Question Period Rewind - May 9 1989

Welcome to Question Period Rewind. I'm Donna Skellyy, speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Let's go back to 1989. The most significant global event was the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall that marked a pivotal moment in ending the Cold War. Back at home, the Canadian Space Agency was created and combat roles in the Royal Canadian Air Force were open to women for the very first time. Now, let's tune in to the conversations the MPPPs were having. [music] >> [music] >> Oral questions. >> The leader of the opposition or questions. >> Speaker, I uh have a question for the premier today. Uh I wonder the Globe and Mail on Friday, May the 5th quotes his minister of state for uh the disabled. the uh Mr. Mancini as follows in the Globe and Mr. Mancini is not in the house, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mancini ruled out any prospect for employment equity legislation as a means of improving the situation. Uh he was referring, of course, Mr. Speaker, to the very serious problems of unemployment and uh that face members of the disabled community. Uh Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the premier can tell us uh how he squares that statement that there would be no legislation from the Ontario government with respect to employment equity with the commitment that the premier personally made to me uh before he was premier which is contained in the accord which we signed this month four years ago where he stated very clearly on behalf of the Liberal Party that they were in fact committed to mandatory affirmative action in the private and in the public sectors and that that involved passing laws to that effect. >> Premier Mr. Speaker, the government's undertaken a number of step steps uh in that regard. Uh my honorable friend will be aware of I wasn't aware of the uh comments of my colleague in in the cabinet, but I can tell you that we have uh taken a number of step steps in the private in the public sector and uh we will continue in that regard. supp supplementary. Mr. >> Speaker, there's a book about the civil service which is called When in Doubt Mumble. And I whenever I watch the premier in action, I always know when we're when we've uh hit something of a payload when he starts to mumble as badly as he just did. I wonder if he could tell us I wonder if he could tell us today just to answer to try to to answer simply simply answer the question. The treasurer's turned. He's laughing so hard he's turned around. But I I wonder if the I wonder if the premier could >> obviously never >> my uh >> supplementary question perceptive. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the premier if he can tell us quite simply this and that is is the government planning to introduce a law regarding employment equity or not? >> Mr. Speaker, I can tell my honorable friend that these matters are always under review. We started um within the private public sector as I told my honorable friend and we've made considerable progress in that regard. >> Mr. Speaker, um I have uh a copy of a cabinet document which is dated December the 8th uh and December the 30th, 1988. It's a cabinet submission with regard to the question of employment equity. It's a devastating indictment of uh the failure of the current program. Uh it outlines the fact that the liberal liberals are on record back in 1985 in their accord with the New Democrats in the 1986 throne speech and in a race relations policy statement. It says that the government's commitment which is not matched to date by any action is a political embarrassment and it states that the approach that so far endorsed by the government which the premier repeated again today is ineffective results in limit limited progress and in minimal gains. Mr. Speaker, it's obvious from the statement made by the Minister for the Disabled, which the premier did not deny, which the premier did not refute when I gave him an opportunity to do so in answer to the first question, that the government has in fact rejected the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture with respect to employment equity, and that it plans no such legislation as recommended specifically in the uh in the cabinet document, which I uh which I have. Can the premier tell us why you have rejected the uh recommendations made to you with regard to a legislated program and why you continue to dither when the evidence even in your own cabinet document is simply overwhelming that the current system is not working and that the price for discrimination is being paid by women being paid by the disabled by visible minorities and by our native people right across the province. [applause] >> I can't >> the prime minister >> comment on some cabinet submission. my honorable friend uh uh has or may think is accurate may not be. There are many many cabinet documents floating around. Uh you from time to time come possession of them and that's fine. I that's uh that's uh no uh no problem to me. Let me tell you that we have in our view made uh progress in this regard. Uh we will continue to honor our commitments and uh and I think my honorable friend can rest assured that that's the case. >> New question. >> Mr. Speaker, uh another question. >> The leader of the opposition In the absence of the Minister of the uh of the environment uh known affectionately now to all in Sunundry as as Bingo Bradley, >> uh Mr. Speaker, uh apparently Bingo was aware for several months of the uh fact that tainted fuel was being sold widely in this province. And when I say tainted, I mean effectively poisoned with PCBs and other hazardous wastes. that this has been under investigation for several months according to the statements that uh the minister made outside the house yesterday. I want to ask the premier how he squares that statement by his own minister with his government's obligation to the public health of the people of this province. Is he not in fact telling us that this government has known for months that drivers have been filling their tanks with poison fuel that people have been exposed to this stuff for months on end? and that his government did not have the courage and decency either to tell the federal government according to the federal minister or more important the people of this province with regard to a major public health problem. [applause] >> Mr. Speaker, um let me say my honorable friend I think will recognize that our minister of the environment has been very proactive in these matters. Um and I think that you will recognize that uh that he has moved and promised tough enforcement in this regard and is carrying through. Uh he is I am told in Ottawa today discussing this matter and others with the federal minister of the environment because there is a question of shared jurisdiction but I think you can rest assured that uh he is on top of this matter and doing everything that can be done. >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can ask the premier then. When did he discover when did the premier of this province discover that there were in fact tainted fuels