Question Period Rewind - March 28 1990

Welcome to Question Period Rewind. I'm Donna Skellyy, the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The year is 1990. It might chug your memory because it's when Nelson Mandela was released after 27 years in prison. On the radio, you were probably listening to Nothing Compares to You by Chenado Connor. Now, let's take a listen to what the House was talking about. oral questions. leader of the opposition. >> A question for the minister of uh natural resources, minister of energy as well concerning the uh statements that have been made by the chairman of Ontario Hydro about uh what he expects hydro rates to be uh heading into the 1990s. Uh Mr. Speaker, Mr. Franklin is talking about rate increases. Uh last week it was 12%, now he's talking about 15%. Uh that's a 25% increase in the space of uh one week of speculation. I'd like to ask the minister this question. I wonder if she can tell us why the government has has not given the Ontario Energy Board the clear power and authority to set hydro's rates so we won't have hydro all on its own setting its own rates. Why not give the energy board the same power it has with respect to consumers gas, the same power it has with respect to other utilities? Why not give some power to the energy board to finally begin harnessing Ontario hydro? >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the honorable member is well aware that we have uh in past years now been asking the Ontario Energy Board to review the rate proposals that Ontario Hydro makes and to advise on their analysis of the factors and the costing that hydro has proposed and coming to their conclusions about those rates. And I think the honorable member is also aware uh that there is a review of the mandate of the Ontario Energy Board. And one of the issues under review is the role that the energy board should have in relationship to Ontario Hydro. But I would also uh suggest that there is an appointed board of Ontario Hydro which takes its own responsibilities for provision of secure reliable power at reasonable cost very seriously. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, it was no less an authority than the member for Niagara Falls, who uh when he was in opposition pointed out to this house on many occasions that uh if you heated your swimming pool with an electric heater, you would get a reduction because of bulk use. In fact, the volume of your use would give you a reduction. If you used your stove to boil an egg, you would not get a reduction. Mr. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister why doesn't she, as Minister of Energy, submit to the energy board the clear need for the energy board to give a break to the small consumer, to give a break to the people who use less energy and who conserve energy rather than to the people who consume too much energy, Mr. Speaker, why not change the rate structure? >> Minister. >> Uh, well, thank you again, Mr. Speaker. And I think the honorable member again may be well aware that one of the issues that we're very concerned about is energy efficiency in this province. I think it's a concern which is being accepted as an important responsibility by Ontario Hydro. And in fact, one of the factors that affects rate increase proposals for 1991 is the inclusion of incentive funds to encourage energy efficiency. Uh quite clearly that that's a focus that we have. One of the encouragements that we would make to consumers is that they carry out the energy efficiency measures that would in fact bring about a reduction in the in the cost of energy through that that saving in consumption. Uh the honorable member will also be aware that we have recently introduced a discussion paper on global warming and one of the factors that as an energy ministry we're concerned about in that paper is energy efficiency measures and reviews of rate uh structures that can be effective in bringing about energy efficiency is one of the focuses of that paper. >> Final supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the energy board does not have the power to set rates and the fact is this government has no position on bulk use any different from the position of the Ontario Tories for 42 years. You haven't changed an iota of energy policy either with respect to the energy board or with respect to the question of bulk use. I'd like to ask the minister a final question. Does she not now see the need for some clear rate relief for lower income people? I can tell the minister that the people in her writing who are going to be getting a a 10, 12, 14, 16% increase, and we don't know how long Ontario Hydro plans to hit hit us with this, they are going to have a very hard time. And the only kind of conservation they're going to be able to practice is to heat their homes less and and to and to be living in far greater difficulty and to have to go without other things. I wonder if she can tell us does she not see the need for rate relief for lowincome people and for talking to the treasur about the need. If he's not only going to collect the GST, why are you collecting the GST through the rate structure, you should be giving people a rebate for it? >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly concur with the honorable member that the question of the cost of electricity is an extremely important one for residential users as it is for industrial users in the province of Ontario. But I do think that the honorable member perhaps confuses somewhat the issue of the rate increase proposed by Ontario Hydro to cover the costs incurred in providing electricity on Ontario with the imposition of a goods and services tax by the federal government which in fact if carried out would bring about a doubling of the cost of electricity in the proposed increases for next year for residential customers. That has to be a very great concern and I think the fact that electricity would be taxed for the first time is an issue that we should all be raising in light of that concern. >> New question. >> New question. The leader of the opposition. Mr. >> Speaker, I uh I have some questions for the Minister of Revenue concerning the uh the uh secret negotiations that went on for several months with regard to the tire tax and the tax being paid by uh by car renters. >> Mr. Speaker, the uh the it's I'm interested in how the Ramo rate was established of 8.3%. Mr. Speaker, it's clear from the correspondence which we have received that your senior manager of legislation started out by saying that uh you have indicated he's writing to Mr. Kenmer from the uh the association of the car rental agencies who said that you've indicated that your initial calculations have produced a figure of 8.1 to 8.2% that would be applied. Mr. Mr. Kenmer writes back and says, "Our calculations may have been understated and a more realistic figure of 8.3% would appear to be the correct figure to use." So the Liberals, >> Mr. Speaker, >> you'll be surprised to hear, Mr. Speaker, that upon receiving that new figure, the government bargained hard and came up with a figure of 8.3%. >> Which, Mr. Speaker, suggested by the industry. >> I want to ask the minister