role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 20, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ROYAL ASSENT

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

WORKERS’ MEMORIAL DAY

G. W. MARTIN LUMBER LTD

FESTIVAL ’89

PROPOSED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SARNIA-LAMBTON

RESPONSES

SARNIA-LAMBTON

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

HEALTH INSURANCE

SECURITY GUARD LICENCE

FARM TAX REBATE

VEHICLE AND FUEL TAXES

PATRICIA STARR

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PATRICIA STARR

FAMILY VIOLENCE

CHRONIC CARE

PATRICIA STARR

BROOKSIDE YOUTH CENTRE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PETITIONS

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

NATUROPATHY

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SARNIA-LAMBTON ACT, 1989

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1989

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1989

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees:

The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act;

Bill 170,

An Act to revise several Acts related to Aggregate Resources;

Bill 187,

An Act to amend certain Acts as they relate to Police and Sheriffs;

Bill 189,

An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act and the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 200,

An Act to confirm a certain Agreement between the Governments of Canada and Ontario;

Bill 205,

An Act to amend the Amusement Devices Act, 1986;

Bill 206,

An Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act;

Bill 207,

An Act to amend the Energy Act;

Bill 218,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act;

Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting Certain Land in the Town Plot of Gowganda in the District of Timiskaming;

Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor;

Bill Pr10,

An Act to revive 561239 Ontario Inc;

Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting The Madawaska Club Limited;

Bill Pr19,

An Act to revive the Port Bruce Boat Club;

Bill Pr22,

An Act to continue The Corporation of the Village of Killaloe Station under the name of The Corporation of the Village of Killaloe.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Ms Bryden: The Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton) is trying to meet the transportation crisis in the greater Toronto area with smoke and mirrors. His two announcements last week on road construction and public transit were mainly repeats of projects announced in his Transportation Directions for the Greater Toronto Area, unveiled with much fanfare in May 1988. While a few projects are to be accelerated, he is still talking about a five-year plan with completion dates as late as 1997 for some projects, such as the extension of the Highway 401 core collector system to Brock Road.

He boasts about the $1.2 billion in the budget for transportation improvements in the greater Toronto area, but there is little new money. It is all for last year’s promises. In the public transit field there is no commitment of funds to start construction of the badly needed Sheppard Avenue subway to link the Scarborough and North York city centres, nor is there any money for the necessary extension to Pearson International Airport. There is nothing for new subways beyond the one-stop extension of the underused Spadina line.

Why is more of the money from the huge tax increases loaded on to greater Toronto area residents not being used for immediate transit improvements in the greater Toronto area? The likelihood of a hefty Toronto Transit Commission fare increase on 1 January to offset new taxes will not encourage people to get out of their cars and on to public transit. It is time we had a Minister of Transportation who will fight traffic congestion by more imaginative ways than recycling old amendments.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: We are all aware of the increasing dropout rate of our high school students. Unfortunately, apprenticeship training, which could assist these students and help them to contribute to society, is virtually dead in Ontario. Consequently, these students are dropping in and out of our workforce.

The Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling) stated last week in response to my question that he does not have a solution to this horrendous problem and that he is not ashamed of the way things are going in Ontario. We think he should be. The minister has spent literally hundreds of thousands of the taxpayers’ dollars on these studies -- far too many of them -- and we have not seen any progress to date.

Incidentally, these reports are useless because they only confirm the obvious. For example, everyone knows that dropping out of school narrows one’s career choices, and it was not necessary to spend $100,000 to confirm it. The minister should be spending his money on apprenticeship training and other viable solutions to the dropout problem which will enable our young people to contribute to society.

We cannot hope to compete in tomorrow’s markets with yesterday’s skills and abilities. It is the responsibility of this government to ensure that apprenticeship programs reflect current and emerging skills needed and to ensure that the appeal of the skilled trades is increased. It is about time that this government put its money towards improvements rather than to more reports telling us what we already know.

WORKERS’ MEMORIAL DAY

Mr Campbell: Five years ago today, four Sudbury miners lost their lives owing to a seismic disturbance known as a rockburst. This is caused when a portion of a mine wall becomes so stressed that, as the name implies, the rock itself literally explodes, sending shrapnel-like fragments hurtling through the mine. I leave to members’ imaginations the horrific results.

Rockbursts are only one of the many dangers faced by underground hardrock miners on a daily basis. They know and accept these dangers while trying at all times to minimize them. Their contribution to the building of our cities and towns is often unacknowledged. This edifice we stand in today would not exist if the miners of Ontario had not toiled in their underground pursuits.

I would ask all members to pause today to remember the sacrifice made by the miners of Ontario for the building of our province.

Miss Martel: This statement is being made both on behalf of myself and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren).

At 1020 in the morning five years ago today, a rockburst occurred at Falconbridge nickel mines. When it was all over, four Sudbury miners were left dead. It was a terrible tragedy for our community, one which has seen more than its share of horrible mining accidents and deaths.

The Canadian Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, in conjunction with other Canadian unions, recognizes 20 June as Workers’ Memorial Day. This is done not only to acknowledge the deaths of those miners killed in the rock blast, but to recognize all men and women in this country who are maimed or killed on the job. Alongside those are the thousands more who perish every year from occupational disease. They have given a great deal to build this country. It is fitting that we acknowledge not only that contribution but the tragedies which result when workplace accidents occur. I ask all members of this House to take some time out to reflect on that.

One other important point must be made. Yesterday was the beginning of Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week. Today we recognize Workers’ Memorial Day. Surely the time must come when true health and safety in the workplace will end the overwhelming number of accidents and diseases suffered on the job. This government cannot back down on Bill 208. It is the only hope for those people who become the victims of unsafe workplaces is Ontario, workers themselves.

G. W. MARTIN LUMBER LTD

Mr Eves: It gives me pleasure to rise in the House today and bring to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) a matter of which I am sure he is already aware. I am sending over to him a copy of a letter I have written, together with a copy of a letter, dated 14 June, from the mayor of the town of Mattawa. I am sure the minister is aware of layoffs taking place as a result of the shutdown of some aspects of G. W. Martin Lumber Ltd’s operations in the Mattawa area as well as in other communities across Ontario.

It has been my understanding that logging workers have been out of work since the end of March in many communities and that a further 71 employees are to be laid off at the Mattawa mill as of tomorrow, Wednesday, 21 June. Further possible layoffs may take place at both the Mattawa and Rutherglen mills.

It has been suggested, I know, that an American firm was looking at purchasing the Rutherglen mill but is apparently seeking a guarantee from the ministry of more lumber than the ministry is able to give. There is also some suggestion that Tembec, of the province of Quebec, is considering purchasing the Mattawa operation from G. W. Martin Lumber Ltd.

It is the community’s concern and my own that local people are not left out in the cold of any prospective transfer of any assets of G. W. Martin Lumber Ltd or its timber licences or agreements. We would ask the minister to ensure this by putting specifications or conditions on such transfers, to protect their jobs and the community.

FESTIVAL ’89

Mr Cleary: May I extend a personal invitation to my colleagues to experience the best of all worlds. The Cornwall and District Multicultural Council is presenting Festival ‘89. The spectacular showcase of multicultural activities includes superb entertainment, colourful costumes, arts and crafts and a splendid cuisine.

The Minister of Citizenship (Mr Phillips) and I will be at the Cornwall and Area 7th Annual Multicultural Festival, and I hope that many of the members will join us. That is at the Cornwall Civic Complex this Sunday, 25 June. Plan for a day of fun, good food, entertainment and an opportunity to learn more about the heritage and culture of various ethnic backgrounds. Members may discover a world they never knew before.

PROPOSED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

Mr Laughren: I am pleased that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) is here as I make my few remarks concerning the Sudbury neutrino observatory. For some time now this government has been stalling on this very worthwhile project, a project that will put Sudbury in the forefront internationally in pure scientific research on particles from the sun known as neutrinos.

Sudbury is unique in that it has a deep mine shaft that is free of external factors that would affect the observatory. Every time we raise the question with the government that what is needed is $7.2 million over four years -- not a major commitment from the technology fund -- the government ministers respond that, first of all, they did not know anything about it. Then they say: “Well, we’re not going to go this alone. We want to make sure there are other people on side on this.”

Now the international community is on side. Last week the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council indicated that it was prepared to put $15 million into this project, more than twice what this government is being asked to put in. It seems to me there is no longer any excuse whatsoever for this government to stall. What they should be doing is making a firm commitment to provide that funding, so that other major players can then come on side knowing full well that the province is fully committed to this project.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SARNIA-LAMBTON

Hon Mr Eakins: I am very pleased to inform my colleagues that I intend to introduce legislation today to resolve a long-standing and contentious dispute between the city of Sarnia, the town of Clearwater and the county of Lambton.

As members may know, the dispute involves an attempt by the city of Sarnia to grow into the neighbouring municipality of Clearwater, or Sarnia township as it was known when the dispute began.

One year ago today, I established a steering committee composed of local politicians and asked it to draft a framework for the strengthening of Lambton county. They reported back to me last October with some alternative local government structures for Sarnia-Lambton.

This January, with the work of the first committee as a starting point, I asked the new committee of nine local politicians representing the city, the town and the county to finish the job. I asked them to work out a detailed solution to the dispute and to report back to me by 30 April. They agreed on a local solution.

The legislation I am introducing today will permit them to implement the solution that together we have worked so hard to draft. Under the terms of the local solution:

The city of Sarnia and the town of Clearwater will become one municipality.

The new city will become a member of the county, having 40 per cent of the representation on county council.

The county will take over from the city those services it now provides within the county.

All local municipalities will transfer to the county responsibility for waste disposal.

A county-wide reassessment will take place for the 1992 taxation year.

County council will be reduced in size from 36 to 24 for the 1991 municipal election.

County council will be given the power to resolve any boundary applications received before January 1991.

An implementation committee will submit a final report to me by 1 May 1990, making recommendations regarding administrative, operational and staffing issues which must be addressed as a result of this local solution.

There will be costs involved for the people of Sarnia-Lambton as they implement the agreement they have reached. My ministry will make available transitional funding to ensure appropriate and adequate implementation of the boundary adjustment and restructuring.

I am extremely pleased that the boundary dispute that has been ongoing for so many years is now over and that our government has been able to bring the different parties together in partnership and begin a new phase in the history of Sarnia-Lambton.

