this motion. Anecdotal evidence is also inconclusive. There is also concern that the motion as presently drafted may have some unintended harmful effects on small landlords. Now, Mr. Mr. Speaker, the only reason I want to share that with my colleague is that as so often happens in rent review, uh, as he well knows, we have a we have a complicated system because we're trying to cover so many different bases that we have to be careful that by making one change, we don't have another unintended effect which can be even more serious. And I'm quite prepared I am quite prepared to uh to re-examine the frequency of what he refers to as flips. But all the evidence seems to suggest right now that the 5% uh loss provision is is a realistic one and by taking it out completely we could do considerable harm particularly to smaller landlords and my honorable colleague is well aware of the fact that the majority of landlords in this province are smaller land. >> Thank you. >> New question the member for Perry Sound. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the Minister of Health in her capacity whether she feels that she has any responsibility whatsoever in the field of children's mental health. >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Uh children's mental health programs uh are presently provided uh by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. There are some programs which are provided from some of the hospitals but not specifically under the rubric of children's mental health >> supplementary. >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister, the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centers has recently been very frustrated in their attempts to try and get through to this government to have something done about the 10,000 children on waiting list in this province. They've recently uh they've recently publicized the case of a 15year-old girl who attempted suicide many times. It's only after those suicide attempts did your government or your system provide any sort of treatment whatsoever for this child. And that was as a result of her hospitalization because of her attempted suicides. Is that the type of concern that you have for the 10,000 children on waiting lists in this province that your government has that the only time you're prepared to do anything about them is after they attempt suicide and are hospitalized? Is that the type of commitment your government has to those 10,000 children? Unacceptable. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, of course, the member opposite is absolutely wrong when he when he asks the question in the way he does. I would say to him that everyone is concerned about children's mental health and that a decision was taken some time ago about the program being transferred to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. at this present time. In fact, the program is being reviewed and the data which he is is announcing, in fact, there's no substantiation, nor is there any clear data on what those numbers actually are. And while we are all concerned about seeing that services are provided and that children have access to needed services, it's very important that we have the facts so that we can plan properly to meet those needs. >> Your question, the member for Peterborough. Mr. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for women's issues. Mr. Speaker, as you know, in the coming weeks, thousands of young people will be graduating from our colleges and uh universities. As you also know, this has been a very turbulent year for women in institutes of higher education. They've been subjected to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and tragically, Mr. Speaker, some of our most promising young women have been murdered in their classrooms. My question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister is this. What is the government doing to make campuses in Ontario welcome learning environments for young women? >> Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, this government is determined to maintain safe and secure communities for every person in this province. Women have a right to feel secure in their homes, on the streets, in the workplaces, and in our institutions of higher learning. I recently announced new funding of some 28.8 8 million in a long-term governmentwide strategy to address the issues of sexual assault. This new strategy was developed in consultation with a governmentwide interministerial committee. The uh Ministry of Colleges and Universities was a very active participant in that committee in developing a threepronged approach. Firstly, services to victims. Secondly, justice initiatives. And thirdly, initiatives in public education and prevention >> supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, I'm I'm grateful for the minister's reply. Uh recently through the Ontario Women's Directorate Community Grants Program, the Peterborough Trent Women's Coalition received funding from the uh minister to hold a 3-day conference to address issues of concern to women at Trent University. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister now, will the sexual assault initiative, which he mentioned, have a similar funding component to assist colleges and universities in changing attitudes and raising awareness of violence against women. >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. An essential component of our governmentwide strategy to reduce an incident of sexual assault is a public education campaign with almost $2 million addressed to local communities to take part in raising awareness about the myths and the facts of sexual assault in their communities. Colleges and universities are eligible to apply for those funds and indeed announcements are being made uh last week and this week with regard to those uh to those community grants. I'm very pleased to see that many colleges and universities are now establishing and reviewing their sexual harassment policies. Many have in fact set up commissions and task forces to look at ways that they can make recommendations to make their campuses welcoming learning environments for women. And I think that universities and colleges do have an opportunity they can take to serve as models for a change of social justice and non-sexist attitudes for women as women move toward obtaining equal rights in this province of Ontario. >> New question, the member for Cambridge >> to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs. This morning, Minister, you met with representatives from the Upper Young Home Buyers Association. At this meeting, Minister, you clearly indicated to the group that you were personally concerned and were considering an investigation of the Crest Valley Lipfeld Group and their dealings with the upper Young Home Buyers. Minister, if you are considering an investigation, what precisely are your concerns and when can we expect the investigation? >> Minister, >> well, Mr. Speaker, uh my friend from Cambridge is right that I met uh uh with the organization this morning. Uh uh I'm not sure that he was there. Perhaps he was there electronically. Had he wanted to come, he could have uh joined the meeting. Uh he didn't ask to come. and uh uh I I don't want to allow Mr. Speaker his remarks on the record to actually be uh I I don't want him to suggest that that actually is authority for what I said at that time. Uh I uh expressed to the home buyers uh association uh some of my concerns about uh the circumstances which have led to uh the cancellation of their agreements under the new home warranty plan. Uh I said to of them that we are going to be examining we have been examining the facts in that case. Uh and we are reviewing as a result of the situation there uh both the new home warranty plan act and regulations within my ministry to ensure that uh consumers are protected in circumstances similar to those experienced by those home purchasers. Mr. Speaker >> supplementary Minister, you have the responsibility to protect all of the consumers across the province. It would appear, Minister, that the Libfeld Group has failed to live up to its obligations under the Planning Act by selling prior to draft plan approval and under the Ontario New Home Warranty Plan Act by failure to complete its contract with the upper Young Home Buyers with integrity and honesty. Surely, Minister, there is sufficient evidence here to warrant a thorough investigation of the Lipfeld dealing with the upper Young Home Buyers and for consideration of deregistration of the Lipfeld group of companies. The people of Ontario, Mr. Minister, don't need a toothless tiger to protect them. And Minister, if you have any teeth, when are you going to move to protect the home buyers of Ontario? >> Minister I would remind all visitors that we're happy to have them here. However, they are not allowed to participate in any way or demonstrate in any way. Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I uh I regret that my friend from Cambridge wants to take uh crass political advantage of a situation confronting confronting uh a number of home purchasers that would have liked to have seen the transaction close. I just want to tell him though uh that I just want to tell him though that the matters that he raises the matters that he raises I want to tell my friend from Hamilton East if he'll be quiet for a moment are now are now before the court and I uh have no control over whether you want to discuss those matters in public but I do have a a respect for the litigants these home buyers who are pleading their case now before the court and the defendants in that matter as well. So I do not want to comment on those circumstances. I just want to reiterate if he can get beyond his political opportunism and it's rampant over there in that party. I just want to tell my friend uh that there are significant matters within the plan uh that have already been investigated and I want to tell him uh that uh under the plan the protections we have in this province are the best in Canada and if we find a defect we will be here with legislation. >> Order. New question. The member for Durham East. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question to the premier. Uh, Mr. Premier, constituents of mine in the town of Newcastle refer to themselves as the Committee of Clark constituents have sent you a covering letter dated March the 15th, signed by their chairman, Mr. David Scott, chairman of the Committee of Clark constituents. three pages expressing their concern about the possible infilling expansion of the laid law landfill site in the town of Newcastle, more particularly just northwest of the village of Newtonville. I would like assurance from the premier that within a short time he will be responding to the letter addressed to him. >> Member raising the uh the question with me and indeed he's quite right. Uh, I did receive a letter I think a week or so ago. May well have been delivered by my friend opposite. Uh, it's it's rather complicated and so I'm still looking into the matter, but I think you can tell your constituents uh that I would uh I will I am looking at the matter and I'll respond as soon as I I can fully apply the information. >> I'm wondering, Mr. speaker as a supplementary they specifically outlined the concern uh that uh they had requested uh environmental assessment