this question. On July the 17th, 1989, the uh the rate was set and the agreement was made. Uh I'd like to ask the minister this question. Can you tell us how was how did your ministry arrive at the 8.3% figure? Can you tell us what was the legal authority for these negotiations? >> That's the question was well put. >> Mr. Speaker, uh the matter was well explained yesterday. >> Mr. Speaker, uh Ramo explained it very well yesterday. You're right. I want to say I want to say to the uh leader of the opposition, the industry was provided with three alternatives to collect the tire tax. Every alternative provided to the industry was fair. Mr. Speaker, confusion unfortunately surrounded one of the alternatives because the industry did not indicate on their forms the uh differentiation between the 8% sales tax and the.3% which was to apply only to the tire tax. Because of that confusion, Mr. Speaker, that option is no longer available to the industry. The uh tire tax will be collected with the other two alternatives as has been described in a circular which was provided to the industry. Nothing was done in secret. The circular is made uh public to anyone that's interested, Mr. Speaker. And the leader of the opposition is not correct in his assumptions. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, uh if it wasn't done in secret, why didn't why wasn't announcement made with respect to what the arrangements were? Why was it that when I phoned the when our our staff phoned the ministry, we were told that we couldn't get the agreement and that we would have to apply under the freedom of information to get this agreement? That's what we were told. We were told that yesterday by the people who are responsible for tax policy. Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question. Can you tell us what was the basis of your calculations when you made this secret deal? How much money have you collected and what is the legal authority for the deal which you arrived at? Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, you don't need uh freedom of information request to obtain a circular which was sent to the industry and anyone else who was interested. This circular is one of hundreds that is sent out by the ministry >> in order to maybe thousands. I say to the member for Scarboro who's vitally interested in this. The circular. The circular was a followup to letters that had been exchanged between the ministry and the industry explaining to them the three options which they had. It was pointed out on the back of the circular how the matter had to be dealt with. It was clearly pointed out in letters how the industry could be able to collect the money. And Mr. Speaker, because of the confusion that has arisen, they are now down to two options. Nothing was done the way the honorable member suggests, and this information has been available for months. The honorable leader of the opposition knows that, Mr. Speaker. >> I know you're going to lose your limo for this >> final supplementary. M >> Mr. Speaker, I'm inclined to just let the minister talk rather than ask another question. But my my my question remains this. How much money have you raised under this tax in comparison with other methods of payment? How did you arrive independently, your ministry, at the rate which you established, I presume, of 8.3%, what process of calculation did you go through in reaching that magic rao rate? What's the basis for it? And what is the legal authority for your rate? And if it was so great, why did you pull it yesterday as soon as we brought it made it public? I'll I'll tell the leader of the opposition. I'll tell the leader of the opposition why it was pulled yesterday. Because confusion now, like if you'll have your colleague to the right, if you keep quiet, I'll I'll just tell you because the industry was clearly told, Mr. Speaker, those people there don't want to hear the answer, but I know that you do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the industry was clearly told in correspondence that the 8% sales tax had to be clearly separate from the.3% tire tax. The industry, Mr. Speaker, did not make that distinction clear. Members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, confuse the matter even worse by saying there was an 8.3% sales tax when in fact an 8.3% sales tax has never existed. >> Order. Order. >> Thank you. >> Order. Order. All right, it is >> the sheriff of this. >> You finished? >> New question. The member for Sarnia. >> Thank you uh very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the minister responsible for franophhone affairs. Uh Mr. Minister, you are probably aware of a resolution that was tabled in this house uh late last night with respect with respect to the position of our party in connection with Bill 8. Mr. Minister, that resolution is in two parts. The first part of the resolution very clearly states and reaffirms the support of our party for the expansion of French language services throughout Ontario. Secondly, the resolution calls >> order. >> Have another drink, Ian. Make sure it's water this time. >> With respect, it was the attorney general, Mr. Speaker, who was asking for questions on Bill 8 yesterday. You're getting a question, Mr. Attorney General, on Bill 8 today, if you'll listen. >> Order, order, order. Would the member take a seat? Speaker, I apologize for the angry. >> All right. Order. >> Order. >> I thought order. Order. >> Now, new question through the speaker, please. >> Speaker, the second part of the resolution dealt very simply with the concept of an all party committee to travel the province to get input in connection with the implementation of Bill 8. Is the minister and the government of which he is a part prepared to support that particular resolution? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Uh I appreciate very much the support of the uh leader of the third party for the principle of bill 8 uh and as you have said for the extension of French language services in the province of Ontario. As I have said before uh on this specific uh issue uh I believe there are a number of mechanisms available within this house uh to deal with the issues that are raised in the motion. I don't think we need a a special committee to look at this. I have said often that as the minister I would be delighted to discuss the issues of the administration and the implementation of uh bill 8 during estimates and I think that that would give us an opportunity to look at uh detail at those various uh issues. And so my answer would be uh that I believe that is the process we should follow and that at this time we do not need a special committee. >> Supplementary. >> By way of supplementary, I'd like to advise the minister that uh I have uh had conversation with Madame Sosce who is the president of AGO as the minister is aware uh as late as this morning. I have had previous conversations with her in connection with some of the valid concerns being expressed by AGO in connection with the implementation of Bill 8 as well as other groups and organizations that have still other concerns that the minister is aware of. Given the fact that the estimates