As a result of this local solution, I firmly believe the people of Sarnia-Lambton will have a stronger local government structure, better able to meet their needs now and in the future.

RESPONSES

SARNIA-LAMBTON

Mr Breaugh: Just very quickly, the minister has announced some legislation today to deal with a long-standing boundary dispute and I want to congratulate the minister for using his personal abilities to the fullest. It is my information that he stayed out of it completely, which is the smartest thing he has ever done, to let them have their own local agreement put together. I congratulate the minister for having the good sense to do nothing.

Mr Brandt: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his efforts and his very competent staff, many of whom are in the gallery today listening to this historic statement by the minister. I would also like to reflect just for a moment on the efforts of the local committee, because without its efforts, without its co-operation, it would have been impossible to put this agreement together as the minister is announcing today.

It has been an extremely difficult time for Sarnia, the town of Clearwater, formerly the township of Sarnia, and the county of Lambton, because it has been historically a very complicated and very difficult matter to resolve in the sense of the very well entrenched positions that were taken on all sides of this question by people who are well meaning and who have the best interests of their constituency at heart. But I think the people who were involved in finally pulling this particular solution together realized that after close to 40 years and with the tremendous boundary problems that were surfacing in the Sarnia-Lambton area, something certainly had to be done.

I want to say to the minister that I appreciate his sense of pragmatism and flexibility in connection with the way in which he approached this. He did not attempt to heavy-hand the decision by ordering a particular direction on the part of the province, but in fact provided the co-operation and the assistance for local people to arrive at a local solution, which is the best, I think, of all worlds. They are the people who are going to have to live with it. They are the people who are going to have to make it work.

I truly feel on this historic occasion that the minister should be given perhaps the only bouquet I will hand out today, but it is a bouquet that is sincerely meant. I want to thank the minister for his efforts, for the number of trips he has made to discuss this matter with local councils and local elected officials, who had a tremendously difficult time arriving at the point that I think we can all celebrate with some degree of satisfaction today.

Although there is still much to be done in terms of the implementation of the plan and pulling all of the various details together, I think we have taken a major step today, and I would like to thank the minister for his efforts.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I wonder if the minister can explain why it would be that the executive director of the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada, Toronto section, is quoted in today’s Hamilton Spectator as saying as follows, “I have no idea about it,” referring to the survey the minister’s mother was paid to do.

“‘We didn’t hire her. We didn’t pay her,’ Mrs Rudson said yesterday in an interview. ‘It has nothing to do with the Toronto section. I don’t know what it was for,’ Mrs Rudson added,” adding she didn’t know where, or if, a copy of the survey results could be obtained.

I wonder if the minister can explain how that comment could be made by the executive director of the charity in question.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: The honourable member is asking me about an agreement that was made between my mother and Mrs Starr and I am not aware of any details other than the ones I have shared with him. All I can tell him is what my mother has told me. Second, I have not spoken to the particular person whom he has spoken to at the National Council of Jewish Women, and all I can say is that I do not know. I cannot answer the question.

Mr B. Rae: The minister has written to Mr Justice Evans asking him to rule whether or not there is a conflict. We have a number of material facts that are now coming out that the minister has not referred to in her letter, which she is under an obligation to provide to the judge if she is serious about wanting an opinion from him. She has to tell him who paid the money, when the money was paid, what it was paid for, what service was provided and the nature of her association with Mrs Starr.

All those are perfectly relevant, pertinent facts. If she is not prepared to tell us, she at least has to be prepared to tell Mr Justice Evans before he can render any other kind of opinion.

Again, I wonder if the minister can explain the comment today that as far as the National Council of Jewish Women is concerned, it has not heard of the survey, has not seen the survey and does not even know if such a survey can be found anywhere in Ontario.

The Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: The honourable member has asked me in previous sessions in the House if I had a copy of the survey or the report, and I indicated I have not. I have had no dealings with the National Council of Jewish Women on this incident. I have explained several times, and I am more than willing to explain again, that I received an inquiry from Mrs Starr as to people who might be able to do a particular kind of work, and I referred my mother.

I am not responsible for what the National Council of Jewish Women says to any media person, and indeed I cannot answer the question that the National Council of Jewish Women was asked. I think the issue is before the investigation that has been proclaimed by the acting Solicitor General (Mr Scott), and my mother is more than willing to take

part in that investigation.

I think it is also fair to say, and very important for me to say, that I can only tell the honourable member what my mother told me. My mother is not here to speak for herself, and I believe, knowing my mother, that she will co-operate to the fullest of her ability to do so.

Mr B. Rae: The question is not the conduct of the minister’s mother; the question is the minister’s own conduct in her relationship with Mrs Starr, her having determined that a contract was appropriate, her having decided that she would refer one name and one name only. The minister is accountable to this House for her own conduct and for what she has done, and that is the determination we are making in this place today.

I want to ask the minister if she does not feel embarrassed by the fact that after all this time, she still cannot provide us with any details of the survey, still cannot provide us with any significant details as to what was performed and still cannot tell us and explain to this House why she does not understand how wrong it is, in pure and simple terms, to refer a very close relative for what can only be described as a sweetheart deal with a professional lobbyist on behalf of the Liberal Party, who has established a slush fund of tens of thousands of dollars --

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: No, I do not feel embarrassed. I have listened very carefully to the comments of members in this House, including those of the Leader of the Opposition, and I can appreciate that there is a perception among some members and the general public that my role may not have been appropriate. I have asked for advice from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I have written him a letter, of which the members have also received a copy, and I am more than willing to have conversations or discussions with him when the time arises.

Having said that, I also believe that I have acted as quickly as I could to answer any responses by the media on contributions either to my riding association or to my campaign and that I have made it quite clear what the initial inquiry was when received from Mrs Starr.

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek), but I will stand it down until she comes back.

The Speaker: Is there agreement for that? All right. First question, the member for Sarnia.

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Within the last hour and a half, allegations have been brought to my attention with respect to Ontario Place, and more specifically some of the documents that relate to Ontario Place during the tenure of Patricia Starr. These allegations suggest that in fact shredders are being used at Ontario Place with the specific purpose, I would believe, of disposing of certain documents that may be of interest to the government of Ontario and particularly the Provincial Auditor.

I would ask the minister, if these allegations are correct, will he move immediately to make sure that those documents are secured at Ontario Place and delivered into the safe hands of the Provincial Auditor immediately?

Hon Mr O’Neil: In reply to the member, I am not aware of any such thing happening at all. As I mentioned yesterday, we wrote the Provincial Auditor last week asking him to go into Ontario Place. It is my understanding that happened and that he has been in there now for a number of days. I am not aware of any of these allegations the member is making at all.

Mr Brandt: In checking yesterday, the Provincial Auditor perhaps went to Ontario Place yesterday, but I am not aware he has been in there for a number of days.

There is some importance behind the question I raise with the minister. Whether the allegations are correct or not is really not the question. The question is whether the documents are secure. The Premier (Mr Peterson) indicated everything would be open, aboveboard and completely investigated through the Ontario Provincial Police, as well as the auditor. If those documents are missing, it will create a situation in which it will obviously be extremely difficult to investigate.

I ask the minister, will he move immediately to secure those documents so that they will be available to those who want to check into the operations of Ontario Place?

Hon Mr O’Neil: Again, I should tell the member that in fact the auditors were in Ontario Place last week on their annual audit. They do an audit there every year. We gave them the instructions. As I have said, that letter went out last week. Again, I think the member is making certain allegations that are wrong.

Mr Brandt: The allegations are wrong before the minister has even looked into them.

I ask the minister again, in view of the fact that there are documents at Ontario Place that could prove to be extremely important with respect to the investigation that is being carried out in that facility, is the minister prepared to move to seize those documents and make sure that all of them are available for the perusal of the Ontario Provincial Police, as well as the Provincial Auditor, so that nothing will be hidden, disposed of or removed? Is he prepared to take that action today?

Hon Mr O’Neil: It was my understanding, when we sent the Provincial Auditor in, that this is just what would be done. As far as I am concerned or the government is concerned, there is nothing whatsoever that we intend to hide. Our books should be completely open to any inquiries that are made, whether they be by the auditor, the police or whomever. For the member to make such allegations, I do not think is very fair at all.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Brandt: The question is will he in fact –

The Speaker: To which minister?

Mr Brandt: To the same minister.

The Speaker: Fine.

Mr Brandt: With the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition, if I can carry on with my line of questioning, I want to be absolutely certain that no documents are removed. Will the minister make sure as part of the responsibility of his office, which is directly responsible for the operation of Ontario Place through his appointee Patricia Starr, that none of those documents is removed. Is the minister prepared to give us that undertaking today?

Hon Mr O’Neil: As I say, it was my understanding that nothing like that would happen. If the member is asking me whether I am prepared to confirm that, yes, I will confirm it to the member today. I will make sure those instructions are forwarded to them, but it is my understanding that anything that is at Ontario Place, any files that are there, are completely open to anyone in the way of the four investigations presently going on.

Mr Brandt: One of the documents the minister may come across during the course of the investigation of this particular issue relating to Ontario Place relates to the concessions and the proposal calls for the restaurants and the food concessions at that establishment.

I will make available for the minister today a document related, in part, to a question I raised yesterday about the rather unusual manner in which the food concessions were given out during the tenure of Patti Starr as chairman of the board of Ontario Place. This particular proposal call appears as follows, and I will make that available to the minister. What it says is that Ontario Place is inviting Kelly’s, which was one of the concession holders up until that point in time, “to submit preliminary proposals for the premises currently known as Kelly’s;

“Kelly’s burger outlet will close;

“Review lease, discuss, agree concepts within two weeks;

“Full proposal including detail plans, investment, etc, one month after;

“Final plans subject to board approval;

“Key is originality and quality;

“Term likely five years, fee likely 20 per cent gross restaurant, fee likely 25 per cent gross fast food.”

The Speaker: The question.

Mr Brandt: Is this the kind of proposal call the minister is proud of having submitted on behalf of this government through Patricia Starr at Ontario Place for the $1-million-plus operation? Does he consider that --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr O’Neil: Again, the Provincial Auditor is in there doing a comprehensive study. That is one of the things they will be looking at. I might also remind the member that the allegations made by this particular gentleman from whom the member received that are the subject of litigation. If his claims have any merit, Mr Jupp is free to pursue them in the normal manner through the courts as is being done at the present time.

