Question Period Rewind - March 29 1990

Welcome to Question Period Rewind. I'm Donna Skellyy, the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The year is 1990. B. Midler's Wind Beneath My Wings wins song of the year at the Grammys. Toronto's Speakers Corner launches a video booth outside the iconic City TV building. And the population of Toronto and the GTA was approximately 3.8 million. That's about half of what it is today. What were the topics of the day in the house? Let's take a look. >> The next item under routine proceedings are at our Will be oral questions. The leader of the opposition. >> Mr. Speaker, a question for the uh government house leader. Mr. Speaker, this househ has been dealing with the insurance question in committee for the last two days and uh the government has now decided to bring in a closure motion uh with respect to not only with respect to debate in the committee of the whole house but with respect to the final discussion of this bill in third reading. Mr. Mr. Speaker, this government has consistently fought efforts on the part of this party to open up the process and to try to give the citizens of this province a chance to defend their rights. I want to ask the minister this question. Can you tell me what are you so afraid of that you're bringing in closure at a time when we are just beginning to debate the substance of this bill? Order. >> Order. >> Two days at stage 26. >> Order. Order. >> Order. Closure of committee. Closure here. >> Order. We'll just >> we'll just wait if you want to waste the time. >> Order. >> Government House leader. >> Thank you very much. Uh Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition knows full well that this matter has been before this house for quite some time. Indeed. He made reference to the fact that uh the government has put forward a notice of motion for a time allocation after two days. I would say to the leader of the opposition that it is after 28 days of consideration over 107 hours of debate uh a complete analysis, 442 submissions before a committee of this legislature. Mr. Speaker, no one in this legislature would deny the right of the opposition to put forward its case and to have ample opportunity to do so. But by the same token, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people of this province fully understand that important questions must be decided in this house from time to time. And sometimes actions such as this are necessary to have important questions decided. This this bill this bill affects fundamentally the civil rights of every citizen of this province. Every citizen of this province. You are doing to the drivers of this pro of this province. What has been what has been done in terms of the threshold in terms of the the substance of this bill? What has been done in no other province? Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, how can you justify after two days of discussion on the house returning this this past month? >> It is two days >> two days of discussion. >> Mr. Speaker, order >> hearings hearings in which the public is invited are very different from discussions which take place among members of this house. There have been discussions now for two days in committee of the whole. Tell me what other time you brought in closure after two days discussion in committee of the whole on a bill as important as this one. Never. >> Mr. Speaker, once again, I will annunciate for the leader of the opposition the process that has been undertaken since the introduction of this bill. Bill 68 was introduced on October the 23rd of 1989. During the course of the debate at second reading approval in principle, some 26 members of this legislature spoke to the issue over 5 days of debate and the bill was approved in pence principle and referred to committee. The bill had ample clause by clause examination during the uh standing committee stage. I would also point out that it's interesting that after two days of uh committee of the whole debate, there has not been one single amendment put forward by either opposition party and it is clear that their intent is only to avoid dealing with the issue and rendering a decision on this important matter. >> Yeah, Mr. Speaker, >> final supplementary. Mr. >> Speaker, this government has taken its marching orders from the insurance industry of Ontario. That's where you're getting your marching orders. That's where you're getting your marching orders. And the people of Ontario are being denied the right and the members of this legislature are being denied the right to debate this issue and to show just how far you have gone in caving into the demands of the insurance industry in Ontario. That's what this represents. You're bringing in the guillotine earlier in a debate of larger substance than any government in the history of the province. That's what you're doing. You're going to pay a price for it. Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, 28 days of discussion, 107 hours of debate, ample discussion, over 442 submissions. The people of this province also have a right that important questions be decided, and that's our obligation, and we'll fulfill that. members rights to speak >> easier every time they voice >> right >> new question leader of the opposition >> I want to go back to the same minister on the same question can he tell me can he tell me at what other time in our history have you brought in closure on a bill of this importance at this stage to restrict debate in the way in which you've done it today. We had 5 days of discussion at second reading. We then had a closure motion from you, a time allocation motion on how the committee would work. >> Mr. Justice Bar, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario had 15 minutes 15 minutes before the committee in which to make a fundamental uh assertion about the mistakes and the flaws in this bill. What are you afraid of? What are you so afraid of when it comes to the question of civil rights in Ontario? Just what are you afraid of, >> Minister? Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to the previous questions, this bill has had ample discussion and debate. I would quote to the leader of the opposition some of the comments made by his own members yesterday. For instance, the member from uh from Atobico who suggested that the hearing process was excessive. The member from Al who stood in his place and indicated that it was their intention to ensure order. Order order. >> You're not here for the benefit of the executive council. tell you >> order supplementary. Mr. >> Speaker, there's a fundamental question here about how about about the rights of of of opposition members, about the rights of the public. You you attempted to restrict the rights of the public to hearings. >> You have restricted the access of the public. You restricted the rights of disabled people and their advocates to appear in terms of time and in terms of the arguments that they were allowed to make because of time restrictions. And now you are doing the same thing to members of the opposition because your 94 member red tie chorus thinks that's the way it can proceed without without any rights given to the opposition members. I want to ask the minister again. Can you tell us the doctor's the doctor's question of extra billing? Mr. Speaker, this government was prepared to let it go forever. question of equal funding for for separate schools. This government was prepared to let everybody have their say when it comes to an issue on which you know you're fundamentally wrong and fundamentally unpopular because you're taking rights away from every citizen of this province. You bring in closure and you bring in the guillotine. Why are you doing it? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this is not the first time that a time allocation motion has been brought into this house, and I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, that it will be the last time. >> And, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the notion that over 400 submissions on an important piece of legislation is the restriction of rights of either individuals within this province or the members of the opposition. And, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that members of the government and the government itself has a fundamental obligation to ensure that after significant debate, fundamentally important questions be decided in here. And I would also say to the leader of the uh opposition that this is not the first time that a time allocation motion has been brought in in committee of the whole. Uh as a matter of fact uh uh on July the uh 18th I believe time allocation motion was uh put before this house and adopted after one day of committee of the hall. >> Final supplementary >> difference Frank McKenna allows for debate. The reality, the reality is is that this government, this government believes that it has the right, the right to do whatever the hell it wants, regardless of regardless of the views of the public, regardless of the views of of those of us who oppose, you're not even prepared to give us the time. I want to ask the minister, why are the opinions of the insurance industry and the schedule of the insurance industry, the money demands of the insurance industry, the financial demands of the insurance industry, why are they more important to you than the opinion of the public of Ontario? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the leader of the opposition that after all of this debate, all of this discussion, some 107 hours, after two full days of committee of the whole house, not one single opposition amendment was presented and tabled to the committee of the whole. We began a process of clause by clause consideration so that we could put so that we could put before this house some 30 amendments that were derived from >> order order just I I think >> order silly argument >> order >> you want to get this bill passed to the insurance company and then they'll start writing the check >> are you Finished. >> New question. The member for Leeds Grenville. >> Same subject to the same minister. Uh, Mr. Speaker, uh, the legislation, the bill that's being brought in today, in our view, and I'm sure the view of the other opposition party is the most notable display of political arrogance since Pierre Trudeau described opposition members as nobodyies outside the House of Commons. This government is trying to send the message that opposition members are nobodyies inside this legislature. I want to say I think the minister has been talking about the committee process. I sat through that process. I know how committed the government and the government members in that committee were to truly listening to uh witnesses before us. There was no commitment. No listening to those witnesses. Some of the most moving testimony I've heard in nine years as a member. No, no real concern on the part of government members. They're dancing to the tune of the insurance industry. And Mr. Minister, I would like to know from you today, was this matter of closure discussed with representatives of the insurance industry? Was there a commitment made on the part of your government to invoke closure to ensure passing by a certain time? >> Boy, >> minister, >> Mr. Speaker, the member has made reference uh once again to the uh once again to the process that was undertaken before the standing committee of this legislature during the recent recess. Uh it is true that there were extensive public hearings held throughout this province. Uh it's unfortunate that that the member could not be present for all of those though I know he did make a contribution to uh uh to much of the debate. And I would point out that uh as a result of that input, Mr. Speaker, and the submissions received, the government has proposed a number of of amendments to its legislation. important legislation that quickly ensures that the victims of accidents get benefits paid to them uh quickly and effectively. And I would say to the uh to the honorable member that he has had ample opportunity to put forward his concerns to put forward his concrete uh suggestions for alternatives. Uh and to date uh as this house sits in consideration of this matter before the committee of the whole house uh there is not one single amendment available from either opposition party to consider during the course of the clause by clause discussions >> wouldn't have made any difference Order >> orderings. I remember that >> necessary during the hearings. He wanted the whole thing to be lost. >> December. >> It would be helpful if uh >> if members would allow other members to ask questions. They don't have any respect for >> order. >> They don't have any respect for you and what you're trying to do here. >> No, we'll we'll just wait. >> They want to waste the time. >> Supplementary. The member for Leeds Granville. Well, dealing with this arrogant overreaction on the part of the government, the minister suggests that I wasn't present for all of the public hearings. I want to tell him I was present for all of the public hearings. Unlike his minister of financial institutions who showed up in the first day and then disappeared and wouldn't be there for the public hearings, wouldn't show his face, wouldn't answer the questions or hear the concerns of the overwhelming number of witnesses who appeared before that committee. >> I want to say there was an agenda from the outset. The insurance industry was in on this deal. They knew the changes the minister proposed after the committee hearings. >> The whole thing was a ruse. There was no real intent to listen to the public. >> What we have here is one of the biggest giveaways to large corporations in the history of this country. Over an $800 million windfall to the insurance industry. >> Question. >> Mr. Speaker, I want to hear a little more justification on the part of this minister as to why he's shutting out the elected representative of this province from dealing with this very serious matter. >> Minister Mr. Speaker, after four days of clause by clause consideration within the committee itself and after two days of committee of the whole clause by clause consideration with no progress being made whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, no one denies the right of the opposition to put forward its objections, its concerns, or its alternatives. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this government is obliged to ensure that important matters that are before this house are ultimately decided and that's what we propose to do with the motion before the house today. >> Final supplementary. >> No, Mr. Speaker, the the the the uh minister is not uh describing the facts. The the this party has over 30 amendments to prop propose during the uh clause by clause consideration. He talks about the committee hearings. I want to tell them I want to tell them that we had 39 actuarial studies indicating the impact of this legislation. 39 actuarial studies tabled on the last day of public hearings so that witnesses appearing before us couldn't testify in the impact. We had rate filings by the industry indicating the true impact of rates that were given to the government. The government had the minister had them in his hands during the committee hearing process and he would not he refused to make them available to the committee. And I want to talk about a legal opinion on the constitutionality of this legislation. A very serious issue indeed which can impact on all of the taxpayers of this province. All of the taxpayers. He says we've got legal opinions that say it is constitutional. But he order >> you have a question. >> Make it fast. >> Let's lay the facts on the table. Let's give the people of this province the opportunity to really understand the impact, the effect that this legislation is going to have on all of us. >> All right. Really? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced on October the 23rd of 1989. >> The people of this province have had ample opportunity to consider the provisions that are contained in this legislation. This legislature has had ample opportunity to debate the issues that before that that are before it. The legislation that we're dealing with is important legislation to the vast majority of Ontario citizens who also happen to be automobile owners. Uh the legislation provides for uh appropriate mechanism to ensure that the victims of uh automobile accidents are adequately and quickly compensated. Uh the legislation uh makes provision uh to ensure that uh uh exorbitant rate increases don't take place in this province. Mr. Speaker, this issue has been before this house in one form or another now uh uh virtually since uh September of 1987. And Mr. Speaker, it's time that this question was decided. >> New question. The member for >> legal opinions you have. >> New question, the member for Carlton. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the premier on this insurance issue since he is really the architect of this uh no fault plan. >> Mr. uh >> assuming he had a plan when he said he had a plan. >> Mr. Premier said, >> one of the great problems that many people in the province are having is with the the equity in relation of the automobile insurance plan with other social net programs that the the the government has. If a if a if a person falls sick for no no apparent reason, uh they receive from the government through Minister of uh Community and Social Services probably somewhere between 700 and $1,000 a month depending on the the number of dependents that they might have. >> Under Bill 68, >> they don't have any money. >> The government says you must have insurance. It sets the rate. >> It sets the profit for the insurance company >> and it sets >> it sets the range of rates. >> The question >> and it sets the benefit. >> Now if a person is at fault, has in fact has in fact been convicted of careless driving >> and is injured as a result of an accident. he or she is is is entitled to somewhere between 2500 >> and $3,000 a month. There is a person that is driven by an by >> order >> order. What premier >> I think the honorable minister can explain to the honorable member why he is wrong in so many respects with in his question. >> Mr. Speaker, >> Mr. Speaker, if I might just to address several of the issues about which the member has some uh misconceptions. Uh >> first of all, we don't set the rates the under the current uh plan. Uh as you know, there is a capped rate under Bill 10 as it was then known of 7.6% increase over what was charged the year before. Uh that went to the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and there were um things done then to make sure that the increase was only the 7.6%. 6% u where there were variations of course in coverage and other things and there were changes under the new program there will be a prior rate approval in the sense that the commissioner will have to have filed with him uh the new rates that are being proposed for use those will have to be on the basis of the bill fair and and equitable rates and as he knows there are provisions for hearings where there are uh disagreements as to how those rates are are are brought forward by the companies he will also know that we don't set the benefit level with respect to this insurance as is in in the case of any other insurance policy which people are purchasing. They will look at their own personal circumstances to purchase what they need to provide for their coverage. Under the opaces of this bill, there is no question that there is what is I guess could be called um a core policy which provides the repayment of losses of wages weekly of up to $600 tax-free. uh that there are long-term benefits of up to $3,000 per month to a limit of $500,000 that there are payments for long-term that's long-term care that there are payments of up to $3,000 with or $1,500 with respect to supplementary medical. >> Thank you. >> Order. >> Order supplementary. >> Thank you very much. I mean, the minister has said that they're not setting the rates and then tells me how the auto insurance board sets the rate. He then tell and he then tells me that that there is a and and in his press announcement has noticed that the no fault benefits are up to $600 a week, which I equate out to somewhere between $2500 and $3,000 a week. I'd like to ask the minister I'd like to ask the minister under the under the under the criminal compensation board if someone walks into a store and injures somebody in the in the in the commission of a criminal offense >> Ontario Ontario legislation permits the victim $1,000 a month. Why are you giving gives a maximum of $1,000 per month to the victim? >> Minister, order. >> Why are you Why are you giving the person who caused the >> order? The question order. The question's been asked. Minister >> benefits. >> Um, Mr. Mr. Uh speaker, the honorable gentleman will know that the no fault benefits are based on a reimbursement of the