uh being sold in the province of Ontario? Can you tell us that? >> Premier. >> Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge other than what I read of tainted fuels being sold. >> Last supplementary. >> So, Mr. Speaker, the minister never told the premier. The minister never told the cabinet. He never told the federal minister of the environment who reported yesterday in the House of Commons that he wasn't aware of anything until he read about it in the newspaper. And he's never told the people of the province of Ontario. Never told one single citizen that he has been aware of an investigation for months affecting the public health of the people of this province. Again, I put my question to the premier. Don't you think the minister owed it to the people of this province to tell them that there was poison fuel being sold at pumps right across this province and that their health was at risk because of what was going on? Don't you think he owed that to the people of Ontario? >> Uh I can't speak to what level of knowledge was held by the minister or by the uh people in the ministry. Well, I I heard it yesterday. Well, you heard it yesterday and uh so uh well, I can tell my honorable friend uh if you knew all about it, why didn't you stand up in this house and mention it 6 weeks ago or 6 months ago? I say on top of the situation and uh and I think you can rest assured of that. >> New new question. The member for Cernia. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, >> my question on the same subject is to u the solicitor general. I understand that the uh minister stated this morning that the Ontario provincial police have in fact been involved in the in the investigation of toxic fuel that was transported from New York State and sold in Ontario. The minister would also be aware that a meeting was held in Ashawa on April the 20th of this year and the meeting was between federal and provincial revenue officials. The purpose of that particular meeting was to continue cooperative efforts to undercover and to prosecute actions in the petroleum industry with respect to uh the transportation of these fuels across the border. Can the minister assure this house that at that particular meeting the question of which was held with the federal government the question of the transportation of illegal toxic chemicals being blended with fuel oils was in fact discussed as well as the issue of the lost revenue which we understand amounts to some hundred million annually. Can you advise the house of that please? >> Uh yes Mr. Speaker, the the member from Sonia is misinformed if he was informed that I stated we were involved in the investigation of the present tainted fuel. Uh the investigation which you referred to la the member referred to laterally in his question uh was raised at the time of the auditor's report uh the question of fuels going back and forth across the border without appropriate taxes being paid. This is in truth being investigated and that investigation is ongoing. As far as the present situation is concerned, the OP have made themselves available to the Ministry of the Environment, but as of my last checking on the matter, the Ministry of the Environment was conducting their own investigation without the assistance of the OP. >> Supplementary. Well, I'm advised that uh the minister is involving the OP in the investigation and uh through a discussion that I held with federal officials this morning, I have been advised by them that at no time were they told by the province of Ontario, either by the OP or by the Ministry of the Environment, that there was a traffic uh that was occurring with respect to the shipment of toxic fuel. The federal customs officials, which does come under the OP investigation as it relates to revenue, were also not informed to the best of my knowledge. The federal minister of the environment stood up in the House yesterday and indicated that he was totally unaware of the fact that these toxic contaminated fuels were being shipped from the United States into Canada. Given those facts, Madame Minister, and given the fact that you are responsible for the OP, which has been involved at least peripherally, in some of these questions, why would your government choose to wait until today? According to the premier where his minister of the environment is now consulting with the federal department of the environment, why would you not have in any way exchanged this information even as it relates to revenue losses that are occurring if not the toxic contaminant problem that we're getting to with the federal officials? Why is there not more of a cooperative undertaking between the two levels of government in a matter this serious? solicitor general. >> Mr. Speaker, >> the solicitor general >> constantly through his question mixes in the investigation of revenue with the investigation of toxic materials. This must be confusing to the public. It certainly is not confusing to me because I have a very clear distinction in my mind between the two investigations. The one is to do with provincial revenue and is being carried on in an ongoing way by the OP. We'd be glad to share the information with anybody that that wants that. That is ongoing. Of course, investigations themselves are carried on appropriately by the police in a confidential way. As for the toxic matter, it's a completely separate matter and the OP have not been involved. >> Last supplementary >> read over that. >> Some months ago, the Minister of the Environment indicated he was aware of the illegal shipment of these blended fuels containing toxic contaminants. I am in fact putting together the question of revenue as well as the shipment of these toxic contaminants because they may well involve the selfsame transporters of these goods. It would only appear to be logical that if in fact these same individuals are shipping this material into Canada and evading certain taxes which heavens only knows our treasurer needs so badly, then would it not follow, Madame Minister, that your OP investigating unit, which is dealing with the question of revenue, would put together the issue of the toxic contaminant transportation with the Minister of the Environment and share this information with your federal colleagues so that they too can be aware of the severity of this particular problem. Why would you not at least advise the RCMP or would you not involve any of the federal authorities in connection with the direct and very specific responsibilities of the OP in connection with this case? >> Questions have been asked. Solicitor General, >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, I would repeat that the OP were investigating a revenue matter and they had not made any connection between this and any other matter. It may well be that as this new investigation got underway, they will look to see if there's any overlap in persons or in dealers, but since you were looking into one matter and did not know the other existed, how could you be reporting on the other to anybody? They were not looking at the other and had not discovered toxic matters. So the reporting of it would remain uh >> the the OP were not aware as they investigated the revenue matter of any further problem. They were investigating a revenue matter and dealing in that level. What happens from here on in remains to be seen. >> New question. The member for Missaga South. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Citizenship. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is presently under a very dark cloud, a position I hope the minister does not want to continue. Just yesterday, further allegations reported to my staff revealed that Mr. Shriter, the director of compliance and investigation for Ontario at the commission, was flown to Toronto three times from the Yukon for job interviews at the expense of the commission, given the job, and then had relocation expenses paid. All this was done while other qualified, visible minority group applicants in Ontario were rejected. The minister admitted yesterday that Mr. Anand was the only minority group member in management positions. Will the minister admit today that both funds and hiring practices have been suspect at the commission over the past few years? >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think uh we must remember that that the human rights commission is embarking on some substantial change. change designed to make it a more effective a more effective human rights commission. We've added in the last week, I think $3 million worth of resources. The commission is following the reports that we had prepared, consultants reports that we had prepared about a year and a half ago, all designed to help to make it more effective. In terms of looking at the staffing through the commission as I think the member knows that throughout the commission there are I think roughly 40% women at each level and roughly 25% from the visible community. In terms of the seven people that were recruited most recently they are all qualified individuals extremely competent and and the process that was followed in the recruiting I am told followed the public service guidelines. So I'm satisfied on two fronts. One is that our chief commissioner is moving to substantially improve and enhance the commission's ability to carry out the enforcement of our code. I'm also satisfied that the commissioner has recruited good people. He's followed the procedures that have been outlined by the government. And so in that respect on both of those counts, Mr. Speaker, I'm satisfied. >> Supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, the public in the minority groups are not satisfied. And when you say that the commission has been under substantial change, you're right, but it's not a change in the direction of which I would be proud as minister. I would like to ask uh Mr. speaker that the minister given the fact that there is some real evidence and there are questions being asked about the suspect hiring practices and financial dealings of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Will the minister agree to a review by the public accounts committee on a priority basis to deal immediately with this very serious matter? >> Minister, >> you Mr. speaker, the the chief commissioner and incidentally an individual who who I think when announced I think all three parties strongly support and because of his exceptional record in this area. The chief commissioner has made it known on many occasions he would be happy indeed he'd welcome an opportunity to meet with whatever the appropriate committee is of the legislature to review what's happening at the commission to review their priorities to review their plans. He's made this point in the past, Mr. Speaker. So, I'm sure the the chief commissioner, if the committee of the appropriate committee of the legislature wanted to to have him appear before the committee to review what's going on at the commission to review their priorities, their policies, he, as he has been in the past, would would welcome that opportunity. >> Last supplementary. >> Well, that's really encouraging, Mr. Speaker, because if the commissioner has offered that opportunity, then I would assume that you as the minister would be totally in agreement with the public accounts committee reviewing the Ontario Human Rights Commission immediately on a priority basis. That's the only answer that I can extract from your reply and that's encouraging. I want to ask you as a further supplementary if the commission must uh be a flagship in terms of hiring practices in every equitable possible way for visible minorities in the province. Would you agree that the commission must not only protect those minorities from discrimination in workplaces throughout Ontario, but must ensure that those public practices are impeccable in terms of government organizations and not only as you have said that you're satisfied in terms of their existing practices, but is the p if the perception is out there that there is something to be questioned, then is it good enough for view in fact that the public has lost confidence in the commission and that minority group leaders are calling for this investigation and because it's your own ministerial constituency. Mr. Minister, could we look to you for the direction and leadership to arrange immediately for that hearing to go before the public accounts committee? >> Minister, >> there's several questions there, Mr. Speaker. I'll repeat what I said earlier and that is that the chief commissioner has said on several occasions he would be happy to appear before the appropriate legislative committee and I think that would be a matter to be dealt with by the house leaders of which is the appropriate committee. I think it's a big mistake frankly to to prejudge the commission and its practices. I'm satisfied they followed sensible practices. I think as we look throughout the commission and I repeat every level women strongly rec represent it for good reason. Every level the visible community strongly represent it for good reason. The progress the commission is making is substantial. So I repeat the commissioner has said on on many occasions he would be happy to appear before the appropriate legislative committee. I think that's the process that should be followed Mr. Speaker and I repeat myself. I'm satisfied that our commissioner is making good progress toward ensuring that we have a substantially enhanced human rights commission. >> Thank you. [applause] >> No question. Member for >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, my questions for the Minister of Municipal Affairs whom we were told would be here today. Can I ask if he's expected back? >> If so, I'll stand down and respond. >> The minister is here. He'll be here shortly. Minister for Scarbo West. >> I'm the only the minister for Scarbor West is probably as close as I'll get to being a minister. I'll accept that. Mr. Speaker, >> no no just just in my shortened political career. I have a question for the treasurer who never thought he'd be treasurer. So, anything's possible. And >> Mr. Mr. Treasurer uh >> in your list list of sins in the in the federal budget uh regarding uh education, you've talked