Mr Brandt: Ms Starr at one point wrote a memo to the minister indicating that she was very pleased he stood firm in the face of legal threats from the Kelly’s operators as well as others who were upset with the way in which this entire matter was handled. She also goes on to compliment the minister on the assistance he provided to her during that particular time. Could the minister indicate what kind of assistance he gave to Ms Starr and Ontario Place while these legal threats were being pursed with Ontario Place.

Hon Mr O’Neil: Just as I mentioned to the member a couple of minutes ago, because this is being dealt with legally -- I have had several calls from different people concerning this particular case. I dealt with it the same as I recommended the member deal with it just a minute ago, and that is I stayed completely out of it. I turned it over to the legal people within my ministry, and if there were any calls to be made, they made the calls. I did not interfere and they did not interfere because this matter is before the courts. That was my participation in it.

Mr B. Rae: To the same minister, if what the minister says now is the case, and I am sure we would all hope very much that were true, why would Mrs Starr have written him in the very fulsome memo I have quoted on other occasions, where she claims to have cut the deficit by $2 million, using these exact words to the minister, “How wise we were,” -- “we were” -- “thanks to your assistance, to stand firm on the legal threats from Lakeshore Pubs”?

Why would Mrs Starr have described a lawsuit by a company that is unhappy with the cancelling of a contract and that feels it has been done in an unfair way as a legal threat? Why would she regard the minister as an ally in his assistance in standing firm if in fact, as he has described, the minister has consistently taken an arm’s-length relationship with Mrs Starr?

Hon Mr O’Neil: I do not know what she meant by it, but I can only tell the member that I think she was pleased I did not interfere one way or another in that.

Mr B. Rae: I could only say that is not what she says in the memo. It was a “Dear Hugh” memo, signed “Patti” in a large signature, in which she claims to have reduced the deficit by $2 million. She has provided us with no evidence to that fact. She talks about all the wonderful things that have been done. We have a long letter from Mr Jupp to the Premier. It is all a matter of the record today.

But the interesting thing Mrs Starr has to say, first of all, is, “The funds saved are being spent,” and the next thing she says is, “How wise we were, thanks to your assistance,” referring to the minister’s personal assistance, “to stand firm on the legal threats from Lakeshore Pubs.”

One moment the Liberal members are embracing Patti Starr and they cannot be fulsome enough about Patti Starr. When this memo was signed, they had their arms around Patti Starr. Now that the facts are coming out, they say: “Patti Starr? Never heard of her. Who is she?”

The Speaker: Question?

Mr B. Rae: If it was the case that the minister disagreed with Mrs Starr’s

interpretation of their cozy relationship, why did he not write her a memo back and say --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: -- “Dear Mrs Starr,” -- none of this “Patti” stuff – “I don’t know what you are talking about” --

The Speaker: Thank you.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr O’Neil: Again to the Leader of the Opposition, in any dealings or any inquiries on this particular case that I had, because it was going to litigation, it was handed over to the legal staff within my ministry or with the Ministry of the Attorney General.

I might read something for the member: “The advice of counsel from the Ministry of the Attorney General is that the claims made by Lakeshore Pubs are without merit and Ontario Place Corp is prepared to defend the action on that basis.” That was the advice that was given to the people at Ontario Place and that may be why Mrs Starr put those comments about the advice she received.

Mr Brandt: I have a question to the same minister. In June 1988, apparently there was a party at Ontario Place sponsored by Mrs Patricia Starr. That party was catered by one of the individuals who was successful in receiving one of the concessions at Ontario Place.

Can the minister confirm that such a party was held in June 1988 and can he give this House the assurance that this party did not come at a direct cost to Ontario Place and therefore to the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Mr O’Neil: For me to give that information to the member, I think I would have to have more details as to what the date was and where it was held. I am not familiar with the particular one the member talks about. If he has more details, I would be very pleased to receive them and check into it for him.

Mr Brandt: This is exactly the reason why the documentation being secured is of so much importance and why I asked the minister earlier to make absolutely certain that documentation is secured.

The party was held in the Trillium Restaurant in June 1988. It was for the son of Patti Starr, and I am asking the minister to indicate to this House that this party was in fact paid for by those who were involved and not the taxpayers of Ontario. That is the confirmation that I want, and I want the minister to give that assurance to the House.

Hon Mr O’Neil: Again, I just say to the member that any of the documents that are there are there for any of the people doing the investigation. This particular matter that the member has mentioned again that has been raised by Mr Jupp makes certain accusations. I cannot confirm or deny those accusations.

The Provincial Auditor is in there. They will be reviewing those matters, as I say, along with any others. If there are any problems with them that are reported back either to me, as minister, or to the standing committee on public accounts, there will be action taken, but I cannot comment on any particular situations that the member has mentioned. I do not have the details of it.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Kozyra: My question is to the Treasurer. The recent announcement in the budget about the elimination of Ontario health insurance plan premiums is beginning to cause a good deal of concern for both management and labour about the implications, especially as they relate to collective agreements and employee benefits.

Specifically, some agreements state: “If there should be a reduction in the premium charge, the company’s contribution shall not be reduced from the amount set out. The balance shall be applied to such other employee benefit plans as may be agreed upon between the company and the union. Pending such agreement, the balance shall be paid directly to the employee.”

Does the Treasurer have an

interpretation of this development that might clarify the situation?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member used the right word in his question. The premiums are not reduced, they are eliminated. In that sense, the wording in the agreements that he refers to should be subject to the negotiations between the two parties in reaching some sort of an agreement on their salary position or their wage scales for the coming year.

I think it is important to know that the elimination of OHIP premiums really means that it is about $715 in the pockets of the individuals who pay their own, and for those of us, including all the members of the Legislature, whose employer pays our OHIP premiums at the present time, it means that there is a taxable benefit which we receive now which is not taxable next year. In other words, there will be $1 billion in the pockets of individuals in the province.

It seems to me it is on that basis that employers and employees might carry on their discussions.

Mr Kozyra: Does the Treasurer think it advisable to introduce explanatory directions on this matter or does he feel that the natural course of collective bargaining will resolve the difference of opinion?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Actually, I would answer by saying the latter. I simply say again that the wording of the

section in the present agreement that governs some wage situations is that if the costs are reduced; in this instance they are reduced to zero. It seems to me that really means that bargaining in good faith would be the best way to proceed for a fair and equitable disposition of the problem, if there is one.

SECURITY GUARD LICENCE

Mr Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform this House as to why Paul Downing, former principal officer and shareholder of Securicor -- who lost his licence for deliberate violations of the Labour Relations Act for, among other things, infiltrating an agent provocateur, David lvers, on to a legal picket line where he deliberately provoked violence -- was issued a private investigation and security guard licence and incorporated as a new company, Canada Security Corp, on 1 April of this year? Does the minister have any idea of the anger this has created throughout the trade union movement?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I do indeed have a sense of how affronted some people will be that the individual was once again issued a licence. My friend the member for Hamilton East has provided some of the background. I do not think we need to go into much more detail, other than to respond to his question in this way. My understanding is that under the law that governs the issuance of those licences, the applicant had met all of the thresholds required, so the law requires a licence shall be granted.

May I say as well, though, my understanding is that the licence is restricted in such a way that he is not allowed to offer his services in any facet that relates in any way to labour relations, strikes or lockouts anywhere in the province.

Mr Mackenzie: Mr Downing, in his previous incarnation, was ordered to pay $507,000 to the United Steelworkers of America when proven guilty of deliberately prolonging a strike. He did not pay. In fact, he defaulted. Does the minister not believe that

section 8 of the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, which says a licence or licence renewal can be issued “where in the opinion of the registrar the proposed licensing is not against the public interest,” has been clearly violated by Mr Downing’s contempt of the judgement against him? What steps is the minister going to take to see that this injustice is undone?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I just want to point out to my friend the member for Hamilton East that I am not sure he is directing his question to the right minister in the sense that I have no jurisdiction over that act. I do not have the authority to tell another branch of government whether or not it is acting within the law. But I want to assure him that I have the same degree of concern, particularly because of the default judgement. I think his figures were accurate, somewhere around $500,000 in the bankruptcy that ensued thereafter.

The facts, as I am given them, are that the individual in question met the threshold test for a licence and that there are significant restrictions on the licence. But in view of my friend’s questions, I will pursue it further, and if I have the authority within my own ministry to comment further on it, then I will get back to him at an appropriate time.

FARM TAX REBATE

Mr Villeneuve: Can the Minister of Agriculture and Food tell this House the number of farm property tax rebate cheques that will be affected by his recent announcement?

Hon Mr Riddell: Somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 cheques.

Mr Villeneuve: I hope the minister realizes that there are many implications and ramifications on the way the ownership of farms is held and a number of other questions that still remain unanswered. For instance, if a farmer earns extra income from agricultural work such as custom combining or custom farming, will this be considered as farm or off-farm income?

Hon Mr Riddell: It would be considered as off-farm income. It is income that the farmer is not making operating his own farm, but it is income he is making off his own farm. That will be considered as off-farm income.

VEHICLE AND FUEL TAXES

Ms Collins: My question is to the Treasurer. I had an inquiry from a constituent who is disabled and requires the use of a wheelchair. It is necessary for his family to own a large car with trunk space to accommodate the chair. My constituent is concerned that the new tax on fuel-inefficient cars, as announced in the recent budget, will penalize him because of his disability.

Could the Treasurer please clarify this provision in the budget?

Hon R. F. Nixon: There is certainly no intention in the tax on fuel-inefficient automobiles to interfere with vehicles that would be made available to people who are handicapped in any way. I can simply assure the honourable member that the number of vehicles that will be affected will be less than three per cent of the vehicles offered for sale and that the exclusions will, in most instances, be the high-performance cars that are not normally associated with providing transportation for the handicapped.

I can give the honourable member my assurance that there will be adequate vehicles available without paying this tax, without going into the high-performance cars that do come under the direct imposition of the so-called gas-guzzler tax.

Ms Collins: There is a line in the budget that refers to retail sales tax rebates on alternative-fuel conversions and on vehicles for the disabled. Could he clarify this line and explain the implications of this rebate for the disabled?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think it is appropriate that the question is asked, because it has been put to me a number of times outside the House. In the past, the policy was to rebate the sales tax on any vehicle used for the purposes of officially transporting individuals who are disabled. There were many instances where the vehicles were very expensive indeed. We simply put a limit of $20,000 on an automobile and $30,000 on a van. That was the limit for the sales tax rebate. From our investigations, adequate and appropriate transportation can be provided within those limits.