procedures in terms of the evaluation of the infilling or expansion. It would appear that the ministry of environment are pointing toward the the shorter environmental protection act. Uh they conclude by asking consideration for a moratorum so that uh all those involved would have ample ample time to make uh the necessary applications for possible intervenor funding. Uh so that all due course and all consideration concerning this very important issue for those constituents in the Clark constituent committee will have the opportunity of airing their concerns. Would the premier address those three areas on his response please? >> Premier. I thank my honorable friend for the question and yes indeed I will and I think you can assure your constituents that the most rigorous environmental standards and processes will be applied uh to this matter. >> New question the member for Brford. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. My question is for the minister of labor. Minister uh recently I had the opportunity to sit as a member of the standing committee on social development. We heard presentations from delegations mainly on the subject of food banks and it was indicated and as a reminder to the committee that an adequate minimum wage in this province was a complimentary recommendation to the other social assistance reforms implemented by the government. Uh do you not agree Minister that the minimum wage at its current level is a disincentive for people moving from dependency to self-sufficiency? >> Minister Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And the the subject of what is the appropriate minimum wage is an issue that's debated here often and I think will once again later on this week be debated. Um I I meet with those same groups, Mr. Speaker, uh who are looking for a higher minimum wage and I recognize that they have some strong arguments to make. The other side of the the coin, Mr. speaker is as we look each year at how we ensure that there are job creations taking place in this province, how we ensure that in some of our industries we are competitive with surrounding jurisdictions and uh one industry in particular, Mr. Speaker, that is sensitive to this is the tourism industry. So that's the other side of the coin looking at our minimum wage versus other jurisdictions. And I might add, Mr. Speaker, that at $5 an hour uh we are uh the highest in Canada. although tied with Quebec, same minimum wage and substantially higher than any of the jurisdictions in the US around Ontario. So, we're trying to weigh those two things. One is how what is the adequate level of minimum wage and how do we ensure that we we do not jeopardize jobs in some of our sensitive industries. >> Thank you. >> Supplementary. >> I do have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. uh and I understand what the minister is saying with regard to the sensitivities to the small business community. Uh I would point out to the minister that uh since 1975 despite a number of increases to the minimum wage minimum wage has lost in excess of 22% of its purchasing power. Now in 1975 small businesses were surviving in the province of Ontario. Would the minister not agree that it's time to at least make up for the loss in purchasing power of the minimum wage since 1975? Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I I mentioned earlier that we do review it each year and we will be reviewing the minimum wage this year. Uh normally it is uh it has changed the 1st of October. And one of the things we will consider is that very matter of of how the minimum wage has has kept pace with inflation. I might add over the last four years it has gone up I think about 25% which has been able to keep pace with inflation. I recognize versus 1975 that's not quite the case and we will look at that as we review it. Mr. Speaker, >> new question. The member for Hamilton East. >> I have a question of the Minister of Health. >> Are you the shepherd? >> On August 5th, 1987, the Ministry of Health had no alternative but to take over the St. Elizabeth Nursing Home in downtown Hamilton. Serious deficiencies in management, administration, and care put the 175 residents at risk. Successful biders for the nursing home license of St. Elizabeth were clearly made aware of the fact that the employees were members of the service employees international union local 532 and had been recognized by the ministry as having successor rights following the ministry takeover and the collective agreement was honored. But yesterday the minister of labor gave no guarantee that the union has successor rights. Can the minister explain to this house and to the employees and residents of St. Elizabeth's nursing home. Why her government has not enforced successor rights for the employees with the successful biders? >> Minister. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that this question should be answered by the Minister of Labor, and I would refer >> to the Minister of Labor. >> Speaker, >> I as I uh responded yesterday, it's a matter that the union now has before the Ontario Labor Relations Board. And uh as I mentioned in my response yesterday, the expectation is that that that matter now before the Ontario Labor Relations Board is a matter that we should leave before the Ontario Labor Relations Board for them to make the determination. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. I think you owe an explanation as to why the workers should have to go through this frustrating and unnecessary delay when your own ministry recognized their successor rights and when the administrator of the hospital that you appointed, Emory S. Baldry when the takeover took place clearly stated in a letter dated May 25th, 1988 to residents and families that, and I quote, staff will also be relocated to the new homes, a similar process will be followed to assist in their transfers as well. Why are these employees now faced with going through the procedures that you're talking about when it's clearly their right to successor rights in the transfers to the new licenses? >> Question, >> Minister. Mr. Speaker, if I might uh I guess repeat the answer I just gave and that is it is a matter now before the Ontario Labor Relations Board, they will make their determination on it. They I think have are in the process if they not already have done appointing a labor relations officer and as such I think I should leave that matter with the Ontario Labor Relations Board rather than me trying to uh uh interfere in their process. >> New question the member for Stormmont Dundas Glengarry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. And I want to advise the attorney general that I'm here questioning and quite happy. >> Great. Are you happy, >> Mr. Minister? Your deputy minister recently announced some uh fairly major cutbacks in your ministry and they pertain to uh the OPIP program, the beginning farmers assistance program, reduction by half of our agricultural engineer. very important people for our farming community. Can you tell us, Mr. Minister, how much money will you save by chopping uh these very popular programs and personnel? And will you channel those funds back into the ministry for some of your unfunded programs right now? >> Minister, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to have the opportunity to explain some of the uh efficiencies that I am bringing to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. So, I'm sure the member would uh would agree. We think it's very important to make sure that it's the clients that we serve. And uh I know many times the opposition uh criticizes the government for hiring too many civil servants. And uh what we wanted to do is run a very efficient operation. We make sure our clients are served well. And I just want to mention when he talks about the A engineers that only 27% of their time was spent in dealing with clients directly. What we've done is redesigned our a engineering department, have 12 a engineers throughout the province and covering all the different specialties that are required. >> Supplementary. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary to what the minister just said, farmers are expressing real concerns that frontline staff are losing out to bureaucracy and head office personnel. And I think that can be proven. Minister has an unprecedented two parliamentary assistance and has just taken on a new assistant deputy minister. Farmers are worried that soil conver conservation uh projects such as Oscap and land stewardship programs are not funded. How prepared are you, Mr. minister to hold the line on head office bureaucracy increases and provide continued uh continued funding for soil conservation projects, capital costs, interest rebate, farm tax reductions, and I could go on and on. There's been a hundred million chopped from your ministry in the last three years. >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to clarify the record as far as the uh the budget goes. As the member knows that we substantially increased by 50% in fact since this government took over this particular uh this budget. We are balanced now, Mr. Speaker, around $500 million where we took over about $285 million. So, it's been a substantial increase. What I'd like to say to the uh to the member that uh what I want to make sure is we have a good reorganization so that we serve the clients well. And I'm very sensitive to the point that the uh member makes about making sure that we aren't too heavy in in bureaucracy. And that's the whole idea of this. And I just say to the member that we're working very hard and uh hope soon to be able to uh talk to my honorable friend about some of the initiatives that this ministry is going to be running. >> New question, the member for Simco Center. >> Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health. uh as of January of this year, a drug which is new to use in Canada uh for treatment of those suffering from Parkinson's disease uh was made available and approved. Uh the drug is deranyl. I'm told by patients who were using this drug before that it was half the price of what it became once it was approved in January which then became uh a cost of $241 per pill. Now some of these patients who have spoken to me are of advanced years. Some are on fixed income and they are finding this a tremendous burden for them. Uh my question to the minister is can you hold out any assistance to the cost of this medication uh to people who are suffering from Parkinson's disease in Ontario? >> Minister, >> thank you very much and I want to thank the member. I know of his interest uh uh in the Ontario drug benefit plan and also uh I know that he's had some inquiries from his constituents. It's the goal of the Ontario drug benefit program uh to provide drugs to people who are eligible under that program which will give them the very best of therapeutic results. Uh he knows and members of the house should know that the ministry relies on a panel of experts called the drug quality and therapeutics committee who review submissions from manufacturers on any drugs uh which are to be included by the formulary. It's my understanding that submission has been made to the drug quality and therapeutics committee and that they are evaluating the submissions uh at this time. I know that they must have uh all relevant data before they make their decision and I know of the interest uh that this matter has been uh raised in not only the um the area that the member represents but in other parts of the province as well. >> Petition. >> Yes, Mr. Speaker. >> Supplementary. Uh I've been told that dpronol has been available in Europe for about two decades and that the cost of deranol in Europe at this moment is about2 to4 cents per pill and remember I uh stated that it's about $241 a pill in Ontario. Uh does the minister have any figures as to the comparative cost of the drug in Europe as compared to the cost of the drug here? and uh what would be the reason for this discrepancy in cost? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think the member uh as he raises the issue of cost recognizes that in fact we have a responsibility to ensure that all of our programs uh in the province are delivered in a fiscally responsible manner. Uh at the present time, the Ontario drug benefit program is costing the taxpayers of Ontario over $600 million and is rising at a rapid rate each year. It is not only useful, I think, to examine the price of new drugs uh in Europe, but also in the United States and other jurisdictions as well. And I think that price equalization may be one of the factors which are considered by the drug quality and therapeutics committee in their review of any new drugs. I would say as well that we always look forward to and applaud the development of new drugs which will uh lead to the very best of therapeutic um results and improve the health of the people of this province. And it's important that these drugs be tested for their effectiveness. And as I said, we rely on the drug quality and therapeutics committee to make those decisions on behalf of the Ministry of Health. >> New question, the member for Beaches Woodbine. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. if he would return to his seat. Uh, shame >> minister. Uh, uh, yesterday you finally dropped your o your support for one of your ministry's most irresponsible transportation proposals, the construction of the East Metro Transportation Corridor through the Rouge Valley to link highways 401 and 407. This was to be a 4 to8 lane freeway u and uh to assist developers in exploiting the uh opportunities for high-priced housing development in the east metro Durham area. Minister, I welcome your change of heart following the premier's announcement of a provincial park for the Rouge Valley, but I want to ask you, are you prepared to allow adequate public consultation and a full environmental assessment on any alternative routes to be considered so that the environmentally sensitive areas and the proposal for a wildlife preserve in the area will be protected? Minister, >> good question. Right on. >> Mr. Speaker, I uh I of course welcome the support of my good friend, the member for Beaches Woodbine for an announcement yesterday which uh made by the premier and by my colleagues uh uh the minister of natural resources which I think is uh one of the most significant announcement made in this province in many many years and I'm very proud to have been associated with it. Uh Mr. Speaker, u we are, as the honorable member knows, we have protected two additional corridors, one in the Morningside area, the other in the Brock Road area. U and uh we are quite prepared uh as I indicated yesterday in my statement to subject those corridors to the fullest possible review. But I wouldn't want my friend to believe uh for one minute uh that that it is the view of uh this minister or this government uh that roads in and of themselves provide the only solution. We have indicated in my announcement yesterday and as part of that review, we'll be uh we'll be moving forward just as aggressively as possible on making uh rail transportation and indeed transportation by other modes of uh of public transportation a very important part of uh of the future for the north northeast quadrant of metro. >> No problem. The member for beaches woodbine with a supplementary. >> Thank you uh Mr. Speaker. Um in your statement yesterday, Mr. Minister, you also stressed that you will be emphasizing and promoting greater use of public transit, but this appears to be a continuation of your baffle gab for the public because you have not named any projects which you intend to pursue in the way of new public transit. And I wonder if you're aware that the TTC has recently raised its computer parking lot rates in Metro by 75%. >> Wow. Wow. >> From $2 to 350 a day. a shame. >> Uh what do you intend to do to offset this disincentive to use of public transit which the government by as a result of attacks which the government has imposed on parking lots. >> Government says we'll minister. >> Mr. Speaker, I think the people of the the greater Toronto area of Metro Toronto and elsewhere understand full well the outstanding leadership that this premier, the treasurer and the government have been providing in terms of public transit. I think they understand uh as perhaps the honorable member does not that we are putting nearly $200 million into capital and operating support of the Toronto Transit Commission each and every year. I think they understand full well uh that we have plans for $400 million of improvements over the next 5 years to the GO transit system and I think they understand as I know that party never has that the money must come from somewhere and that they are prepared prepared to pay their fair share for the kind of outstanding improvement that we have on the books and that will be taking place in the next short while to a public transit system throughout the greater Toronto area. That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.