committee would not give the opportunity for any input from the public, would not allow for any kind of democratic uh input to be allowed with respect to to concerns that have already been widely spoken of in this province? Would the minister shift from his position, which is to hear only submissions before the committee dealing with estimates and deal with an all party committee that would travel the province? and take legitimate input on the question of billing. >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh I believe that uh when honorable members gather in committee to review the estimates of a particular ministry that there is in fact a very democratic opportunity to look at the operation of that uh particular bill. I think that at uh at this time with the number of uh of issues on the national scene that revolve around uh language uh that at this point I think we should make use of the various uh uh approaches we have now in this uh chamber. Uh I think that the views that individuals are expressing certainly we're receiving them in in uh in letter form and going out in public meetings. uh and I think that all can be brought to bear as I've said on many occasions if members uh believe that there are problems with the implementation administration of the bill uh we can deal with that here in this legislature through a question period through estimates uh through the various debates that we have and I think that is the most appropriate forum at this point in time >> final supplementary >> with respect Mr. Minister, for two and a half years now, our party has clearly stated its position in regard to this issue. >> Order. >> Read read the committee report. >> Order. >> Read the committee report. >> For two and a half years, our party stated its position in connection with the need >> for input and discussion in connection with Bill 8. There is in fact a great deal of misinformation as the minister is aware with respect to this bill. If I could get the attention but not the verbal input of the attorney general. >> Well, the minister says I don't deserve attention for asking for some input from the public in connection with an extremely important bill. I ask again, >> are you prepared to simply listen to the views of many who have expressed a wish to have some input on bill 8 aside from the estimates committee moving to an all party traveling committee which would deal with this question? >> Minister, >> thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh I think that there are uh many uh questions and and issues uh around language policy around Bill 8 around the uh future direction of the province and the country uh with respect to these issues. I would remind the honorable member that in his motion he talked specifically about dealing with the uh administration and implementation of bill 8 and I would say again uh that that is the proper purview uh of the estimates process. I would say to the honorable member that I think that as uh political and community leaders as we go about dealing with this issue uh that we all know what the principle of bill 8 is and we know indeed what it covers and that in our own public uh discussion in town hall meetings and the like that we can discuss and address these issues. I think that this is a sensitive time in our country's history. The federal government is launching a series of uh of consultations, but we are responsible for bill 8, and that is best dealt with within the legislature in the normal democratic workings of this order, >> order. >> New question, the member for Cernia. uh to the same minister in his capacity as minister of uh social and community services. I um want to make the minister aware that for 6 months now it is my understanding that uh you have been advised that there are some 10,000 children waiting for treatment for mental health in the province of Ontario. Earlier this week, you indicated in a statement in response to that uh particular suggestion that uh you were waiting for the Maloney report, I believe, uh before you were going to act. My understanding is that this report is not going to be ready, Mr. Minister, until June of this year. Are you prepared in fact to do absolutely nothing whatever between now and June leave those 10,000 children without services until such time as you receive the report minister. >> Thank you uh Mr. Speaker uh and I will reiterate very clearly to the honorable member what I said uh in answer to the question earlier this week. Uh indeed we are not waiting. uh as I explained to your colleague from London North, I met with the uh executive of the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centers and we laid out a number of things that we are going to be doing uh jointly. I made very clear that the report of the Maloney committee would be available uh in June and that's going to be very important in terms of the future direction that we take and I also set out very clearly that in resolving the issues that face the mental health area we have got to involve all of those involved in children's services. If the honorable member would speak with those active in other uh organizations dealing uh in children's services, I think you will find that there is a growing consensus that we cannot isolate different compartments of children's services but we have to work together. Uh there is much that is going on uh and more will follow the Mal Maloney report but I think it is very wrong to suggest that nothing is happening. >> Thank you. supplementary >> to uh I want to advise the minister that there is also a growing consensus and a very real concern among those who are providing services for uh children in the mental health field that the budget difficulties that they are experiencing at the moment and that uncertainty that they are experiencing with respect to their funding is of growing concern to them. The uh minister last month received a letter from uh the Windsor Essex from WSOR Essex County and in that letter there was a list of some of the children who require assistance at this time. Let me read to the minister if I might from that list. A child age two sexually molested by her father. Parents separated. Child vomits and displays hysterical behavior when father visits. Another example from the same letter. Child age three exposed to family violence, attacks parents and uses excessive profanity, violent tantrums. >> Question. >> These are but two examples, Mr. Speaker, of the many, some 300 that are on that particular report. I asked the minister, when are you going to provide the assistance that's necessary to provide the help that these children need? >> Minister, you Mr. Speaker, as the honorable member would know, uh we have over the past number of years uh increased significantly the funding to this area. As with many, the demands continue to grow. I think that is interesting though that uh it would be he who would talk to us about the funding that we are putting in to the broad area of social services when it is his colleagues in Ottawa who have now capped the cap program and who will be cutting some $160 million out of the programs which we would have been using in our programs