The member also referred to the sales tax position on alternative fuels. That does not affect the handicapped specifically, but it does reduce the difficulty and inconvenience of applying for the sales tax rebate. It gives a longer period of time during which the rebate may be applied for. It is for the convenience of those people who want to undertake fuel conversion at a later period of time after the automobile is purchased.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition asked to stand down his second question. I see the minister is here.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr B. Rae: I wanted to go to the Minister of Housing. It is obvious that the capital account controlled exclusively by Mrs Starr, in addition to being a slush fund for the Liberal Party principally, was also a very important source of funds and cover of funds for companies controlled by Mr DelZotto.

I want to ask the minister this question. She will recall questions that were put to her back in November concerning Mrs Starr’s role at the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority in leaking certain information to the Tridel Corp and the fact that a numbered corporation controlled by Tridel and the DelZotto brothers completely broke the rules of the tendering process in place at the housing authority at that time.

Back in November, when I and my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr Breaugh) put questions to her about Mrs Starr’s role and the special deals being given to Tridel and the DelZotto family, her response was: “Hands off. There is nothing I can do.” We now see there is a pattern. It is a very disturbing pattern.

I want to ask the minister whether she will not now reopen that file and have a look at the particular contract which was offered to the DelZotto brothers and to Tridel Corp under the guise of the numbered corporation.

Hon Ms Hošek: As the member opposite knows, decisions about contracts are made by the MTHA board. The MTHA board has people on it who are representatives who have been sent to it by the Metropolitan Toronto government, by our provincial government and by the federal government, because all three governments participate in the running and management of the housing that is part of the Ontario Housing Corp stock. So any decisions that were made were made by the board of MTHA as a board, not by any single member of that board.

Mr B. Rae: Mrs Starr leaked information. She is the minister’s representative. Mrs Starr is the minister’s friend, the friend of the Liberal Party, who is on MTHA. She leaked information to Mr DelZotto’s companies, to Tridel. She leaked information which should have been confidential to the board and the minister cannot absolve herself of responsibility for Mrs Starr’s conduct. Mrs Starr’s capital account is full of payments to people who were not only Liberal Party candidates but people who were also Liberal Party fund-raisers and people who are senior executives of the DelZotto companies. This is all now part of the public record.

I want to ask the minister whether she does not feel an obligation to at least reopen that particular file to make sure that this kind of special deal for the DelZotto family does not continue to happen in Liberal Party Ontario.

Hon Ms Hošek: This is a serious matter the member is raising. If the board of MTHA decides there is a problem, it is open to it to open that file, take a look at it and see if it sees any difficulties. If there is anything wrong, they can look at that and release that information to the public.

This is a responsible board. They manage 33,000 housing units in the Metro area. As I said to the member, they represent all three levels of government that are associated with this and have been appointed by three different levels of government. They are serious people. If they think there is a concern about what happened in this matter, they are free to look at it and to make the matter public if they choose to.

Mr B. Rae: It is hard to do that when the Liberal Party hacks who are appointed and the Tory hacks who are appointed are not about to reopen an issue when the minister knows what has happened. That is exactly the problem. That is the issue at stake here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It might be time for all members to pause. Order.

Mr B. Rae: When this matter was being considered by this House in November, it was revealed that an internal document of the housing authority said this: “Del” -- that means the Del-Zotto empire – “requires this arrangement with a numbered company and not with Tridel itself to avoid having the site staff unionized.” This is what it is all about. It is about breaking the power of workers who are trying to organize. It is about giving special deals under the table to one’s friends. It is about having a slush fund in which money is transferred from the Liberal Party --

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: -- transferred back and forth between numbered corporations and nothing being done about it.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr B. Rae: In her role as Minister of Housing, will the minister not at least guarantee that in an area in which she can exercise jurisdiction she makes sure that this kind of abuse is finally investigated so we can find out --

The Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Mr B. Rae: -- exactly what the special ties between the Liberal Party and the DelZotto empire in fact are?

Hon Ms Hošek: The bureau of accuracy over there at New Democratic Party headquarters is at it again. It is very clear that the reason we have a structure with responsible boards is so they can be responsible. There are three levels of government that have appointed members to that board. I know, as does the member opposite, that some of the members currently sitting on the MTHA board would be quite insulted to be associated with either the Liberal Party or the Tory party. I am sure he will be hearing from them. The issue here is that there is --

Mr B. Rae: The four people who asked to reopen the contract for sure are not your appointees.

Hon Ms Hošek: If I may answer the member opposite, I would be delighted to do so if he were interested in listening to the answer.

There is a clear process for doing this. There is a responsible board which is able to look at its own affairs. If they believe, in the light of some of the issues that we have been raising recently, that there is a problem, and they may indeed decide that they believe that, they can reopen the question and it is up to them to do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We will just wait until they settle down.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to his involvement with Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Trucking Association has reported publicly that “the Bill 208 Business Coalition, as it has become known, has worked with officials at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to express mutual concern and to propose alternatives to key aspects of this legislation.” The minister has met with this association and the association reports that “it seems these efforts have effectively convinced the government that Bill 208 needs revision.”

Obviously, the minister is working hand in hand with industry to stop progressive legislation improving health and safety for workers in the province. Is the minister doing this in part because he and his riding association received more than $60,000 in contributions from corporate interests last fall?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I am sure that all members, and I say all members, have heard from business interests objecting to some of the provisions in Bill 208. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I have a responsibility to hear those concerns. The member should also know that I have personally met with Gord Wilson, who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be termed a business interest, to discuss exactly those same concerns.

I have heard from a wide range of people on both sides of the issue. As a responsible Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I have an obligation to listen to them and to pass along to my colleagues some of their observations.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Morin-Strom: It is evident that when it comes to this particular bill, industry or the corporate sector has its representative in cabinet advocating for it. I wish the working people of the province had an advocate in the cabinet representing their interests when it comes to health and safety legislation.

This minister has received, in a fund-raiser for himself, more than $60,000 from more than 150 corporations last fall. Why is the minister representing the corporate interests solely in this matter and acquiescing to their concerns with respect to the health and safety legislation? Why is the minister not taking a stand that would reflect the interests of the working people of this province rather than those of his corporate donors?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I am sure the member will agree that when legislation comes forward, we do not take one side or the other, nor do we exclude any person who is going to be impacted by that legislation. There is ample opportunity under our system for people to make representations to all of the members in this House and to all members of cabinet.

As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I take some pride in being a champion for industry in this province. I have no excuse and make no apologies. There is also ample opportunity for other groups, depending on their interests, to make representations to anybody in this House and anybody in cabinet.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Harris: I have a question to the Minister of Housing. We have already established that she awarded a $250,000 consulting contract without tender to a former campaign worker who made a substantial financial contribution to the minister’s campaign. We also know that Dino Chiesa received a $10,000 consulting fee from the minister’s friend Patti Starr and that he previously worked for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

Could the minister tell us what information she has concerning Mr Chiesa’s involvement at CMHC in the $10-million CMHC Prince Charles project that was constructed by Tridel and spearheaded by Patti Starr?

Hon Ms Hošek: It is my information that when Mr Chiesa worked for CMHC, he had no relationship to the file associated with the building that the member has just mentioned.

Mr Harris: In fact, Mr Chiesa was employed by CMHC until May 1987. This morning CMHC confirmed that, as manager of program operations, it was Dino Chiesa who recommended the approval of the Prince Charles-Patti Starr project, and indeed that it was his pet project and his file.

Given what we know about Patti Starr and her use of the political slush fund that came out of this project, given the established ties of Patti Starr to the minister, Tridel and the Liberal Party of Ontario and given that Mr Chiesa was not only involved in the project but that it was in fact his project, I really would like to know if none of this is of the slightest concern to the minister.

Is this relationship with Dino Chiesa and all of the players involved in this whole controversy of no concern to her and her ministry’s role of dealing in a fair manner with all of the corporations in Ontario?

Hon Ms Hošek: It is of great concern to me that we do our work as well and as fairly as we possibly can. I understand that it is the member’s wish to put as many things together to create the sense that they are all related. I do not know if they are all related. What I do know --

Mr Harris: I am not putting them together. I didn’t put the people together. I didn’t do this.

Hon Ms Hošek: Would the member like to listen to the answer to the question he asked? Perhaps he will give me that courtesy.

My concern is that we do our work the best way we know how. The member knows that very well, because I have told him this before in the House. When we in the ministry were looking for someone to look at the whole question of how we used government land as well as we knew how, partly in response to the concerns mentioned in the opposition and in the third party about the way we were using government land to help with people’s housing needs, it was decided that we needed someone who had those skills.

The deputy minister developed a sense of what kind of skills were required. He developed a list of criteria. Five people met those criteria.

Mr Harris: The only skills that we have seen are his connections. He has connections. Those are the skills that he brought.

Hon Ms Hošek: Let me finish, if I may. Five people met those criteria, and that is why Mr Chiesa was offered a job. It seems to me that is extremely important and that is why he is working together with the ministry to do the work associated with land development for the benefit of the people of Ontario, so that we can make sure that our land is used well for people who need housing help.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mrs O’Neill: My question is to the minister responsible for women’s issues. As the minister is aware, conservative estimates indicate that one in 10 women are physically abused by their partner. The minister himself has acknowledged that the impact of wife assault is far-reaching. Indeed, studies on children who witness such violence indicate that serious behavioural problems are 17 times higher for boys and 10 times higher for girls.

While I was delighted by the minister’s recent announcement of the additional $5.4 million for the joint family violence initiatives, I must point out that the unfortunate needs still exist.

I would like to ask the minister what other measures will be undertaken to address this problem, particularly those things that have to do with services to shelter homes and the staffing ratios of those homes.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to thank the member for the question and congratulate her on her interest in the whole issue of domestic violence. I want to say to her and to every member of this House that we have a very significant obligation, as a Parliament and as a province, to do every single thing we can to confront, deal with and eliminate the problem of domestic violence.

I would encourage the member, other members of this House and every resident of this province to become a serious and committed advocate in the campaign to eliminate from our province and our country the terrible problem that we still confront in the area of domestic violence.

Frankly, as minister responsible for women’s issues, I feel that domestic violence and sexual assault against women are two of the most challenging problems and issues that I, as minister, face and that we, as a province, face because it is clear to me that one cannot truly speak of equality of women while we still have these problems that are here.