about the failure to transfer funds as we'd expected them to be transferred under the established programs funding, but you have not talked at all about the problems that those institutions and boards of education as far as as far as that go are going to suffer because of the rise rises in the UI UIC rates uh this this year. I've heard that from the University of Toronto, they're anticipating an extra cost to their budget of $800,000 this year just for the UIC increases and that the uh Metropolitan Toronto Board of Education is estimating a $3 million raise in their uh their cost for UIC. Question is, >> are you willing at this stage to guarantee that they will not be stuck for those extra costs and that you will make sure that the province provides if the federal government refuses? >> Make that guarantee, Mr. speaker, but I naturally have a good deal of sympathy, particularly in the case of the universities that don't have access to uh ready additional revenues on their own behest. Uh certainly when we're considering grants for a future year, matters like that would have to be taken in consideration, but I'm not in a position at this stage to make additional payments for this purpose. what other governments do by way of tax changes um uh really we can't always guard against in this connection I'm sure you're aware the government of Canada is contemplating a new sales tax uh and how that would affect um the various um agencies and emanations of government or those responsibilities in the community that depend on government for most of their financing is very much a matter of concern to me >> thank you Mr. Speaker, it's also difficult to know just how a a payroll tax might affect these institutions as well in terms of extra burden. But I want to let the minister know that I've heard from York Public Board of Education that they anticipate their cost this year would go up an extra $600,000 and this would cause them a rise in the to to raise the mill rate to raise this kind of money. They had to do it by one half of 1%. Do you have any idea at this stage of the extent of the problem? Has your ministry investigated the kind of costs that are now going to be put onto these provincial institutions and causing them burden which may affect the delivery of program and other kinds of decisions? treasure. >> The um >> the estimate of the cost has not been uh given to me in specific dollars, but we know in general what the uh uh additional responsibility is since the government of Canada said for unemployment insurance, the cost must be entirely borne by employers and employees and that the government of Canada will make no contribution at all. So in uh essence it's uh sort of like a payroll tax and that it is based on the uh size of the payroll and with both employers and employees contributing. >> New question member for Sernia. >> Uh my question is to the premier. I had intended to ask this question of the minister of the environment. However, in his absence, since he is belatedly sharing with the federal government his awareness of the shipment of illegal um toxic fuels from the United States and because this uh question has some emergency uh related to it, I'll ask the question of the premier. Uh tonight, Mr. Premier, there is a meeting in Pickering with respect to the matter of the GTA proposing Pickering as a potential site for municipal waste from the GTA municipalities. There is some concern, Mr. premier on their behalf that this government may attempt to bypass its own environmental uh protection legislation by moving to the environmental protection act as opposed to a full-fledged and complete environmental assessment with respect to any proposed new site. Since this meeting is being held this evening and since these particular constituents are extremely concerned about uh what this government may do relative to a proposed landfill site, can you give the assurance to this house and therefore to the people of the Pickering area that any new site will in fact require the full environmental assessment act be applied to that proposed site? Good premier very premier environment answered that question I think two or three weeks ago when when my answer is the very same as his. That's the answer. >> Supplementary. Well, you know, this is going to look particularly revealing to the people of Pickering, >> who when looking very carefully at the answer of the Minister of the Environment, will have extreme difficulty in interpreting the convoluted way in which he said, "Perhaps, maybe, but I'm not sure." And that's about the answer that we've got. We are talking, Mr. Premier, with all due respect, about millions of tons of municipal waste that is going to be disposed of on an annual basis for some long number of years in some proposed site. Now, in the GTA document that was in fact accepted by those municipalities, there was a small and sometimes overlooked caveat in that particular document which stated very clearly that in the case of a quote unquote emergency that there may be some necessity to bypass the normal environmental approval process which is the environmental assessment act. >> And the question, >> Mr. Speaker, with due respect, I ask very specifically. That's all I want to know. Is this government prepared to require the Environmental Assessment Act be applied to a new site? Or conversely, are you prepared to say that you're going to go to some other watered down version such as the Environmental Protection Act? What is this government going to do? A straight answer, please, Mr. Premier. >> We've got the straight answer. You got it from the minister. two or 3 weeks ago. Surely every I we all understand it in this side of the house. My honorable friend can't understand it. I can tell you washes completely and my honorable friend should know that that's the view of the government that the fullest stringent environmental principles be attached to uh any hearing. >> New question. The member for Simco Center. >> Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the minister of consumer and commercial relations. uh church's mobile home park in Barry uh consists of 65 mobile homes which are owned by the occupants but they lease the land uh on which they are located. Uh the owner Mr. Church is now nearly 90 years of age and he has decided that he's going to sell the land. uh some 40 years ago when he first developed the property it was on the outskirts of uh Barry but now it is completely surrounded by developed uh city and environment. Uh, of course he's entitled to sell his property, but we find that these people who are living there and who own their homes have sometimes their complete investment of a lifetime invested in those homes and they are facing the prospect of having to move uh off of this land and they don't know where they're going to go. And I'm wondering if the um uh minister can offer any hope uh or protection to these people who are caught in this unfortunate predicament. Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, um the honorable member and I have uh had an exchange in this house before on this issue that I know is affecting a number of uh number of his constituencies in more than one mobile home park and that he has raised on a number of occasions privately with me as well. I can tell the honorable member that uh as as the laws now exist, the um the homeowners can protect their interests in the in the situation where Mr. Church might sell his property by registering uh by registering their uh their lease at a land registry office. That would of course protect them only for the term of their lease. And uh and if that is a long-term, Mr. Speaker, obviously that would put them in a fairly good situation for the years to come. But I am sympathetic to the honorable member's problem, our concerns here, and to the fact he's raised it with a number of uh local municipalities. >> Supplementary. >> Yes, Mr. Speaker. Uh the leases involved are all short-term leases, unfortunately, for the people who are occupying them. And I have uh taken upon myself to contact other ministries of the of this government. And I have uh contacted uh teen municipalities including Barry and Inisville and West Gullenbury and Vesper and ESSA and Sunnydale and Oro and on uh trying to find out if there was some way in which the more rural areas would be able to accommodate the needs of these people. And what concerns me is the needs of these people but the needs of other people who are going to be facing this across the province because uh what we are facing in Barry is going to be duplicated many times across the province of Ontario in the near future. >> A question >> and I'm wondering if the minister can suggest is there any protection to the uh the future problems that the people in these types of home settings uh that can be accommodating their dilemma and maybe avoid a similar uh fate or future. Minister >> Speaker, uh I can't uh I can't help but it's regrettable that the uh the lease in the church's home park situation is a short are short-term leases and I can't suggest any uh any further solution to the honorable member for that immediate situation other than the one that I have. Uh I certainly appreciate that he has been attempting to bring the municipalities together to see if they can work out some solution and I would certainly encourage him to uh to continue along that line as really being the only other alternative in the longer term. We are currently looking at uh a number of options as we review the condominium act and we've been having discussions with the minister of housing. uh we are looking at a number of current land development methods and seeing if we can develop alternatives and options uh which will be which we will be able to uh put in place Mr. Speaker to uh which we will be able to put in place. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that my friend uh from Leeds is not interested in this question. It's a very important question in the Berry area and I uh and I and I would have thought that he would allow my my uh my colleague a chance to ask his questions in the house. >> Thank you. >> Review the condominium act. Mr. Speaker, I'm hopeful that we will be able to bring forward a number of alternatives uh to the kind of traditional proposals which will allow this kind of problem and others to be solved in the future. >> Thank you. >> Hamilton, >> new question. The member from Hamilton East. >> Mr. Speaker, I have a in the absence of the Minister of Transportation. I have a question for the treasurer of the province. Your colleague, the Minister of Transportation, has sent a letter to the regional chairman in Hamilton in just recent days which has caused some concern. One of the paragraphs in the letter, one sentence says, "With the current situation, there does not appear to be justification to apply a preferential 90% subsidy to trolley expenditures." Uh, Mr. Treasurer, why would uh this government and the minister discriminate against Hamilton by clearly threatening to reneg on the 90% subsidy for electrical propelled transit while all electrically propelled transit in the city of Toronto is subsidized at the 90% rate. >> Minister, >> well, I certainly agree with the honorable member that we uh ought to be treating municipalities in a fair and equitable manner. I don't know any uh justification for not doing so but if my colleague has said so I will certainly discuss it with him because probably there is good reason and uh because he is a very fair and equitable person. The fact the honorable member has raised it here in his absence really means all I can do in response to the question is I'll speak to him about it. >> Supplementary >> supplementary. >> Well, Mr. Speaker Hamilton has good reason to be concerned because it has proceeded with costly expenditures to its transit system based on that preferred subsidy rate and based on proceeding with trolley buses as a major solution to the transportation problem. Why would the government why would the minister uh in the treasur's opinion uh reverse that direction considering the environmental issues concerned uh when considerable cost would be attached to Hamilton by reducing the uh the subsidy and when a matter of separate concern almost Mr. treasure. The minister appears to be manipulating Hamilton by using cost figures derived from an attempt by Daytona to scuttle a trolley boss bus system by ordering dual service vehicles which would cost half a million dollars which the minister now is citing as a normal cost for a trolley bus system manipulating our city. Mr. Treasurer, do you agree with those tactics? Speaker, I don't know anything about what the honorable member is talking about and I know that the honorable member, my colleague, uh, the minister is very knowledgeable in this matter. But speaking for me, uh, whenever the province is in a program where there's they're subsidizing 90% of a service for the city of Hamilton, it might possibly be that it should be looked at. That's pretty rich. >> New question, member for NASA. Order. >> No one else can get away with that. He's twisting the fact >> order. It's the member's time for question period. Member for Npasing. >> Mr. Speaker to the treasurer. Yesterday, treasurer, I asked the minister of housing uh if her ministry and being responsible for housing in the province had done any impact studies on uh the impact of lot levies and other provincial taxes on the cost of affordable housing in Ontario. I was a little astounded that the minister of housing uh hadn't done any impact studies washes her hands of the whole matter but she did make a suggestion and that uh suggestion was that I should ask uh the treasurer. So I am taking the minister up on that uh suggestion Mr. treasurer. And at the uh at the risk of asking the inmate to run the prison, I would ask you, sir, whether uh you in fact have done any impact studies on the uh affordable housing question in this province of the imposition of new levies as you are proposing to do. >> Treasur, >> Mr. Speaker, I think the uh government has been well informed about that impact since the honorable member would know that we tabled a green paper um with a number of policy alternatives proposed since I believe