including those that are directed at children's mental health because one of the reasons one of the reasons that we placed this program within the purview of the Ministry of Community and Social Services so that we could have access to those funds. We have demonstrated up to this point that we are moving dollars into this field. We would like to do more. It would help tremendously if the honorable member would speak to his federal colleagues and urge them not to cut the basic program of CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan, which is dedicated to help those who are least able to help themselves. >> Supplementary Talk about Kathy. >> On behalf of my party, Mr. Speaker, I'd be delighted to speak to the federal government as soon as I have the time available after speaking to the municipalities who are concerned about the budget cuts they're experiencing from the treasur of this province. >> Yeah. Right off. >> Soon as I'm done with those discussions, I'll take up that other that other commitment. But let me say to the minister, in that same letter that you received from Windsor, Essex, there were three 15year-olds, all of whom have attempted suicide over the past short period of time. There is a growing list of children and young people in this province who frankly have nowhere to go. The number that has been suggested to you and which I believe to be very accurate is some 10,000 children are going underserviced or without any service whatever or on 6 month to one year waiting lists. I suggest to you that's far too long. There are many programs this government can cut. This isn't one of them. What are you going to do about it, >> Minister? >> Speaker, uh I think we are doing in fact a number of things about this and I would underline again that we will only resolve these issues when we bring all the players together and we recognize that the issues that are facing those dealing in children's mental health and children's aid societies and all of those active in that area are common. And there is a recognition amongst the players and by this government that we will resolve that by working together and continuing to put the money where it is most required. But I must insist that if we are truly going to attack this problem, it is time that the federal conservative government came back to the table and began to put some money into children's services in the same way that we're doing. New question. the member for order. It might be time for a recess if we're not careful. >> Order. >> What a waste of time. New question. The member for Atobico Lake Shore. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Just about a year ago, in March 1989, when the premier made announced plans to solve the greater Toronto area's garbage crisis, the Minister of the Environment was conspicuous by his absence. Just last week, when the premier announced creation of an urban park in the Rouge Lands, the Minister was there, but unusually for him, somewhat inconspicuous. Can the minister tell us whether this low-key approach reflects the fact that he's ashamed >> that within the rouge lands there is a site that's been identified as a potential landfill site and that he has refused to designate that site under the environmental assessment act. Is that why he's not very conspicuous on the rouge issue? Mr. Speaker, >> Mr. Speaker, uh if I were there to take the credit for the announcement that was made, you would say I was taking credit for it. And as I indicated in the House on many occasions, there were some uh interesting discussions that took place uh throughout this piece again putting together all of the components of the announcement. And I indicated when the member for Missaga South asked me a question in the house earlier in the week that I think that the I would like the announcement that the premier was making at that time. And I indicated that I thought I would be pleased with that announcement and indeed I am because I think it's the kind of announcement which is has been looked for by the people in that specific area. I know that the Save the Rouge group with whom I met on a number of occasions and other members of the government met on a number of occasions put forward I think a very compelling case for as much of the area as they had asked for being encompassed by uh a green belt as possible and I certainly uh am pleased that that announcement was made and I I listened to the people who are there as well who are speaking on behalf of the residents in the area who expressed a good deal of enthusias IASM for the announcements that the premier made in that occasion >> supplementary. >> I didn't hear Mr. Speaker any reference to the question that I posed. >> We have in this province a rather peculiar practice of allowing logging and mining to continue in parks. But I think this will perhaps be the first occasion when a landfill site or a garbage dump will be considered a nonconforming use in a park. And um I'm not surprised that the minister is ashamed of the fact. Why, Mr. Speaker, will the minister not today rule out that site as a possible candidate for a landfill site? Why doesn't he complete the great announcement that he says he shares in by doing his part to protect the Rouge Valley Lands? >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, the uh the uh the member the member for York Center, the member for York Center makes a very good point. I suspect that no matter what site that Metropolitan, Toronto, or any other community would choose for a landfill site, the member by nature of being a member of the opposition would be opposed to that. >> That's right. That's >> I I I recall that, Mr. Speaker. I recall very well my years in opposition and that is the role of the opposition to to criticize no matter what is put forward by the government. They criticize so many people in opposition. >> So it would be unfair of me to ask the member where would you like uh garbage from any community in the province to go because of course because of course that would put you on the spot to say where it should go and that's not the opposition's job. You would say Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that there will be an environmental assessment of this and in terms of the Ministry of the Environment and other commenting agencies of government will comment on it. There will be a hearing with the envir environmental assessment board sitting on a hearing taking into consideration all of the environmental concerns related to this and Metro has put forward. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. That's a fairly complete answer. Order. >> New question. The member for Leeds Grenville. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and she is probably aware of the results have just been announced of the vote by the Ontario Hydro Union close to 96% rejecting the uh the contract with an 85% turnout. Wonder if the minister would be good enough to advise the members of the House and the public what step she is taking and Ontario Hydro Management are taking to prepare for what uh looks like an increasing possibility of a strike uh come Sunday. Minister. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh as I have indicated before in the House and um and to the media to the public through the media, uh my role as Minister of Energy is indeed to uh work with hydro to ensure that the any eventualities are being considered and that contingency plans are being developed to deal with eventualities uh which may develop. Um I do feel compelled though to recognize that there is even with this recent vote announcement a collective bargaining process uh that hydro and its union are engaged with and that there is still a focus on the collective bargaining table and on resolution is this of this issue. But certainly as Minister of Energy I have been working with Ontario Hydro to ensure that they are putting contingency plans in place in order to deal with any eventuality should there not be a successful resolution at the bargaining table. Very good >> supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the uh electrical consumers of this province require a more detailed answer than that. I think if the minister is going to be fair, the nuclear generating stations are going to be shut down initially, they provide something like 50% of the power in this province. Minister herself, I think, has suggested that she the she doesn't have the ability or Ontario Hydro doesn't have the ability to take up that shortfall and we could be faced with blackouts, shutdowns, serious disruptions with the within the Ontario economy. And I don't think most of us, Mr. Speaker, have the confidence in the management of Ontario hydro that perhaps the minister has. We can only look at the shutdown of a nuclear facility this winter during a peak period running out of oil in the Kingston area during that same peak period. Uh the uh lamp station now shut down for annual maintenance turnaround during a a possible possible strike time. Mr. Minister, I think you should give us more specific answers. of the people of Ontario deserve more specific answers in respect to what you are doing to prepare for the possibility of a strike. Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. The people of Ontario are certainly going to be concerned about the specific impacts of any possible work disruption and disruption in the delivery of electricity service should that occur. And they're going to want to know what they can expect whether as individual residential customers or as industrial customers. And I'm very much aware of the kinds of concerns that electricity users will have in contemplating any possibility of a work stoppage. But when you ask me to give specifics, you make first of all several assumptions in asking for them. In referencing the fact that there could be a shutdown of nuclear stations, you make an assumption first that there will be a a labor disruption and secondly that that's the form it would take. Unless unless we are in the situation and know ex what we will be confronted with. And I can't give you specific information about impact. I can tell you that Ontario Hydro, which manages very effectively the provision of electricity service to people in this province, is has been working with its individual utilities, the municipal utilities that actually deliver the power in those communities. The municipal utilities are working with their individual customers to determine their needs and how to manage the impact. >> New question, the member for Canora. >> Very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister of culture and communications. Uh as the minister is aware the Dryen regional office of the her ministry was recently closed and uh what I would like to ask the minister today is what she can tell the uh the residents of Dryen about the future of cultural services in this region. >> Minister. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. I can appreciate the member's strong interest in the uh uh the service that has been given to Dryen and to other parts of the north by my ministry. I have also heard and seen the uneasiness by the cultural community about these changes that have been taking place. they have brought them to my attention and it doesn't even take that to know that there would be a potential negative impact on client service. We have a consultant in Thunder Bay as the member would know. That consultant will be spending days in Dryden on a regular basis. And I do want to say to the member from Canora that I am watching this very carefully because my top concern is that the clients, the people who are interested in the services of the ministry get the best possible service in Dryen. >> Supplementary. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Madame Minister, what I'm concerned about is what uh you are prepared to do personally to safeguard the uh services that were previously provided by this regional office in Dryen. >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the member from Canora will know, uh the two ministries used to be one, the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. In the process of dividing the two ministries and their regional offices, it was u a A report was made to both ministries and action has been taken to divide the offices in the way that it is hoped although as I say we will be watching it that the best possible service can be preserved. The high level of service to cultural clients is as always the priority of this minister and the ministry. >> New question. The member for Hamilton. The member for Hamilton East. >> Question of the Minister of Health. >> We have with us today in the visitors gallery a number of ambulance officers, health care workers, and representatives of their union, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. They are here today, quite frankly, Madam Minister, to try to get the attention of the government. Given the decisions of the public service labor relations tribunal in the calling wood and Owen Sound disputes that these employees were indeed crown employees, is the minister now prepared to meet with the union to ensure that units currently coming into a strike situation in the province do not have to face the frustration their colleagues in Owen Sound and Collingwood experienced. >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the member knows, I'm very aware of the recent decisions and want to inform him him that the ministry will fully comply with the decisions of the tribunal. It's my understanding as well that the Owens Sound Ambulance Service uh employees uh will be back at work uh as of March the 29th, 8 a.m. was the information that I have and that the uh service will operate as a crown agency and negotiate uh with the uh human resource secretariat. supplementary. >> I hope the minister's answer means that the judicial review will be dropped and she will understand that I was talking about those units now coming into a strike situation. Is the minister ready to meet with the union to negotiate a provincewide agreement with all ambulance officers represented by OPSU in the interest of more efficient service for all Ontario citizens without the kind of disruption that we've experienced today. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to inform the member that the attorney general's office is making application for judicial review of the tribunals's decisions on both Mckne and Owens sound. I would tell him as well that the ministry is constantly monitoring the delivery of ambulance services and makes adjustments to the the services as needs and resources are available. >> New question, the member for Wellington. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is Minister of Pal. Minister, as you're well aware, a commitment was made to the people of G and Wellington County almost 3 years ago for muchneeded capital construction, including upgrading and expansion at G's two hospitals, General and St. Joseph's. As a matter of fact, the minister even participated at the sod turning at St. Joe's in 1987. Now, we find, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health has completely reked on her commitment. There will be no funding for G, General, or St. Joseph's. However, instead a brand new hospital will be built with the same funds sometime in the future perhaps. Minister, what will become of St. Joseph's and General Hospital? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I'm pleased to say to the member opposite that I recently reaffirmed the commitment that the ministry made of over uh $ 58 million to the people of G to provide for acute care services and long-term care services. I uh sent a letter to both of the hospitals informing them of our decision to establish two committees to see that the process is expedited so that we can meet the needs of the people of G. And I want to acknowledge as well the leadership of the member for GE in helping the community come to the decision to uh actively pursue planning for the needs for not only for today but for the future as well. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, the minister is completely missing the point as usual. Both both of these hospitals have been told in numerous occasions the funding would be forthcoming. They undertook ambitious fundraising campaigns had plans and site surveys drawn up putting much time, effort, and resources into these capital construction projects. This government made a promise to the people of G and Wellington just prior to the 1987 election. Minister, you reneged in that promise. Mr. Speaker, this government has no credibility with the people of G and Wellington County. Why should they believe the government now? Minister, how are they to know that this is not just another empty campaign promise, a commitment to be broken just like the last one? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, the member opposite couldn't be more wrong and I would be happy to share with him correspondence which I recently had with both the General as well as G St. Joseph informing them and of our commitment to meet the health care needs and requirements of the people in the community of G and restating our commitment to over 58 million to see the development of those facilities. And we're moving expeditiously to establish the kind of uh community-based uh committee to see that those are planned appropriately and as expeditiously as possible. >> The member with a new question from Nepian. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr. Minister, recently my colleagues and I met with parents who represent trainable mentally pupils in Ottawa Carlton. The parents and board representatives appreciate the progress we have made in education for TMR students. However, they expressed concern about older students who are at the lower to midf functioning level of achievement. Some of these students could derive significant benefits from attending school beyond the age of 21. May I ask therefore whether the minister has looked at this matter and whether he has any plans to permit school boards to provide education beyond 21 years of age for special needs students. >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my honorable friend from Nepian and others in the legislature for raising this issue with me. I can tell my honorable friend in the house that uh I have been looking at this particular uh issue in in education. Uh the uh the issue has been raised not just by by members in the legislature including my friend from NPIN but a number of parents and educators have also raised the matter with me. I expect in the not too distant future to be bringing forward uh amendments to the education act which will uh which will I hope address uh this particular concern among others. >> Supplementary. Yes. Uh thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I'm rather pleased that you seem to have some rather firm plans on uh permitting the uh proposal that I have just mentioned. Uh can the minister perhaps be a little bit more specific on on his plan as to when he might introduce in fact those changes? >> Minister. >> Well, ministers uh Mr. Speaker are always a bit nervous to uh uh to uh indicate specific timets. Looking at the attorney general, I'm reminded I could say the early fall, but uh I can tell my friend the member from Nepian that uh we have been looking at the ministry at a number of changes to the special education provisions of the education act. Uh I am aware of the current uh difficulties for uh uh the group of individuals to which the honorable member has made reference and I would very much hope to have uh uh the amendments before the assembly in the fall sitting of this year. >> New question. The member for Hamilton West. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment who was here just a moment ago and he seems to have disappeared. Is he in fact nearby and in the house hiding around a corner? Uh >> okay. You may proceed. I think he can do two things at once. He >> Well, don't bet on that. Don't bet on that. >> We got a bigger job for him than just walking and listening. >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, the residents of Hamilton and especially Hamilton West and Hamilton Mountain are understandably nervous about the continued failure of the minister to take action on the illegal Mount Hope tire dump which lies nearby. The minister ignored the dump for years after recent weeks of heightened concern. The minister is still playing games with the owners of the Mun Musatanos. It's a clearly illegal dump. The only actions, however, that the area residents see are a few guards and a dog named Joey keeping an eye on things. When is the minister going to use the clear powers he has >> title for >> under the Environmental Protection Act to clean up illegal dumps and safeguard the residents of this area from the potential threat of airborne toxic chemicals produced by a tire fire. >> Well, uh, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, as the member knows and uh the this site and all of the other major sites in the province have in fact been visited by the representatives of the fire marshall's office and by representatives of the Ministry of the Environment to determine the particular situation and there have been orders it is my understanding that have been laid uh on this particular site that to which he makes reference. Uh there is as has been indicated 24-hour security at the site and has been present