To answer the question of the member for Ottawa-Rideau, I simply want to say that our commitment of $5.4 million this year in enhanced programs will add very significantly in those areas that she referred to.

Mrs O’Neill: As we in the Legislature are all aware, the government is now halfway into its fourth year of a five-year commitment to address the issue of wife assault and prevention.

I would ask the minister if plans are in place to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the initiatives we have taken thus far to see what we have done, what we might have done differently and what must still be done. Furthermore, this government must continue its commitment to this extremely important issue beyond the five years. I hope that commitment will be reinforced with the minister’s answer.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I hope as well that we can complete our five-year commitment to a program that is comprehensive and has initiatives out of some 15 ministries, if my memory serves me well.

The question from the member was about the evaluation of programs. As I said, we improved services in this area by some $5.4 million just seven weeks ago. If the member looks at the increase in expenditures from 1985 to the present, she will see that the increase in funding in programs has gone from some $16 million to some $40 million over the past four years. But simply increasing funds is not enough. The member is right. We have to do a careful evaluation. It is not sufficient just to spend more money, but to spend more money wisely and well.

We have in place now an evaluation program looking at all the initiatives we have undertaken. We are, in a sense, preparing for the second phase of this five-year program. But I want to report that the key services, like shelter and education services, are doing, I think, marvellously well under very constrained circumstances, and certainly constraints of resources as well.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Health. It has now been four years since her party made a commitment to the Windsor-Essex area to replace our chronic care hospital. In fact, it was in the 1985 election that the present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Wrye) said that if the Liberal Party was elected the sod would be turned for the new hospital by the end of that calendar year. It is now 1989. The sod has not been turned. There have not been final approvals given for the hospital.

Can the Minister of Health tell the people of Windsor-Essex, and in particular the chronically ill, when our old 80-year-old chronic care hospital in a school is going to be rebuilt and a new chronic care hospital put in place?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would like to acknowledge the interest in the need for appropriate and effective planning in the Windsor area by the members on all sides of the House who represent the Windsor area. In fact, a number of discussions have been held with numerous members of this House.

I can say to the member opposite that as we review our capital planning, one of the things we want to ensure is that not only do we renew the hospitals and the infrastructure that must be renewed, but also we meet the real and changing needs of the community. I want to assure him that I have discussed this matter with the chairman of the district health council for the Windsor area and I am pleased to tell him of the willingness of that council to work co-operatively with all the partners in the region to make sure we are planning for the future.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have no idea what the minister meant. I am talking about the replacement of a chronic care hospital. I am not talking about fancy planning or more delays. I am talking about fulfilling the promise she made to build a new chronic care hospital in the Windsor community.

Is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations correct when he is quoted in the Windsor Star a couple of weeks ago as saying that the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy report which talks about community-based services will result in further delays for the chronic care hospital the minister and her party promised for our community? Are we going to get this hospital or are we not going to get this hospital, and if so, when?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased that the member opposite has acknowledged not only the leadership but also the advocacy of my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. His leadership is in the area of determining that we meet the real needs of the community as we plan for the future.

The member opposite would know that what we are saying in a number of forums is that we want to be able to plan appropriately for the future and bring people together around the district health council table to review how we can provide those services, because our focus is on services to meet the real and changing needs of our communities.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and it relates to a contact made earlier today by my office to the minister’s office that he table all correspondence that has changed hands between him, his deputy minister and Ms Starr relative to the operation of Ontario Place. Is the minister prepared to undertake today to make that documentation available to the House?

Hon Mr O’Neil: First of all, I would like to say to the member that I appreciate the call. I was made aware that he had called or that his staff had called. I would just state that we would be pleased to forward any information that he ever requested, and we would suggest that it go through the ministry’s freedom-of-information co-ordinator.

Mr Brandt: That is exactly the kind of answer that just puts this whole question of what went on at Ontario Place into total disrepute on the part of the Liberal Party. He can make that information available without going through freedom of information, which he knows will take months to process.

If he were sincere about making the information available in a public, open fashion, the minister would not give us this charade about freedom of information. I ask him again: if there is nothing to hide, if there are no shredders at work and if in fact he wants to provide the people of this province with the information they deserve, then would he make that documentation available?

Hon Mr O’Neil: The member knows that l am likely one of the most sincere members in this House. I do not know whether he said that, but I tell the member that the freedom-of-information act was something that was brought in and agreed to by his party. It is there for the protection of certain names or information. But I tell the member that any information that is there which is approved through my ministry will be released to him.

Mr Brandt: You are ducking, Hugh. It has nothing to do with sincerity. It has to do with your credibility as a minister.

Hon Mr O’Neil: No, I am not. I am not ducking at all.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

BROOKSIDE YOUTH CENTRE

Mrs Fawcett: My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. A great number of my constituents are most concerned about the security at the Brookside Youth Centre in the town of Cobourg. Over the past few months, there have been escapes from this facility, and my constituents and I are justifiably concerned for safety within the community.

Could the minister please advise us as to the steps that have been taken to ensure that the movements of these young offenders in the Brookside Youth Centre will be restricted to the confines of the fenced-off area?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I share the concern of my colleague and I am quite happy to have the opportunity to indulge in a lighter moment in this House talking about prison security.

As the member will know, we in Correctional Services took over this facility from the Ministry of Community and Social Services in April 1987. That facility had been previously operated under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act. One of the main problems with that facility as we took it over for more serious offenders was that the school, as the member knows, was outside the compound, and as we fenced it in, we had to transport the young offenders outside the compound to the school.

We now have a new facility under way. By September of this year, that school within the compound will be open and running, and we will no longer have to transport young offenders outside the fenced compound.

Mrs Fawcett: Could the minister please advise me as to when these steps will be taken so that I can assure my constituents that there will be no further unwarranted escapes?

Hon Mr Ramsay: As I previously outlined, this was a very minimal security facility that the Ministry of Community and Social Services had run under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act. As we placed more serious offenders in the facility, we had to make subsequent security advances to the place.

First, we have increased staff levels. We have also designed more security posts along the perimeter and other strategic locations within the facility so that we can have better surveillance of the young offenders in the facility. Also, as the member knows, there has been a problem at King Street and Cottesmore Avenue and we have beefed up the security at that particular location.

We feel that with the strategic improvements we have done, the staffing increases and all the other structural changes, we have better security for the people of Cobourg.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who just looked at the clock to see whether he was going to escape.

Yesterday, a complaint was lodged with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding discrimination against visible minority women under

section 8 of the regulation. The minister has indicated that some studies were done in a review by his ministry of a similar question. The study in question that I am aware of was done last November by a person who had no skills to undertake a survey, went to four Metropolitan Toronto offices, asked to see some

section 8 cases and looked at them to see which ones were inappropriate or appropriate. There was no large sample involved. There was no randomness. It was not scientific. There was no question asked about racial origins.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Allen: Can the minister tell us, when he says in the press this morning that there was no discrimination in the application of

section 8, does he indeed have any study that tells him independently whether there was or was not any discrimination?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that the basis for the report he mentioned was 17 clients from a file of 311, which represents approximately one third of one per cent of our entire case load. I would suggest to him that is open to discussion as to whether or not it is an appropriate basis for making the decisions that were made. That is number one.

Number two was the fact that we then went to all the area offices of this ministry and pulled files completely at random that were involved in

section 8 decisions to determine two things, first, whether there was any evidence to support the contention that had been made in the report -- there was not -- and second, to see whether or not the entire process of making

section 8 decisions was deficient. The answer to that second question was yes, and that is what is being changed right now.

PETITIONS

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

Mr Villeneuve: I have a petition against improper use of licence money and the Pearse report on the future of fishing in North America. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We the undersigned are concerned about the improper use of fishing licence revenue and the possible negative influence of the Pearse report on the future of fishing in North America.

“In regard to the first problem, it has become apparent that licence money revenue has become a replacement for regular MNR funding. Projects in our area, such as the indexed netting, RAP, St Lawrence River assessment and CFIP, which were originally funded from the general budget, are now funded by licence money. We would like to know why.

“Concerning the Pearse report, it is our view that although there will certainly be a need for advanced fisheries management strategies in the future, these strategies should involve both fish population management and user management. The Pearse report does little more than offer a way to avoid the responsibilities of effective stocking and habitat improvement.

“You asked for support of the licence so that you could carry out proper population management. You got the support. Now why aren’t you holding up your end of the bargain?”

I have signed this petition and so have 450 constituents in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the riding of Cornwall.

The Speaker: Just before I recognize any other members to present petitions, I would remind all members that we are not in recess or adjournment, we are in session. Thank you.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Lupusella: I have a petition signed by 145 citizens, addressed to the Honourable the Lieu-tenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

“And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

Mrs Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which petitions us to “introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

Mr Matrundola: I have a petition that is signed by 267 citizens and that was collected in the office of Pat Wales, a practising naturopath in my riding. The petition is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It calls on the Ontario Legislature to “introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.” It reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

“And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

As required by the standing orders, I have affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr McCague: I have a petition signed by 135 citizens of my riding. The text of it is exactly the same as the one just read previously. I believe it to be acceptable to the table and have therefore signed it.

Mr Owen: I too have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly. It too is calling on our “government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.” It is signed by 117 people from my area and it is submitted under my signature.

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

Mr Villeneuve: I have another petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“ We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We request that the Ministry of the Attorney General withdraw Bill 149,

An Act to amend the Trespass to Property Act, which we believe is unnecessary and without mandate.

“While we respect the rights of minorities and youth, whom Bill 149 alleges to protect, we oppose the way in which the proposed legislation will erode the ability of owners and occupiers to provide a safe and hospitable environment for their patrons or customers. We are further concerned about the legislation’s potential for increasing confrontation in the already difficult process of removing individuals who create disturbances on publicly used premises.”

I fully endorse this petition. It is signed by 59 constituents and I have signed it as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SARNIA-LAMBTON ACT, 1989

Hon Mr Eakins moved first reading of Bill 35,

An Act respecting the amalgamation of the City of Sarnia and the Town of Clearwater and the addition of the amalgamated City to the County of Lambton.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Eakins: As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of the bill is to amalgamate the city of Sarnia with the town of Clearwater on 1 January 1991, and to make the amalgamated city part of the county for municipal purposes.

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT, 1989

Hon Mr Elston moved first reading of Bill 36,

An Act to revise the Public Service Superannuation Act.

The Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Elston: I have just a brief explanation to indicate that the bill provides the basis upon which pensions will be delivered to the public service. I have made contact with the various representatives of the union organizations represented under the ambit of this fund. There is, of course, the scheme of pension deliverables about which the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has spoken before. This takes into account some of the announcements and statements that have been made through the budget papers with respect to contributions.

There are various ways in which the pension can be delivered if suitable agreements can be reached with representatives of the employees. We are looking forward to using this particular piece of legislation to provide us with the flexibility to address the modern-day needs of pension deliverables in Ontario. It also addresses the manner in which we anticipate being able to ensure indexation of public service pensions. We have also, in the ambit of this series of provisions, allowed for increases of some benefits. We will look forward to being able to pass this through the Legislative Assembly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1989

Hon R. F. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 17,

An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable members will have become accustomed to these bills over the years. The amount of authority asked of the Legislature is $2.6 billion. They would be aware, being as attentive to the details as I know they are, that the actual deficit of the province this year is expected to be under $600 million, but there will be retirements of debt to be financed of approximately $1.6 billion.

As well as that, the authority is more than for the full fiscal year. Because of advice that came from the standing committee on public accounts some years ago, the authority extends to the end of the September following the fiscal year. Additional borrowing authority will be required under those circumstances.

Also, it is expected that we, as a province, will be borrowing from the Canada pension plan on behalf of Ontario Hydro. Rather than giving the authority to Ontario Hydro to borrow directly with our guarantee, the process we have used in the province is for the province to borrow a part of its share of the premiums that accrue to the pension plan in Ottawa. It is expected there might be as much as about $1.3 billion for that purpose. This authority is a substantial amount indeed, at $2.6 billion, but I simply give further assurances to the honourable members that it is expected our deficit this year, in total, will be $577 million.

I think it is worth saying in this connection that of course the operations of the government will be fully covered by our tax revenues. In this connection, we will have a substantial operating surplus of just under $2.7 billion. All of this will go towards paying a large share, about 80 per cent, of our capital expenditures this year, and the borrowing that is referred to is for the completion of that capital account.

I feel the request is a reasonable one. The Legislature in the past has been good enough to give myself and my predecessors the authority to borrow on the credit of the consolidated revenue fund, and I ask for that authority to be continued.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate?

Mr Laughren: I do indeed wish to participate in this debate on Bill 117.

The Treasurer is quite right. We have agreed to support his efforts to borrow money in the past and we will do so again today. Although I think it is important to state that we do not always like what the Treasurer does with the money he borrows, we do think he has the right to borrow it, so for that reason, we will be supporting it.

We are concerned, though, about the way in which this government is running the show. We think the very clear shift to having the local level, the property taxpayer, reduce the deficit of this government is not appropriate. That really is what has happened. While the Treasurer trumpets his efforts at deficit reduction, what he is really doing is saying: “We are going to carry on business as usual and the property taxpayer, by assuming a bigger share of education and municipal expenditures, will reduce the deficit for us. We will pay less to the municipal and educational levels at the local level and make them assume more of the costs. Therefore, they in fact will be reducing the deficit.”

At some point I think the Treasurer should stand in his place and express his appreciation to the property taxpayers for all they are doing to enhance his reputation in the province in what seems to be, to many people, his attempts to reduce the deficit. I think it is time the Treasurer fessed up and was more honest with the taxpayers of Ontario and gave them credit for reducing the deficit by eating it at the local level, along with a combination of higher consumption taxes.

This is a bad time to talk to me about consumption taxes, having just received my auto insurance bill which is really a form of consumption tax.

Hon Mr Conway: And?

Mr Laughren: I have just had an increase from $2,800 a year to $6,000 a year for my automobile insurance. I am glad the minister is here.

Hon Mr Conway: Any explanatory note? Did you buy a new car?

Mr Laughren: There are lots of explanatory notes, which I would rather not get into.

Mrs Grier: It is called speeding to Queen’s Park.

Mr Laughren: I am not pleading totally innocent in this regard. On the other hand, when your auto insurance tax bill goes from $2,800 a year to $6,000, it does give one pause for thought about many aspects of one’s life, I might say.

Hon Mr Conway: So we are not going to get into this. Since Elie left your passenger seat, it has not been the same.

Mr Laughren: It is now out of control totally.

Hon Mr Conway: Elie was such a calming influence on you.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. No interjections, and address the remarks through the Speaker as you usually do. Thank you.

Mr Laughren: I could tell the members of some of the conversations the former member for Sudbury East and I used to have on our trips back and forth, but I will save that for another day. I will save those comments for the going-away party of the Treasurer at some point.

Hon R. F. Nixon: If you followed his advice you would be a member of cabinet.

Mrs Grier: No. He might be on the Environmental Assessment Board.

Mr Laughren: We are very unhappy with the way the government is shifting responsibility to the property taxpayer at the local level. Not only that, while the Treasurer sticks it to the property taxpayer and to the ordinary consumer with the kinds of taxes he has been imposing, namely, the retail sales tax, the government --

Hon Mrs Caplan: Is this the “Don’t spend” speech?

Mr Laughren: I do not think this is an appropriate day for the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) to get involved in the debate, considering how she misled the taxpayers in Windsor vis-à-vis a new hospital. The Minister of Health knows full well that is exactly what she did.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think that is rather unparliamentary language and I would ask the member for Nickel Belt to withdraw, please.

Mr Laughren: I will withdraw the comment with “misled” that I used and let the taxpayers of Windsor decide whether or not she misled them in the past when she promised that hospital and did not deliver. It is up to the voters of Windsor to make that determination.

Hon Mrs Caplan: Continue with your “Don’t spend” speech.

Mr Laughren: It is good to see the Minister of Health involving herself in the debate again.

The Deputy Speaker: No interjections, and the member will address the House through the Speaker as usual.

Mr Laughren: It is very difficult when the Minister of Health, who should be running for cover, has the audacity to sit in her place and heckle an opposition member for the way in which her government is spending the funds that it extracts from the taxpayers in this province.

I did want to talk about the tax credits that the Treasurer also talks about from time to time. The tax credits that are supposed to be used to ease the burden of taxes on low-income people and seniors in this province have not been keeping pace with other costs to these people. For example, since the 1970s, the last time we did the numbers, they had eroded in value by about $300 million in tax credits in Ontario. We think that is simply not appropriate.

While the Treasurer is raising all sorts of taxes, he then in all honesty should be raising the tax credits that continue to protect the people at the low-income level. That was the purpose of those credits. Yet the Treasurer goes on raising all sorts of taxes in the province and not raising the tax credits. That simply is inappropriate. The low-income people are worse off with this government than they were when the Tories were in power. That is a fact because this government has not increased the tax credits.

Mr Black: That is not true.

Mr Laughren: It is actually a fact. I know it must hurt a Liberal to hear that his or her Treasurer is meaner to low-income people than were the Tories. Now that is saying something, but it is absolutely true. We will not get into the whole question of taxpayers this afternoon although it certainly would be in order, considering the bill that we are debating. We dealt with that in the budget.

I was checking some of the numbers going back a few years, and the level of property taxes is going up at approximately double the rate of inflation.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: The Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) does not seem to think that is true, but according to the municipalities themselves the property taxes are going to go up in Metropolitan Toronto, 12.4 per cent; in Hamilton, 8.9 per cent; in Waterloo, 10.4 per cent. Not all of it is the responsibility of the government, of course, because the local municipality has expenditures that it must make as well, but the municipalities figure that about half of those increases are due to the shift from provincial responsibility to the responsibility at the local level. That surely is not appropriate.

The other thing that this government and particularly the Treasurer himself have done is freeze the unconditional grants to the municipalities and the road assistance grants. He uses the word “freezes,” but in fact he means “cut.” If we have an inflation rate of five per cent and he says he is freezing the level of grants,” he is really cutting it five per cent. That is what he is doing, because the rate of inflation eats into that. So here we have the Treasurer talking on the one hand about how he is increasing grants to municipalities by eight per cent when in fact he is cutting grants. He is cutting the unconditional grants and he is cutting the grants on road assistance.

He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. One side is saying he is giving the municipalities an eight per cent increase and the other side is saying he is freezing the unconditional grants and the road assistance, which really means cutting them. Besides, much of that eight per cent increase that is going to municipalities is going in areas where the municipalities must make matching grants. I am thinking of day care, welfare and public transit.

When the Treasurer and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) talked about the Social Assistance Review Committee, the Thomson report on social assistance reform, they did not quite carry through the way they could have. As I recall, Judge Thomson recommended that social assistance be a provincial responsibility, not partly municipal. Until we have reached that stage, we really are not dealing with social assistance the way we should be.

On the Ontario health insurance plan payroll tax, which was raised in question period today by the member for Port Arthur (Mr Kozyra), as I recall, while I endorse totally -- as this party has for a long, long time -- the abolishing of OHIP premiums, the Treasurer simply is going to have to look after public bodies out there that simply cannot cope with the increased costs.

I understand that the universities have been given reassurances that they are going to have their grants make up for the increased costs of their paying the payroll tax for health care to abolish the OHIP premiums. I assume that all universities are having that done. I would be interested in knowing from the Treasurer what time commitment he has made on paying for the extra costs for those institutions, so that they can absorb the costs of the OHIP replacement premium, the payroll tax premium.

I would also like to know whether any commitment has been made to the school boards or to the municipalities. Metro Toronto tells us that the increased cost to it alone will be $1.4 million. I believe that announcements have been made about all the post-secondary institutions, but I would appreciate clarification as to what extent that is going to continue and to what extent that is just to ease the pain this first year, after which they will have to absorb that themselves.

We intend to vote for Bill 17, but I did want to express the concern we have with the way in which the Treasurer is shifting costs to the local property taxpayer. If there is ever a tax revolt in this province I predict it will come at the local level, and a lot of that responsibility will not be on the shoulders of the local municipal politicians; it will be on the shoulders of this Treasurer.

Whether or not he is still the Treasurer at that point remains to be seen because we do not know how long it will take before a tax revolt occurs, if ever it does. But it is inappropriate that the Treasurer would be shifting so much of the responsibility to the local property taxpayer while he pretends he is reducing the provincial deficit when in fact it is the local property taxpayer who is doing that.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I will comment briefly and then I can have some windup remarks after the debate is completed. It is interesting that the honourable member, in his inimitable fashion, is talking about a tax revolt. It is difficult for us to perceive that the opposition members would support or even think of a tax revolt. As far as I know, there have been only two questions on the budget asked in the House since it was brought before the House.