lost wages of the people who are involved in the in the accident. Uh we made uh a decision that people who are involved in accidents get involved in accidents for many reasons but sometimes it's just a matter of inattention. The fact that somebody could reach to assist a child who has difficulty and for that moment of inattention they are then involved in an accident which causes them loss. We think they should have a repayment of their lost wages in that situation. We also know that there are situations where there are drunk drivers and people who committing who are committing criminal offenses in which there is a sense that there should be a loss of benefits coming back and we have made provision for those people who have violated the criminal statute for them not to receive their weekly payments back. However, we made a further decision, Mr. Speaker, and this is well within the ambit of policy decision with respect to how things are done in the province of Ontario. We decided that anybody in this province, everybody in this province who has uh an accident and physical injury must have supplementary medical and rehabilitative services available which are paid for them to get them back into the workplace. If they are not able to be rehabilitated and they require long-term care, they >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Order. >> Final supplementary. >> Thank you very much. Uh uh Mr. Speaker, uh I'd like to ask the minister, has he uh because you have stated in this legislature and you're supporting your house leader with regard to the closure on this debate, have you read each and every brief of every delegation that appeared in front of the general government uh committee? And uh have you responded to the questions that uh Mr. Ralph Neater put in front of the committee? >> Minister. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, I took note of each of the um of the briefs that were presented. I have had material briefings on each of them either by the parliamentary assistant who was at each of the meetings and I have people also from my staff and from the staff of the ministry of financial institutions who have advised me of each of the people who have presented. I have gone through parts of all of them. I have not read every word of every brief but I have gone through the briefs. I have received them and I know the content of them. I have uh in addition to that in addition to that I've read the advertisement which the progressive conservative party put in the financial post yesterday which uh is made up of a series of questions which lead to inference of inaccurate information being left with the people of the province. This from a party that prides itself in being fiscally responsible at a time when there are about $4.5 million in debt. >> I can tell the honorable gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that Order. >> Order. >> I hope the member for Tobacco Rexdale is careful. New question. Later the opposition. Question to the Minister of Labor. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a question about the the pathetic state of Ontario's minimum wage and refer him to an ad which uh appeared in business week uh from the Ontario government in which they say uh encouraging American businesses to come here not only not only singing the praises of the free trade agreement which is certainly a conversion uh but they say you'll like our wage rates pointing out that Ontario's uh average hourly compensation in manufacturing is lower than Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is a reason for businesses to come here. They can pay people peanuts. I want to ask the minister, how do you justify the incredible loss in purchasing power of the minimum wage since the mid 1970s? And in particular, how do you explain, Mr. Speaker, the simple fact that a minimum wage earner in Ontario today earns less than it costs to rent an average vacant two-bedroom apartment in Metropolitan Toronto. >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. I uh I think I had a similar question yesterday and I I pointed out that uh that uh the minimum wage here in Ontario is the highest of of any jurisdiction in Canada, well higher than any jurisdictions in the neighboring states. And I also would like to point out that we as a government are committed to ensuring that people are treated fairly and equitably. I will give an example of that. We introduced the pay equity legislation which by all accounts anywhere in the world is the most progressive legislation around pay equity. >> The provincial government the provincial government alone, Mr. Speaker, committed I think about $80 million to ensuring that we implemented our pay equity act fairly and equitably. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that that I don't think we need to make any apologies about fairness and equity. I said the other day as well that we review our minimum wage each year and we'll be doing that again shortly. >> Mr. Speaker, under the minimum wage under the minimum wage, the minimum wage is a kind of pay equity plan because it gives an equal right to men and women to starve. That's what your minimum wage does with respect to pay equity. And I and I ask you, Minister, the the way in which it's been done is that the minimum wage is increased from time to time like a kind of Christmas present from a beneficent 19th century lady bountiful. I want to ask the minister, when are you going to establish when are you finally going to establish a connection, a connection between the minimum wage and the average industrial wage? When are you going to establish a connection in a way that's fair? and finally establish and finally establish a minimum wage that's just in the province of Ontario. >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we we review it each year and we take many factors into consideration, including that, but also including the such such factors as what impact might it have on jobs, what impact might what impact might it have on some industries such as our tourism industry, how would it compare to tourism industries in in neighboring jurisdictions? And so, Mr. Speaker, we consider many factors as we establish our minimum wage each year. I would say once again, you look at the minimum wage in Ontario, it is the highest of any jurisdiction in Canada, substantially higher than the neighboring states in the US, and one which which we each year must review in light of both what is uh necessary, what is necessary in terms of ensuring that we create jobs, that we have stable and vibrant industries, and that we uh we reflect the needs of all of the citizens. So, Mr. Speaker, we once again we review it each year. We are the highest of any jurisdiction. It will be once again reviewed in uh in in the near term. Thank you. >> New question. The member for Sarnia. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. I want to um uh I want to speak to the minister about the Ontario Hydro question for a moment if I might. Uh the minister is aware that the uh the recent strike vote taken by QP 10000 would indicate that um in fact there is a hydro strike which is eminent. Uh Ontario Hydro has been warning about brown outs and blackouts that will occur if a strike does in fact take place and that certain uh important and uh uh vital services in the province of Ontario will be affected by such brownouts. hospitals, schools, industries, uh perhaps uh uh others as well. Does the minister agree with the the position that has been announced publicly by Ontario Hydro that such blackouts are in fact inevitable and will occur if in fact a strike takes place? Do you agree with that statement? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um I I would want to respond to the honorable member, but I do want to preface my comments by recognizing that even as I respond to your question, discussions uh between both parties are continuing and I don't think we should assume the inevitability of a work stoppage. But the union did indicate yesterday that if in fact there was not a resolution of the issue at the bargaining table and if there were to be a strike, it would be a full work stoppage. If that in fact did occur, we believe that there would be very serious and immediate impacts for residential and business and and industrial customers. We have been working with hydro management. We've also been in contact with representatives of local utilities to try and assess the magnitude of that impact. Uh there would be a a significant loss of of power that could not be fully replaced with purchases. There would undoubtedly be some rotating blackouts, although we are assured that everything would be done to maintain power to all designated essential services. >> Supplementary. Madame Minister, uh local 1000 uh have indicated in some of their uh press announcements that in fact the amount of uh power lost as a result of the shutdown of the nuclear system uh could be in offset by a relatively small purchase of power from some of our neighboring sources. They have indicated from their position that it is in fact not inevitable if there is a work stoppage that brownouts or blackouts will occur but that Ontario Hydro will be in a position to purchase the needed additional power from some other sources. Now we have two of the parties to this dispute sending out signals which are in fact contradictory. I am not suggesting that a strike is necessarily inevitable, but I think the government does have to place itself in a position where it has some contingency available. Can this minister assure the house and through this house the people of Ontario that we will not suffer from power disruptions which will cause brownouts or blackouts? Minister >> Speaker, I would certainly assure the House and uh the Ontario public uh that in the Ministry of Energy and in fact in all affected ministries of the government, we will be monitoring this situation on a constant basis and assessing exactly what the impact of any potential work stoppage would be so that in fact that impact could be managed. Obviously uh we are very uh dependent upon Ontario Hydro's assessment of how the power needs could best be met. It is our best analysis as a ministry of energy that even with full purchase of power that we would in all likelihood not be able to meet the current full power demand of the province of Ontario and we would have to manage that shortage of power. But everything possible would be done in order to ensure that we were managing that in a way which was responsible that that everything was being done to ensure that essential services were met. And in fact, I do want to come back to the fact that there is still discussion going on. And I'm I believe that whatever the disagreements between the two sides about the magnitude of the impact of a work stoppage, both sides in the dispute recognize that it would have a serious impact and that the focus would be on resolution of the issue so that that would not occur. >> New question. The member for Dawn Mills. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Minister, it is >> it has been recognized that Ontario's labor force is rapidly changing and by the year 2010, it is projected that 85% of those entering the paid labor force will be women, racial minorities, people with disabilities and Aboriginal people. For Ontario to remain competitive, we must fully use all our human resources and promote employment equity in all sectors. Minister, my views on employment equity are well known. I believe the only solution to the present discrimination in the workplace is mandatory employment equity. My view is quite opposite to that taken by John Downing of the Toronto Sun and other Neanderthalss who believe that maintaining the status quo is movement enough in this area. Minister, what initiative has this government undertaken to promote employment equity? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, the government of Ontario firmly believes that employment equity is about building a society in which every person participates, but it's also about building and maintaining a prosperous economy. The government has announced equity goals and timetables for our own public service, and we have announced a fund which ministries can use to effectively bring into uh uh effect programs within their ministries to develop employment equity programs. My ministry, the Ontario Women's Directorate, has taken a lead in working with the public and private sector in assisting them to promote employment equity programs. More than 100 groups from all sectors across the province took part in consultations on employment equity policy options for the province. Those consultations were chaired by the Minister of Citizenship. >> Thank you, Minister. supplementaries for the Ontario public service. You state that you speak of goals and timetables and incentive funds. Yet for the private sector and for the broader public sector, you speak not of goals and timets but of policy options, voluntary initiatives and discussions. I would like to know how successful voluntary initiatives are and how does the government recognize successful voluntary employment equity initiatives of employers, unions, associations, and other community groups. >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government established an employment equity awards program to recognize significance achievements in in employment equity on the part of employers and unions and community groups. We've been honoring those employment equity programs for women. But this year, our award program was different. We brought in the expansion of employment equity programs for Aboriginal peoples, for racial minorities, for people with disabilities in addition to those programs for women. The awards program provides examples of positive benefits of employment equity so that those businesses, employers, unions, community groups can act as role models to other employers in the community. The winners were announced last night. They were Superior Performance Products, the Coalition of Visible Minority Women, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, and the Ryerson Faculty Association, the Social Panin Council of Metropolitan Toronto, and the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, >> the Ontario Federation of Labor, IBM Canada, and the Anagon Institute. >> Thank you. New question, the member for Windsor Riverside. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Health. I am sure the Minister of Health is aware of the very sad and unacceptable situation at Preston Spring Gardens Rest Home in Cambridge where for the last 10 days the staff and the uh the staff of the facility have been bringing in food to feed the 30 residents at that rest home. And they have had to pay for the fuel in order to heat the rest home as the owners have abandoned the rest home. And just yesterday, the rest home went into receiverhip. I'd like to ask the minister, what is her ministry doing or the government doing to protect these 30 residents and plan future appropriate placements for these residents as quickly as possible? >> Minister. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to refer the question to the Minister responsible for senior citizens. It's >> been referred to the minister. >> Mr. Speaker, I'm appalled to hear that uh seniors may have been left with inadequate food and heat for a period of 10 days and that none of the appropriate local officials were not notified. Let me tell you what I did. As soon as I found out about this situation, my staff immediately this morning, contacted local officials, including the placement coordination service and the medical officer of health and put all appropriate people in touch with one another. I want to assure you that every resident of Preston Springs Gardens Retirement Home will be properly cared for and will have food and heat. Representatives of the receiver, Tushan Ross, met with the administrator of the home today to discuss the future of the home and I've been advised that the receiver plans to keep the home open supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly glad to hear that the minister and the government have become aware of the situation a after 10 year 10 days of this going on. Perhaps what the minister could respond to is the other question. The people in Cambridge are asking themselves today. The government of Ontario, the Liberal government of Ontario said 5 years ago that the whole issue of retirement homes and rest homes for seniors were going to be studied and that proposals for leg a legislative response would be coming forward. That was 5 years ago. Now we've got this problem going on. We have no standards, no staff requirements, nothing to protect these people. It's not anyone else's fault for this situation other than yours and your government. And when are you going to act to protect these people? >> Speaker, even if there had been provincial regulations, we uh this incident would not have been prevented. I know this for a fact. I am concerned with the well-being of all senior citizens all across Ontario of any place. This is a very complex issue without an obvious solution. There's not even a definition of what arrest and retirement hose is all about. Municipalities can license and regulate rest and retirement homes and a number of municipalities do so. >> However, I am concerned, deeply concerned about the quality of care being provided and I'm looking into the lack and I'm looking into the lack of standard in this area. My advisory committee submitted the report with all kind of recommendations. There's not even a consensus. My role as a minister responsible for senior cit citizens affairs is to act as a facilitator. I have the cooperation now of the ministry of health com housing disabled and my ministry. We are looking into the issue. >> Thank you. >> We are concerned and I hope to be able to find a solution in the near future. >> New question the the member for Missaga South. >> Mr. Premier, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the premier. Mr. Premier, I held a public information forum in my writing on Bill 68 so the public might know what your automobile insurance bill was about. I invited a member from your minister staff to attend and your minister refused to send anybody. My question is to you based on the fact that at that forum Mr. Spurge, who is the president of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, announced the change in the weekly benefits from $450 a week to $600 a week before your government publicly made that announcement. Can you explain to us why the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario knew that, made the announcement publicly before anybody else knew about it? >> Premier, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's already explained that institutions >> do know about the public forum. Uh we in fact uh knew that she was holding this public forum but she didn't wish to have uh any uh politicians from the Liberal Party visiting her that evening. We had made available people to visit but she would not allow us to attend the truth. And the fact that she would stand there and indicate that we wouldn't send a speaker out to attend one of her public forums which was a political public forum is something that I have to disagree with. Now with respect to Mr. Near, he happens to be the leader of an association, a provincial association. He was there because we had had chats with people about various options and he expressed his opinion. That's what happens in these events. If you're going to talk to people around the province, and we talk to a lot of people every day about various options that are available, it's up to him to make whatever assumptions he may want. But until things are announced, those are not official government policy. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a problem. I don't know how to tell you that what the minister has just said is not true. >> We were not. I Mr. Speaker, I personally made I personally made 15 telephone calls to the deputy minister. I was not offered a Liberal member of parliament to speak for that ministry. And when and why is it why is it, Mr. Speaker, how is it that you don't have bureaucrats that can explain your legislation? Any case, my question to you, Mr. Minister, is this. just tell us how >> you choose to ignore the public. You choose to have the president of the insurance brokers association of this on of Ontario to make that announcement before anybody else. Mr. Minister, you have said in this house this afternoon that you did not receive any amendments from the opposition. My question to you is this. You as a government have presented 32 amendments to this legislation. Why is it that in none of those 32 amendments have you addressed a single concern of the disabled community of this province? >> Minister, >> uh Mr. Speaker, that's a totally different question we started off with. But let