for some period of time now. This is independent independent independent security uh in addition to what was there before. The fire prevention authorities have issued two orders requiring compliance with the fire code a point which perhaps the solister general might be able to expand upon if you get a chance to chat with him. the owners have applied for a certificate of approval, but I recognize that it's the old dilemma of local residents naturally would prefer to have no such site around and yet on the other hand uh if there is such a site would like it so that there's a minimum risk to the people in the area and that's what the officials of the fire marshall's office have gone through. It is my understanding that the owners of this particular site have agreed to comply with this and uh when the new laws come into effect when the new laws come into effect it will uh >> thanks supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, it it doesn't sound much more than the old ring around the rosie that was being played with the Musatanos in a low-key behindthe-scenes kind of way before the Hagglesville fire. What uh what we've got there now, of course, is pal Joey. But uh but uh what more is happening? What assurances do we have that the minister after he plays this game of charades with the Environmental Protection Act and the Fire Marshals Act and the Ontario Fire Code is in fact going to take any action that's any different than he did before. There have been no clear assurances. the charade goes on. Why the charade? Why the delay? And what what assurances have we got? Mr. Minister, that you're going to act the moment you've got some legislative action to to to take further action on. >> Minister, >> I think unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the uh the supplementary was written before the question was uh the answer the question was anticipated. >> That's right. >> And uh listen, I remember I used to have to do that as well. I remember to the H member for Hamilton West where the supplementary was written out as well. I can simply repeat to him and I know of his own personal concern in this regard and it's it's quite genuine and that is that uh the fire authorities have in fact been on the site. The ministry officials have been on the site. I would not characterize his uh evaluation of of the uh efforts that have been made in the past the same way he would. But I can say that with all of these circumstances, with the passing of the of the amendments to the fire code, with the passing of the amendments to the environmental protection act, uh it will be very clear that the ministry of the solicitor general and the ministry of the environment have the right to go in and take whatever action is necessary. But I recognize as I recognize as well that uh there is a concern that the tires are there. And so it's the old dilemma that people are going to face. I think they would like the tires to disappear from the area completely and have it out of uh out of sight and that's understandable for the people. But what we want to do >> Thank you. >> New question. The member for Hastings Peter. >> Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Mr. Minister, as you're well aware, the government will not fund any project that has been started before the official approval has been given. However, on March the 8th, 1989, the then minister of tourism and recreation told the people of Marmmer and area that he was he was giving them a letter stating that they could proceed with the arena project. He also told them that their application was in order and he could see no reason why they would be not getting the funding. He stated that he might not be the minister uh in January of 1990 when the grants were announced. The people of Marmarin area did firmly believe that they were getting provincial funding for their arena which they deserve and are entitled to. Mr. Minister, would you explain to this house why they didn't get that funding? >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised by the member from Hastings Peterborough. I should tell him first of all that he's absolutely correct in identifying that uh we do not approve uh grants after the fact and that once construction is started on a building that it's unable or we're unable to approve uh grants for that particular project. I should also indicate to him that uh we have had discussions with the town of Marmmer and uh understand their concerns and how interested they are in having funding approval for what I agree is a very worthwhile project in that community. Unfortunately, we were not able to fund all of the applications that uh we received for funding uh for recreational projects in this given year and we have encouraged the people of Marmmer to once again continue their attempts to pursue that arena project. supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Minister, that uh arena got condemned in November of 1988. They were without uh they missed the hockey se season in 8889. They missed this last hockey season and if they soon don't get the funding, they're going to miss the next year's hockey season. That's three years without an arena. Now, I just like to mention the fact that in Dumber Township in 1983 on in October, they got their their arena condemned. And on September of 1984, they had an official opening for the arena. They just missed one year of hockey. Now, that's the track record of the previous government. >> Now, why why, Mr. Minister, can these people not get the funding >> because after all they're entitled to it? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I think we could spend some time addressing the track record of the previous government in a whole range of issues and uh that's some time that we perhaps could spend profitably and I'm sure that I could identify for the member and for his colleagues many areas in which their track record record is less than it should be. However, to come back to his immediate concern, which is the people of Marmara, we're going to look very carefully at proposals from the area of Marmmer. We're going to uh work with that community to try and address their needs and to try and assist them. And I thank the member for his concern and interest in the project. >> New question, the member for Sudbury. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr. Minister, in December of 1989, the Ministry of Education announced that its Northern Film Library Service, which has been based in Sudbury for many years, would end in its present form this year on June the 15th, 1990. This service is well known to teachers and principles across Northern Ontario who have ordered films from the library and have had them shipped to their school for use in classrooms and assembly. Can the minister tell a house and the people of Sbury what assurances we have that this service will continue to operate in Northern Ontario? >> Minister >> for his question and his interest in a matter that I know is of of of concern to to my colleague and other members of the of the Sudbury area. I can assure my honorable friend that we intend at the Ministry of Education to uh uh provide the the service though in a different form. We are divesting uh uh the service as as a matter of course. Discussions are underway with a number of school boards. If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Speaker, the Sudbury separate school board has tentatively agreed to accept the divestment of the uh the French language film component of that northern uh film library service uh to the uh to that particular board. I don't believe that discussions with the Sudbury public board have reached a positive conclusion, but we continue to look to other partners in Northern Ontario uh for uh an eventual devestment of the English language film section. And yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure my honorable friend that we intend to maintain the service in Northern Ontario. >> Supplementary. >> Thank you very much uh Mr. Mr Speaker, and I want to thank the minister for his response because not only is the library service of itself of concern, but the future uh employment of the film libraries eight employees is at stake. Will a minister tell a house what plans his ministry is currently undertaking to relocate those employees within the Ministry of Education or in other jobs in Sudbury, perhaps in consultation with the Ministry of Northern Development and Minds, which is opening its headquarters in Sudbury this summer. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, my friend has raised a very valid concern. And I know that there are there are >> well now my my learned friend from from Nickel Belt is intervening. And I just want to say through my friend from Sudbury to my friend from Nickel Belt that I take very seriously the uh the concerns of of the uh u public servants who have done a very good job over the years in the ministry providing that northern uh uh service. uh we we are uh uh expecting that their uh uh future job uh requirements will be uh will be met through a variety of means. discussions are well underway at the at the ministry's human resource uh branch to place these individuals and I'm confident that uh we will be able to do so and I want to say again that the member who has raised this question has made very rigorous and vigorous representations that that be done and I've indicated to the deputy minister at the ministry of education that every effort must be made to ensure that they are provided for in this divestment >> new Question. >> The member for Stormmont Dundas Glengarry. >> Uh to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Mr. Speaker, the interior government has in recent months blamed Ottawa for just about every problem that occurred here in Ontario in spite of the fact that your ministry has been chopping funds to agriculture. Can you tell us, Mr. Minister, if the Ontario government and your ministry support the position put forward by Canada and the honorable Don Mazenowski on March the 14th supporting article 11 of the GAT >> Minister Speaker, I'm quite happy to say that yes, I do and yes, we do in the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food. Um, in the last few months I've been uh bringing the message to Ottawa that it's very important that uh Canada present a strong position on Article 11 that the GAT discussions the Uruguay round that are happening now in in Geneva clarify and strengthen article 11 so that our commodity boards can manage the imports coming into this country so that we can satisfy the supply of basic food stops for the people of Ontario. Supplementary. >> Yes, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary. You may be aware, Mr. Minister, that the preier has in the past threatened to ignore the GAT and to pull out. Changes do take place in the GAT. Is the Ontario government ready to abide by international trading rules or are you or is you as the minister ready to put our food industry at stake? Do you intend to call your election promises as you did uh on free trade and veto the GAT decisions if you don't like them the same as you did on free trade? >> Minister. >> Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. What a delicious question to uh to talk about today. Um Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure the member knows from across the way that uh being a leader of a ministry in a provincial jurisdiction just unfortunately doesn't cut it in the international trading negotiations. And obviously it's the country Canada at the federal level that uh is obviously involved in in federal negotiations, international trade negotiations, but also as a as a province and as a country, we believe in adhering to international law as we do to any law. So our our tactic at the moment is to present what Mr. Mazenowski has presented and that's a very strong position uh in the international trade negotiations that are happening this year so that we strengthen and clarify article 11. >> New question the member for Sue St. Marie. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Labor with respect to uh plans from the regional office of the workers compensation board to move uh their handling of claims for workers from Sous Staint Marie in the district of Al from the Sudbury office to the Thunder Bay office. The minister must be aware that Thunder Bay is as far from Sue St. Marie as Toronto is and this would totally defeat the whole purpose of having regional offices to serve people closer to their home communities. The minister has received communications on this over the last several months from my colleagues from ALM and uh Sudbury East and myself. And I would ask whether the minister will now ask the workers compensation board to reconsider their decision to hold meaningful consultation with workers and their representatives in the Sue and to relocate all appropriate workers compensation board services closer to the workers right in Sue St. Marie in the district of Aloma. Minister, >> thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I uh I guess I'd first recognize that the uh workers compensation board are going through a number of organizational changes. Uh uh all of them, I might add, with the approval of their board of directors who in the end are responsible for the administration of workers compensation. I am aware of the correspondence that's taken place. I I uh based on reading of that correspondence from the workers compensation board to various individuals in in Sous St. Marie, I would hope that the residents of Sue St. Marie are satisfied that they will continue to receive excellent service in Sue St. Marie. I understand from the correspondence there is a portion of the services that are currently offered in the Sudbury office that will indeed be moved to the Thunder Bay office. But I understand from that correspondence that there will be little of any virtually no requirement for anyone to travel to Thunder Bay. So based on my understanding of the response, I would hope that uh the people of Sous St. Marie are satisfied that they'll receive a high level of service and workers compensation. I would encourage them to continue to discuss it with workers compensation if they have any further concerns. Thank you. >> Completes the aotted time for oral questions and responses.