Really, I do not recall a time in the last 100 years when there has been less interest in the budget, particularly one of this importance, in the Legislature of Ontario. We have received phone calls from interested citizens who do not seem to have anybody in the House to speak for them, and a few letters, I must say, as well as some specific calls. But as far as tax revolt is concerned, if we go by the response from the members of the opposition parties in the Legislature, it looks as if the budget is welcomed with open arms.

The honourable member is also certainly aware that the overall grants to municipalities have grown substantially this year in spite of his concern that we are offloading to the municipalities. The overall increase is from $4.1 billion to $4.5 billion: an overall increase of eight per cent. I wish it were more, but it is certainly substantial.

School boards’ capital, for example, is 30 per cent year over year. We have also arranged to preflow the capital so that the school boards can get on with their financing without delay.

As far as the employer health levy goes, the honourable member asked a question particularly. He was in the House last week when I announced additional financing of an interim nature to assist the hospitals and universities and colleges in this regard. I also said at that time that in the regular announcements that the Treasurer makes in the fall -- usually November or early December -- of course, those additional expenditures would be taken into account; not as a separate amount, because we simply have a year-over-year increase announcement.

Mr Laughren: Someone else was speaking in my other ear when the Treasurer was responding at one point.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I know what that is like.

Mr Laughren: I did not understand the Treasurer’s statement on municipalities and school boards as to what extent those bodies have been assisted concerning the payroll tax in the way the hospitals and universities and colleges have been.

When we combine the freeze on the unconditional grants, the freeze on the road assistance and some other provincial initiatives like the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement and pay equity that cost the municipalities a lot of money, even though they may be appropriate to have in place -- I am not questioning that -- it does put an undue burden on the municipalities and through them on the local property taxpayer.

To what extent is the Premier -- the Treasurer -- gee, I should not make that mistake -- prepared to stand in his place and recognize the fact that those bodies have problems just like the hospitals, the colleges and the universities? I would appreciate a response from the Treasurer.

Mr Harris: I do want to participate briefly in this debate.

Hon R. F. Nixon: It is not the size of the caucus that counts.

Mr Harris: I concur with the Treasurer’s interjection. I note he pointed out that I was absent at the beginning of this debate or that nobody from my caucus was here, I believe.

Hon R. F. Nixon: No.

Mr Harris: Oh, that was not what he said.

Hon R. F. Nixon: No, no.

Mr Harris: Oh, well. In any event, I was busy outside meeting with the media on the Pattigate, Chavivagate, Liberal Partygate affair.

Mr Laughren: On a point of order, Mr Speaker –

The Deputy Speaker: A point of order, under which standing order?

Mr Laughren: I trust the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) will forgive me for this, but the Treasurer’s comment about it not being the size of the caucus that counts provoked me and I think it is appropriate that we have a quorum in a debate as important as this.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum being present, the member for Nipissing may resume.

Mr Harris: I do not want to spend a great deal of time on this particular bill. There are some other more damaging and contentious and, I would suggest, hideous bills the Treasurer has in Orders and Notices that we will have the opportunity to comment on, but I do want to point out a few interesting facts.

We are dealing with a bill empowering the government to borrow $2.6 billion to feed its appetite for the increases, double and double-and-a-half the rate of inflation, we have seen from this government year over year. I suppose I ought not to blame the Treasurer -- in fact, I do not blame him -- for the fact that neither he nor anybody else has been able to contain the massive spending increases the Premier (Mr Peterson) has authorized for his cabinet.

Indeed, I know the Treasurer, in the spirit of cabinet solidarity and confidentiality, must support his Premier, although I am sure secretly and quietly he is as frustrated as we are and as the people of this province should be with the fact that this province is so totally out of sync with every other senior level of government across this country.

The federal government spending increases in the last five years averaged 3.5 per cent on its own programs. If you look back over the past four or five years, the other provincial legislatures increased their own expenditures at or below the rate of inflation. Then of course this government is now up about 50 per cent in its five years, double or double-and-a-half the rate of inflation year over year and in this budget, necessitating this borrowing.

I am most intrigued. If we look at this budget right at the start and take the $400 million that was preflowed and put it in the appropriate year where it belongs, we are looking at double the rate of inflation again, close to a 10 per cent increase in spending year over year. That is why we must once again borrow this money.

I point out a couple of interesting statistics as well. The total debt of this province when this government took over in 1984 was just over $30 billion. This government has been in power through five of the highest growth years, five sustained years, something that this country, and certainly this province, historically has probably never seen before, not this type of sustained growth -- revenue increases that come in without tax increases.

Of course, when you add the crippling tax increases this Treasurer has brought in to try to keep pace with the Premier’s rampant spending, you will realize the massive amount of money he has had coming in through increased economic activity and through the massive tax increases. In spite of that, over these five years the total debt of this province has gone up fully one third, from $30 billion to $39.9 billion or close to $40 billion this year.

Can anybody believe we are going to have five years like this again any time in the future? One would hope so, of course, although the Treasurer is not budgeting for that himself; he shows a great slowdown in the rate of growth. On behalf of the poor, beleaguered taxpayers of this province and on behalf of the young, who will have to repay this money, I find it absolutely irresponsible that the debt of this province has gone from $30 billion in these five years to very close to $40 billion.

Another interesting figure that I am sure is a rather scary figure is the public debt interest, the amount paid in interest; this is, of course, the debt that is there. Even after the recession and the very difficult times of the early 1980s that preceded this government’s taking over -- I might add that it was this Treasurer who, that summer when he took over, complimented the former Conservative government for the wonderful fiscal and financial affairs he discovered the province in. He said, “You know, I inherited a very well managed, well run province.”

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Harris: I do not think I am paraphrasing beyond what the words were. Certainly that is the intention the reporters reported, and I believe the Treasurer. But at that point, when he took over, we were paying $2.9 billion in interest. That was just on the debt. That is a scary figure. That bothered me. In spite of the recession and in spite of the most caring way we had to help those less fortunate through those difficult times, I still was a little concerned that in interest alone we were paying $2.9 billion.

Then the good times came, and we had five years of growth and five years of massive tax increases; five years of money rolling in from the federal government; five years of $2 billion in revenue that came into this province which the Treasurer did not even budget for. Those are what are called excess revenues. “We think we will get this much; this is our budget.” Over those five years, $2 billion came in.

What did the Treasurer do with the $2 billion? I am sure he said: “Gosh, Premier, we’ve got $2 billion more than we thought we were going to have. Shouldn’t we reduce our deficit? Shouldn’t we reduce our debt?”

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Harris: The Premier said, “No, we’ve got $2 billion extra dollars. We’ll spend that money.”

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Again, may I remind all members of the standing orders: one member at a time.

The member for Nipissing. I would like to hear what the member says.

Mr Harris: I understand the discomfort of the Liberal members in hearing these figures. In fact, if I were in their shoes, I would be very uncomfortable and would want to interject and try to --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Harris: -- distract me, too. Indeed, I understand where they are coming from. It is an embarrassing and very uncomfortable position to be in.

What is that interest payment of $2.9 billion today? Now we are paying $4.29 billion. Almost $4.3 billion is now being paid in interest alone. Indeed, that is why we have to have this bill to borrow $2.6 billion.

I want to put a couple of other things on the record. The Treasurer has said repeatedly that the reason he had the high taxes and the reason he must borrow money to keep up with spending is that the federal government is cutting him back. It is cutting back the transfers. The Treasurer may carefully use his words and say, “That isn’t exactly what I said,” but if that indeed is the impression that is left out there, who am I to object to that?

I would ask him, knowing that the Treasurer will have two minutes to comment on my remarks, whether he would respond and just confirm for me two figures, which are his figures, in his budget. The first one I would ask him to confirm -- this is his budget document, the one with the Stinking Benjamin on the front, reflective of the budget --

Hon R. F. Nixon: Trillium erectus.

Mr Harris: -- is on page 40, and his officials are looking up and will fire it to him and the Treasurer can indeed confirm whether I am correct --

Hon R. F. Nixon: I have it right here; wait a minute.

Mr Harris: I am sorry, it is on page 41, the consumer price index: He projects for the next year that across Canada inflation will be 5.2 per cent and that in Ontario he thinks it will be 5.8. That is probably because we have such a free-spending government here that will contribute to inflation, more so than across the country, but I would just ask the Treasurer to confirm a 5.8 per cent increase in the cost of living that he projects in his budget for the province, and indeed 5.2 per cent that he projects for the country. I would ask him if he would confirm those figures in his comments.

I would ask him to also confirm, on page 58 of the budget, where we have the total of the payments from the federal government to the province, that indeed the figures are “interim 1988-89, $5.114 billion” and that he budgets that the federal government will transfer to him $5.469 billion. Those are the Treasurer’s figures, and indeed he could confirm as well that that rounds off to seven per cent.

All I would ask the Treasurer to do is to confirm that inflation across this country is 5.2 per cent and that the federal government, in spite of the massive debt problems it has inherited and still cannot seem to be able to work its way out of -- and gosh knows, I think we should all be giving it every bit of co-operation we can, because surely the biggest problem facing this country and this province is that massive debt at the federal level -- in spite of the fact it has that problem, in spite of the fact that spending on its own programs this year is up about 3.6 per cent, it is increasing its transfers by seven per cent to the richest province of this country, Ontario.

That is well in excess of its own spending, well in excess indeed of the rate of inflation for Ontario, and it is short only that amount that it cannot seem to -- While they can transfer more than the rate of inflation, while they can transfer an increase in excess of what every other government of this country is spending -- the increases of every other province -- the only thing I think the Treasurer can say is that they have not been able to keep up with the Premier and his capacity to spend double the rate of inflation. I am surprised that the federal government is transferring in excess of the rate of inflation to Ontario.

I would ask the Treasurer if he could confirm those numbers, and then he can take whatever time he wants to fudge it around and hedge it or however he does those things; that on page 58 indeed his document says the Treasurer will get seven per cent more from the federal government this year than last year, and indeed his document says that inflation is 5.2 per cent and confirm for all the people of this province that the federal government is transferring to him more than the rate of inflation. Surely he cannot use that as an excuse to not be able to keep up with the spending that his Premier has inflicted with such damage to this province.