us be very clear about this about this person's uh desire to have a spokesperson on this policy at her quote public forum. She did not wish to have a politician from the Liberal Party attend because she didn't want it to be quote political. She made this a political forum. She knew it was a political forum and called the bureaucrats so that she could get a bure bureaucrat on the hook to answer political questions. We said, "Why don't you ask somebody who's political to go to your political forum?" That's the case in this thing. But you don't want competition out there. You're opposed to somebody who can politically go toe-to-toe with you on the deficiencies of your understanding about the politics of this. But that's your purpose. Don't don't don't blame us about the fact about the fact that you don't want liberals at your public forums. But with respect to our amendments, Mr. Speaker, our amendments are designed to provide the best coverage that this program can to people whether they are disabled by auto accident or otherwise. We want timely and very good compensation to go to people who are victims of auto insurance of auto accidents. and the auto insurance program and the amendments that are put forward here are designed to improve the program after >> I think it's time for another question. >> Order. >> Time for a new question. The member for Peter. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Government Services. Mr. Speaker, the people of Peterbr were delighted that the Minister could visit our community to announce the servicing of the government lands which have been released for housing. Mr. Speaker, my my question is simply this. When does the minister expect that these affordable homes will come on stream? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In September of 1988, the uh Ministry of Government Services uh and the Ministry of Housing signed an agreement with the city of Peterborough uh in cooperation with the federal ministry of housing for the development of residential lands to increase the supply of affordable housing in Peter. I'm I'm sorry to interrupt the minister, but >> I'd like to remind the member for Missaga South South and the Minister of Financial Institutions that we do have a standing order 20B that no member shall interrupt while another member is speaking. Do you understand that order? >> You do. Good minister. >> Thank you. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, my ministry has been working closely with both the Ministry of Housing, the city of Peterborough, and the uh uh federal government. In February, I was pleased to join the member of Peterborough uh for an announcement of the uh uh servicing of a major new residential subdivision. Uh proposal call had gone out. The contract was awarded to a local firm in Peterborough, and we hope to issue the uh tender for the construction of this servicing agreement. uh uh either this summer or fall and uh from there we will no doubt proceed with the call for the construction of the homes. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, I I appreciate the minister's interest in affordable housing. Uh Mr. Speaker, the 326 affordable units that are involved only occupy 30 acres of 170 acres in the land assembly. And by way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I' I'd like to ask the minister, are there any plans for the remaining government lands in Peterbr? And if so, Mr. Speaker, does the minister have a timetable for them? >> Minister, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The project has been announced, >> total of 170 acres. Uh phase two of the development is planned for the uh land south of this 30 acre parcel. Uh I'm happy to say that uh my ministry has submitted a draft plan for approval of phase 2 uh to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and this proposal is out for uh comment. It envisions 503 single and semi- detached units, a church block and one block for medium residential development. official. My ministries will continue to work with the city of Peterborough and with the uh federal ministry and provincial ministry of housing on these very significant proposals which are just one part of our ongoing commitment to affordable housing in this province. >> New question the member for Wellland Thor. >> Speaker, a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Susan Berg is a small business person in Wellland who's been running her bookstore for some 21 years now, raising her three children and supporting herself with a lot of hard work. For about as long as they've been in existence, she's been a retailer of Ontario lottery tickets, catering to the people in the neighborhood, many senior citizens who don't have cars and rely upon her uh as as the retailer of those same tickets. Now, after those many years, and she is a pioneer in the ticket distribution and retailing system, she along with five others in Wellland, including Barttox Jewelers, just up the road, one block on King Street, have been told by the distributor in Niagara, that they're not going to get any more lottery tickets, that they won't be delivered to them anymore. Uh, surely uh the minister could tell us uh that he doesn't think that that's a fair approach to these retailers who have pioneered in the lottery distribution system. >> Minister, >> thank you, Mr. speaker and I appreciate the interest of the member from the Well and Thorald area in the people who live and work in his community. Uh as a result of an inquiry made by him, I have had the opportunity to review the case that he brings to uh to the floor today. I want him to know that uh the people who distribute lottery tickets are independent businessmen and as such they're interested in the profit and loss and the bottom line uh portion of the financial statement. That means that sometimes they do have to review their operations and look very carefully at calls that they might make that are not in sense cost effective. The Ontario lottery corporation has established guidelines for its distributors. Uh they include suggestions that they service uh retailers who have low sales once every couple of weeks or that they attempt to service them by mail. And uh I know that the distributor in that particular area has looked at other options, but unfortunately the uh the retailer that you identify has particularly low sales and we're not sure that that outlet has the potential for growth. >> Supplementary. >> Well, it's sad to hear that because once again, the minister should be reminded that these people pioneered the lottery system and lottery proceeds, as we know, are very important to small communities across Ontario. These retailers are more than pleased to have ticket deliveries bi-weekly. That is to say, every other week, they're more than pleased to do anything they can to cooperate in the distribution. Surely the minister knows that distributorship involves taking uh the fat with the lead that you can't have your cake and eat it too under these circumstances. Why won't the minister Why won't the minister insist that his distributor play fair with those small business people who have worked so hard as a part of the lottery system? or is he really not that concerned about small business persons be it in Wellland or elsewhere? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member from Well and Thor that I'm indeed concerned about small businessmen. I'm so concerned that I want them to be able to stay in business and I feel that people who are in the business of distributing lottery tickets have the right to survival just as any other small businessman does. I can recognize that the member from Well and Thorald may not be that concerned about independent businessmen. his uh background uh in the legal profession may make it such that that he has not had to to be concerned about those issues. But we have to provide opportunities. >> We have to provide opportunities for small businessmen to make a living and to survive and that's what uh the distributors with the Ontario lottery corporation tickets are trying to do. >> New question, the member for London North. >> Mr. Speaker, my uh question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Uh, Mr. Minister, Bill 68 does in fact now define two two kinds of claimants in Ontario today. One are those injured by reasons of the use of an automobile and the other is all other victims suffering from any personal injury and I'll give an example. Personal injuries, those in injured in cars because the roads are the problem can sue. uh those injured in airlines, trains, um fires, um those injured by way of negligence can sue. Uh we have a tort law that protects all of those incidents across the province of Ontario today. We now don't have a tort law for people who are the injured victims in car accidents. Why did you move in this direction to exclude that particular group of people? >> Minister, >> uh Mr. Speaker, again, uh if I might, I know that the um honorable member wouldn't want to leave the u um idea that there is no tort action involved in uh the province after bill 68 becomes law because clearly there is a threshold which allows once passed uh will allow tort action to occur and in fact there will be suits in Ontario with respect to those people injured as a result of auto accidents. Um the only uh difference uh now will be that there will be a substantial number of people who will not have to sue because they will be getting uh enhanced no fault benefits. As you know, we've increased the weekly uh wage reimbursement to $600 per week taxfree. We've increased the uh uh medical and supplementary medical and rehab uh uh monthly payments. We've increased the long-term care to $3,000 per month. Those things are different because in other situations like those you enumerated, uh there are not no fault benefits available to people, uh there is not a a way to uh uh receive compensation for medical expenses and for lost wages outside the tort action. We have a long time ago, Mr. Speaker, uh made moves in various places uh to uh deal in a more efficient manner of reimbursing Thank you. I just leave a little in case there's a supplementary >> supplementary. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our tort law does protect all of the actions that I described before. And in fact, what we now have is the kind of a tort law that is extremely desperate towards victims of car accidents. And I'll be very specific. We had a young head injured boy come before the committee and he told you what his concerns were. He was offered some $40,000 in a settlement by the by the insurance company. He did have to go to court. His great concern was that under the new law with a very low threshold under this new law he won't be able to sue. What can we tell the victim of head injured, those victims with head injuries with regards to this law? How do you prove that you're physically permanently disabled when you can't do it with pictures? >> Minister, >> Mr. Minister. >> Um, Mr. Speaker, um the the member is correct that in our current tort system, there is a burden of proof in several ways. One is that you have actually suffered damage and loss. That's a tribal issue. Some people lose on that score. there is the issue of liability and people lose on that score whether they have a brain injury or whether they have any kind of other injury. There are all kinds of issues that preclude now people from from recovering under our system of tort law. Now what we have done is increased the no fault benefits to ensure that more people receive benefits quicker and uh without concern for establishing liability and otherwise. I would have to tell the honorable uh member, Mr. speaker that our system is more humane and in fact will provide us with a better way of providing money for people who are injured as a result of accidents in Ontario. >> Thank you. New question, the member for Nepian. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Um my question is to the Minister of Transportation. Uh Mr. Minister, business people in Ottawa Carlton are asking for better airlines to the United States. Right now, the economic growth uh of our area is hampered because there are no direct flights from Ottawa to the US Midwest, especially Chicago. I realize that the federal minister of transportation has to decide on whether he will allow a Canadian or American airline to serve Ottawa, but I'm wondering whether the province is willing to support the business community in Ottawa Carlton in their dealings with Doug Lewis. I would like to ask the minister therefore whether he knows of this concern which is very important for the economic future of our area and whether he's willing to assist us in this regard. Minister, Mr. Speaker, I thank the honorable member for raising this issue uh with me and bringing this to my attention. Uh I do note that there have been uh increasing amounts of discussion of this issue and I'm sure a number of people in Ottawa Carlton have been speaking to him. Uh clearly we have a problem in that Ottawa Carlton is the last area the last major center in Canada without uh without direct air links to uh to the United States and indeed there are other communities within Ontario and elsewhere who would like which would which have some now and would like additional air links. Uh this is a very important issue in terms of the economic relationship between communities such as Ottawa, Carlton, Chicago and others. And uh when I meet with Mr. Lewis next month. While it is an area of federal jurisdiction, I can give the honorable member and his community a commitment that it's an area I will raise. We have had our last agreement was back in 1974. The discussions have not moved forward as quickly as Ottawa Carlton uh would like and needs. Uh and I hope that in my discussions with Mr. Lewis, I can offer encouragement to move forward with on this issue just as quickly as possible. That completes the aotted time for oral questions and responses.