that was in December. Since that time um my um colleague, the honorable member for York East has chaired a committee of parliamentary assistants. Uh I uh have um met a number of groups from the community as well as other ministers directly concerned that we have heard the views of uh the homebuilders association who very properly are deeply concerned about the high price of housing in the province of Ontario and in recent years have uh have been uh regularly expressing their concern in that regard and they they have among others uh brought clearly to our attention what they consider to be the impact of lot levies on those prices. It's necessary, I'm sure the honorable member would know, that we balance uh that information that comes directly from the homebuilders and those who sell the homes with the necessity of having adequate capital to provide schools in the rapidly expanding communities uh particularly around Toronto and in some other centers. And so that's uh the information upon which we are contemplating the possibility of moving toward lot levies. >> Supplementary. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the treasurer uh does indeed need new money. After all, he's dealing with a premier and a cabinet that uh is increasing spending in this province, the like of which we've not seen since Pierre Trudeau hit the federal scene. And I I appreciate that. But I want to uh twice the rate of inflation. >> I want to order no carefully spent. We ask for more money. Well, the treasur indicates he's going to sell the new Nippison Courthouse. However, >> I I don't put it past the treasure. I don't think anything is is free from being studied by this treasur. I would like to ask a treasurer this. In light of the fact that the industry has indicated for every for every 100 million in lot levies uh that you are going to to bring in that indeed you will impact on housing somewhere in the order of 5 to6 billion the affordability of the existing stock included. That has been the industry study. But the treasur in his answer said that he feels that study may be somewhat biased from their point of view. And I would ask you treasur have you your government the ministry of housing I'm astounded hasn't have you as treasurer of the ministry of revenue not done any impact studies on e increasing taxation in this area? And if you haven't why haven't you? >> Good question. The honorable member prefaced his question by saying I obviously need more money for school capital. I'm not sure that that is correct. The honorable member knows that uh in the last year in which he was in government, school capital, that's just four years ago that school capital was under $80 million for the whole of the province about 70 about 74 million that we have raised this to $300 million each year. [applause] And in fact uh the additional capital is needed by the communities which under our statutes uh have the responsibility to provide for school building accommodation. We're providing 300 million and we are providing at least in our policy paper uh proposals for alternatives of beyond just the mill rate to pay for the local share. And we think that it is I we think it is appropriate that that um flexibility might very well be considered to assist rapidly growing communities. >> Thank you. New question. Member for St. Catherine's Brock. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues. On May 2nd, the minister announced an additional 5.4 4 million for wife assault prevention programs to maintain safety and protect the quality of life. The new allocation of funding with the cost of living increase of 500,000 brings the commitment for wife assault to 40 million, a 17% increase over 1988. Yet some, Mr. Minister have responded that shelter beds in the province are still 700. And number suggest that this has had no increase since 1985. Mr. Minister, there seems to be a great deal of confusion and I would like you to alleviate that confusion. Has there been an increase in shelter beds available to the victims of family violence since 1985 or not? Mr. >> Minister, >> uh Mr. Speaker, uh I appreciate the question from my friend from St. Catherine's uh particularly because as he mentioned in his uh in the uh uh prelude to the question he suggested that there were some people uh there were some people in the legisl there were some people I tell the leader of the opposition who doesn't want to hear the answer I invite him to do so who had been suggesting that uh the number of shelters in the province had remained at some 700. The fact is uh that there are some there are now some,90 beds operating within some 79 shelters in the province and indeed there has been an increase uh of uh over a 100 new beds in the province during the past four years. Probably even more important than that, the funding that he refers to has stabilized a movement that is so very vital to women who are uh subject to threats of or who are the victims of violence uh within a domestic context. >> Supplementary. >> My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is about some of the minister's specific initiatives. You've referred to a study dealing with violence against women with disabilities as well as making shelters available for more accessibility for women with disabilities. I'm I'm concerned, Mr. Minister, will these initiatives benefit those women most affected by this problem of family violence? >> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, uh my friend refers to a uh allocation that uh was made during the course of those announcements uh of $50,000 accompanied with matching funds of some uh $50,000 for a study of the particular needs of women with disabilities who are the victim of domestic violence. It's crucial that we get on with that study for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that women with disabilities often are at a further disadvantage. They are doubly disadvantaged in in that context. We don't have a good sense of what services ought to be provided, how shelters ought to respond uh to the particular needs of women with disabilities. this study uh with the full support of the of Dawn which is the uh disabled women's network in the province of Ontario I think will begin to show us the way we should be moving to respond to women in those particular situations. >> Thank you. New question the member for Cambridge or is the minister of municipal affairs? No. The member for Cambridge Minister of to Correctional Services. Our prisons are overcrowded. We have double and triple bunking. We have relocations of inmates over considerable distances from their homes. At the same time, your ministry has two small fine option projects in Hamilton and Niagara for the past several years. Little wonder that members of the bench are refusing to incarcerate individuals for non-payment of fines as Ontario continues to fail to provide a broadly based fine option program to pay off one's fine through community service. My question, when will the minister end the facade and recognize that after several years he can't hide behind too many fine option programs in Hamilton and Niagara? And when will he end the discrimination by expend extending this program across the entire province? >> Minister, >> I'd like to thank the member for the question because I agree with the member that the fine options programs that we have had operating in the Niagara Peninsula as pilots have been very successful and I will be making some announcements uh very soon about expansion of those programs. >> Supplementary. This has been going on for many years and provincial court judge John Smith has criticized the government saying it is using the court system as a collection agency to ring money from those who can least afford it. In refusing to incarcerate an individual for non-payment of fine, Judge John Smith in his judgment on a recent case said the fine option program can't be done in Ontario because our government will not fund it. The politicians appear not to care. I've been hammering this thing trying to get the government for years to make the law equal for the rich and the poor. How does the minister respond to Judge Smith and to Donald Page, one of his own correctional service officials who said, "The main problem is we have not got final approving approval and we have not got funding." Isn't it about time, Mr. Minister? Isn't this too late? >> U Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have thought the u the member would have been satisfied with my initial response that I was going to respond to his uh to his demand. Uh but I'm a minister and we have a ministry that does care and I think that community service orders and restitution and other sanctions like that are more appropriate than incarceration uh in lie of payment of fines and as I said before we will be responding in the near future. >> New question the member for London North. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Skills Development. Uh, Mr. Minister, the federal government announced in its budget in February of 1986 that it plan to make available to the provinces a joint program to assist older workers affected by a major permanent layoff. The program for older worker adjustment calls on the federal government to pay 70% of the assistance given to older workers aged 55 to 64. Those people who have suffered a permanent job loss have no prospects for reemployment and no realistic opportunities to go back to work. Given the fact that the premier's council has urged an examination of, and I quote, "Mr. Minister, the subsequent economic fortunes of workers displaced by industries restructuring. Will the minister please explain why his government is one of only two provinces, one of only two, that have not joined this particular program?" Minister. >> Well, well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just about getting excited to answer the question, but the matter belongs to the Minister of Labor. I'll ask the Minister of Labor to respond. >> Minister. >> Order, please. >> I have I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why the member from London North is shaking her finger at the Minister of Skills Development simply by virtue of the fact that he points out to my good friend the member from London North that the POWA program happens to be within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labor. Surely the member from London North doing a little bit of research would have known that. >> That's right. >> I mean, a simple order, Mr. Speaker, would have uh would have indicated to her that the appropriate place to pose that question would be to the Minister of Labor. I just want to tell her the reason why Ontario has not yet entered into a power agreement with the federal government. The answer is simple. It is simply that the federal government in its wisdom has changed on a variety of occasions the rules applicable to PA. It has recently announced changes that now make it of interest for Ontario to enter into negotiations. And I would expect that if the federal government sticks to the position that it has now adopted, that in the fullness of time, not very soon, not very late in the future, Mr. Speaker, we will have a POW agreement to benefit older workers in this province. >> Supplementary. >> Uh, Mr. Speaker, I find it most interesting that the minister uh makes excuses for this particular um provincial government. All we hear is moaning and how the feds don't help you out. This program has been on the books, Mr. Speaker, since 1986, eight other provinces figured out a way to join. Eight other provinces are helping out their older workers. I don't accept the answer, Mr. Speaker. >> Order, please. And the supplementary question is, >> Mr. Speaker, I do not have a supplementary question. [applause] >> Next question, the member for Muskoka Georgian Bay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you'll be aware that the South Muskoka Hospital has the opportunity to add a new medical specialty in obstetrics and gynecology to the staff and the implementation of that service will require some additional funding from your ministry. That request has been made. Could you tell this house the status of the request at the present time? >> Question. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm aware of this situation and of the member's interest. Uh it's important to note that the treasurer announced an 8.1% transfer payment to the hospitals of this province. As the member knows, we are in the uh uh stage of developing a transitional funding formula. Uh our goal is to see that hospitals are fairly and appropriately funded for the services that they provide. We know how important it is for hospitals to do appropriate manpower planning and to establish their priorities within their global budget to meet the real and changing needs of their community. I have said to the member when he discussed this with me that in fact I would encourage the hospital to meet with other hospitals in the area to discuss on a regional basis manpower planning and the opportunity to realign services in fact to meet the desire for a new program in the region. Parliamentary. >> Madame Minister, if you're unable to announce the funding for this program today, I understand that a request has been made that you would meet with representatives of that hospital board. Could you tell us whether you will be holding such a meeting? >> Supplementary. >> Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member that in fact we recognize that not all all hospitals can or should attempt to provide every specialty service and that in fact planning on a regional basis is uh particularly important. I have said to the member that I would be pleased to meet with representatives of all of the hospitals in the region and the district health council members to discuss how they could proceed to plan for human resources appropriately on a regional basis to meet the real and changing needs of the community within available resources within the region. >> Your question the member for Tobico Lake Shore. >> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the premier. The premier, I'm sure, is aware that the city of Winnipeg gets its drinking water from Shaw Lake in northwestern Ontario. Yesterday, Consolidated Professor Mines applied to the Ontario government for permission to develop a gold mine on Stevens Island in Shaw Lake. And today, the government of Manitoba has asked that all documentation associated with the application be forwarded to them, that they be given ample time to review the material, and particularly that there be public hearings on the proposal. Can the premier assure the people of Winnipeg that nothing will happen in that lake that might affect the quality of their drinking water without ample opportunity for public participation in the decision? >> Assure the people of >> May I say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad I stayed to receive this question and I appreciate uh my honorable friend uh telling me about this. I was not aware of this uh situation and I'm sure that we will work closely with the people of Winnipeg to make sure that uh that they have quality uh uh water as we have very close relationships as you know with that province and will continue to do so. So I am I can't tell my honorable friend uh everything that's happening with respect to that particular application but I can assure you that the minister of the environment will handle that with a sensitivity and judgment. He handles all matters of this type. >> Here >> supplementary >> good deal of confidence >> supplementary on that question. >> Uh supplementary. Mr. Speaker, >> for any river, >> Mr. Premier, I think we had ample evidence yesterday that that hazardous materials and pollution do not respect boundaries. They don't respect inter international boundaries and they may not respect interprovincial boundaries. And what the people of Manitoba and what the government of Manitoba are asking something I think it's very it's a very simple request. The uh there's already a memorandum of understanding between this province and the province of Manitoba to preserve the water quality of Shaw Lake. It's a memorandum of of of uh that's been there for some time. All they're asking is that the government of Ontario share whatever information is available regarding this mining project >> that public hearings be held. And and and finally, I would I would ask you to make one further commitment that that if we really care about the environment >> and we recognize that pollutants can move across boundaries that public hearings be held in in Winnipeg. >> Question is >> so that those people can be assured that no water quality damage will occur. Can you make those simple commitments? >> Premier provinces. >> Mr. Speaker, I I think we all do understand as my friend has said uh that uh pollutants do do not respect national or provincial boundaries. I don't think there's any think particularly profound uh in that particular observation. Mr. Speaker, uh I am not aware of any official request by the city of Winnipeg or the government of Manitoba with respect to the position my honorable friends have put forward. Now, they may have asked you to do something officially on their behalf, but they have not asked us. Now they may have had these discussions with the minister of the environment. I do not know. I will discuss it with the minister of the environment and uh and uh we will obviously cooperate with our sister province in every way that's reasonable. With respect to the question of having public hearings in another province, I'm not sure I can give my honorable friend uh that commitment. I'm not sure that that is the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances obviously. Um uh however we will respect u uh uh our traditional friendships and we will respect and they will our very strong commitment to the environment. So uh uh I will discuss it with the minister and um if there's anything that we can do to improve the situation obviously we will. >> New question the Stormman Dundas Glengarry >> the member for Storman Dundes Glengarry in the absence of the minister of revenue I would like to ask my question to the treasurer [laughter] >> treasurer. You probably know that the province of Quebec does not tax purchases of furniture for residential dwelling which include big ticket items such as kitchen and bedroom furniture, stoves, etc. Nor are Ontario residents taxed for Quebec purchases. From my writing up through Prescott, Russell, Ottawa, Vanet, and up the valley, furniture and appliance stores have lost a great deal of business because people can make identical purchases in Quebec for a lot less. Does the minister have any estimate as to how many jobs and how much money this has cost the government of Ontario and our retailers in Eastern Ontario? [applause] >> No, Mr. Speaker, but I do know that people who might otherwise go to Label Proancece for other purchases have to pay a full additional 1% uh on those purchases in Quebec. And of course they they do have um uh other taxes that balance it up in general. The fact that they do not tax um u furniture may be somewhat of a dislocation as the honorable member indicated but we do tax them in Ontario. >> Mr. >> Thank you M treasurer. you know, supplementary question, Prescott, Russell, Vanet, all of the Ottawa writings and up the valley uh are all subject to this and the retailers in that area are suffering a great deal. Even though Ontario residents are supposed to report their purchases in order to pay Ontario sales tax, we know that this hardly happens at all. The Quebec tax exemption has been in place for some time and has caused Ontario stores to lose a great deal of business. Does the minister support proposals for a similar tax exemption in Ontario or are you going to allow for fair competition for our Ontario retailers in that area? >> I don't support the exemption, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the retailers in uh that area have certain other obvious advantages in living in this jurisdiction which the honorable member would be aware of. >> New question. >> New question. The member for Sudbury. Mr. Speaker, um >> I have a question. >> Order, please. >> Member for Sudbury. >> I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development. >> Could uh the Minister um comment on the um relocation uh generally how the relocation plans are going in uh Northern Ontario. >> Question, >> Mr. Speaker. >> Thank you for the question. First of all, the uh road ro road in general is going uh very good. Everything is on is on on schedule in my ministry. The um [applause] the building in Sbury will be in a will will the Sbury I guess it you know where it is. As you know the the the contract was given last fall and then we all we all on that one will shall we shall occupy this building July 1990 uh the mines the mines building the tender will be awarded in in stages commencing July 1st 1989 >> and out of the already there's 40 of my employees already moved to the vanguard building and this I moved another 10 to 10 minutes instead to leave the u like said to lead this the regional office in in Sbury and move this regional office to 10 minutes. So, thank you very much. [applause] This completes the time allocated for oral questions.