I will have much more to say later in the day as we get into the more substantive bills. As you know, Mr Speaker, it is not within our power to hold up this borrowing -- I suppose we could hold it up. I am not sure that is particularly responsible, and knowing, as the Treasurer would know, that I would never hold something up unless I was doing so in a very responsible way, we will not oppose this proceeding on second reading today.

But we are not happy that this type of borrowing is going on in the fifth year of such economic boom in this province and we are not happy that the Treasurer has seemed to found his excuse that the federal government somehow or other is not giving the Treasurer what he thinks the province is entitled to when indeed Ottawa is transferring to it in excess of the rate of inflation. I do not really know where they can possibly find the money to do that. I was astounded myself, when I saw the figures, that they are transferring seven per cent more this year than they did last year.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I would like to comment briefly. I always like to hear the honourable member in full flight. If it is any help, I can confirm to him and to any other interested persons and taxpayers that the figures he brought to the attention of the House are correct. I would just like to put them in perspective for about 50 seconds.

I would just like to point out to the honourable member, however, that earlier in this decade, when another government had the responsibility for directing the affairs of Canada, they paid about 51 per cent of the cost of medicare right across the country. Now this has fallen down to well below 40 per cent, as a matter of fact to 37 per cent. That is why we have had to add substantially to medicare in order to meet the needs which the honourable member and his colleagues very properly point out to us -- that is their duty, along with our own members -- are felt for improved medicare services in all parts of our province.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to respond?

Mr Harris: Yes, I do wish to respond. I want to thank the Treasurer for confirming that the federal government has transferred a seven per cent increase, that the transfers that come from the federal government to the richest province in this country are up seven per cent; and that inflation across this country is 5.2 per cent. Therefore, in spite of the horrendous problems the Treasurer also acknowledges the federal government has, it has transferred in excess of the rate of inflation to Ontario.

I also want to say this to the Treasurer: He made mention of 33 cents on every dollar that is collected by the federal government now paying interest only. It is a staggering figure. Indeed, it works out to close to $40 billion, which, to put it in perspective, is the entire budget of Ontario being paid by the federal government as interest on the debt alone. Those figures are within a billion dollars or so of each other, about $40 billion. That is a scary, staggering figure.

I believe very firmly that the people of this country and indeed the people of Ontario are looking for governments to work together, for municipalities, school boards, the provincial and federal governments to work together to solve the biggest problem we face today, and which, as the richest province, we have to be most concerned about: the federal debt.

The Treasurer does not help solve that problem when he cries and screams that he is not getting enough money, as the richest province. He helps solve that problem when he works co-operatively with that government towards that end. I would encourage him on behalf of Ontario citizens to indeed do that.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about an item that should be included in the plans the Treasurer has had for capital expenditure, for borrowing money in this province.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Health is in the Legislature so she can hear a few words of what I have to say about one of the most frustrating experiences I have had as a member of provincial Parliament in trying to get this new chronic care hospital in Windsor.

In 1985, I remember very clearly having a debate on TV with the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr Wrye) and the Conservative candidate June Boyd who was running in Windsor-Walkerville. The issue of the chronic care hospital and the plans for a new chronic care hospital were debated.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich said at that time that there was absolutely no problem; that if a Liberal government was elected the sod would be turned for that new chronic care hospital before the end of December 1985. Here we are in 1989 and the sod has not been turned. The Ministry of Health is still playing around with the plans that have been submitted by the hospital.

I cannot indicate that a particular member or minister has misled the House, because that would be unparliamentary, but I can clearly indicate that the Liberal Party clearly misled the people of Windsor-Essex in the provincial election in 1985, and then it misled them again in 1987 when it was running for re-election. The member for Windsor-Sandwich had all over his campaign literature that he was responsible for getting the --

Interjection.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Mr Speaker, I was very careful of what I said. I have not said that an individual member of the Legislature misled another member of the Legislature. I said the Liberal Party in its campaigns in 1985 and 1987 misled the people of Windsor-Essex by saying we would get this chronic care hospital, and we still do not have the sod turned on the chronic care hospital.

I remember when the former member for Kingston and The Islands, Keith Norton, was the Minister of Health, and we were in committee; the member for Windsor-Sandwich was in opposition at the time. We had been talking about the chronic care hospital then. In fact, this thing has been on the drawing board since 1971. The member for Windsor-Sandwich said to the then-Minister of Health: “You approve of the chronic care hospital. If there are problems at the local level, your bureaucrats should go down to Windsor and bang a few heads together to get this thing through the process.”

I say to the Minister of Health now that if she is going to put the blame back at the local level -- I wish she were listening, because this is the number one health priority in our area. Four out of five Liberals have been elected down in Windsor-Essex, and one of the main reasons they were elected was because they promised a chronic care hospital, and then the government deliberately went back on its promise.

It is too bad that the Minister of Health is so bloody arrogant that she will not listen to what is happening to the elderly people in our community. It is the same old story. That is how the Tories used to behave. That is why we never got the chronic care hospital before. Now the Liberals are doing exactly the same thing. They got the votes and now they thumb their noses at the people of Windsor and Essex when it comes to health care.

lnterjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I would like to indicate what the member for Windsor-Sandwich, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, said in the Windsor Star on Friday, 9 June. He said that not only have we had the delays and the misleading of the people of Windsor-Essex by the Liberal Party, but now we are going to get even further delays because of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy recommending the alternative forms of health care.

I totally agree that alternatives are absolutely essential, but we do have to have a basic chronic care facility. It is inappropriate that our elderly, our chronically ill, are put in a hospital which is a converted school, 70 or 80 years old, which is just not adequate. The minister would not want her relatives in that hospital, and I do not think we should be stuck having chronic care people in this inappropriate hospital either.

More important, the new chronic care facility is supposed to have in it a geriatric assessment centre, a day hospital, physiotherapy, outpatient services, all of the types of services that should be provided on a community basis but which we do not have in our community because we have an 80- or 90-year-old school that is being used as a chronic care facility. The minister just says: “It’s not my responsibility. It’s the folks down in Windsor. Let them deal with it.”

The former Minister of Health, the present Chairman of Management Board (Mr Elston), came down to Windsor, flew down and made the announcement before the last election. He said, “You’ve got the money here. You’re going to get your new chronic care facility. Re-elect Bill Wrye. Elect Mike Ray. You’re going to get your chronic care facility.” Here we are now a couple of years after the election and they say: “We don’t want to talk about it. It’s a local problem. We’re reassessing.” That is totally dishonest. Totally dishonest is the only way of describing it.

I will conclude by reading the last two paragraphs of a column that appeared in the Windsor Star on this issue just last week. It says:

“The sooner other area politicians join Cooke in demanding action the better. Time is running out.

“The way this clumsy, scandal-ridden government is going, they won’t be around to make decisions for Riverview residents or anyone else after the next election.”

I hope the Minister of Health understands that it will not take scandals to get rid of the Liberals down in Windsor-Essex. If they do not deliver on this hospital very soon, the people of our area will throw all four Liberals out and they will deserve to be thrown out because it is clear their party to date has misled the people of Windsor-Essex.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Mr Speaker, it does not seem to bother you that the honourable member has said that our political party has misled the people. Perhaps that may not be unparliamentary; it is simply in very poor taste. The fact that the member is indicating that the party is not keeping its promises is, of course, untrue, and he knows it is untrue. The fact that we are not responding to some sort of a timetable that the honourable member has set for the Minister of Health or somebody else has nothing whatsoever to do with the case.

I think that since we are here talking about borrowing money, the member might show a little more understanding as far as the needs of the province are concerned and the actual requirements of all the communities put together which assess their own. I hesitate to say that all of these things are as essential as all others, but there is the requirement of about $6 billion to $8 billion. We have already announced $850 million over a five-year period. The ministry and the minister’s predecessor have made certain commitments which we certainly intend to keep when we can.

The honourable member will know that we have already allocated $104 million for the Hospital for Sick Children and another $200 million for cancer treatment facilities right across the province. We would like to be able to announce the honourable member’s chronic hospital to suit him, but unfortunately we cannot. We are allocating $190 million in capital cash flow this year. I can assure the member that the Windsor facilities will be built as soon as they possibly can be with respect to the allocation.

It is not fair to blame the Minister of Health personally and directly. It is not fair. She can only build hospitals and give authorizations for cash flow when the Treasurer makes the money available. That is my job, and I am doing the best I can. One day the member says I am taxing too much and the next day he says that not enough money is going into his home town. If he can balance that, then that is fine. The people in his home town can make their own judgements in that regard.

Mr Laughren: I understand what the Treasurer is saying, that there are only so many dollars to go around and that the Minister of Health can only spend dollars on hospitals as the Treasurer allocates them to the Ministry of Health. But that surely begs the question of what the people of Ontario are to believe when cabinet ministers go around promising that specific facilities will be built. Are we supposed to assume that that means some time in the future? They announced it --

Hon R. F. Nixon: It doesn’t mean in the past.

Mr Laughren: Wait a minute now. They announced it prior to the 1985 election. They announced it prior to the 1987 election. The Treasurer just announced it now again in 1989. Are we to believe that ministers can go around promising anything everywhere? Are they going to promise whatever people want to hear and then deliver only in their own sweet time? They may think that that is not misleading the people, but I want to tell them that the people of Ontario will not put up with these phoney promises any longer.

I would like to know why the Minister of Health does not get into the debate. She has every right to get up and speak in this debate. It would be very nice to know what kind of timetable she is on. Obviously her predecessors --

Hon Mrs Caplan: There were 13 hours of debate on the estimates.

Mr Laughren: Wait a minute now.

The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, please, and no interjections.

Mr Laughren: In 1985, the ministers were promising this facility. Prior to the 1985 election, prior to the 1987 election, they were promising it. May we assume that prior to the 1991 election, if that is when it is going to be, we will have another announcement saying that facility will be built?

What else can we believe of this government when every time there is an election coming up, it promises the facility and then does not deliver and saves it for another promise prior to the next election? What kind of evidence do we need? Prior to the 1985 election, prior to the 1987 election --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Laughren: -- and here we are halfway through and they are promising it again.

The Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Harris: The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr D. S. Cooke) indicated that it was time for others to speak up on behalf of Windsor. I am proud to stand up today on behalf of my party to pledge our support for his efforts to hold this government accountable, to live up to its commitment of 1985, some four or five years ago now, to live up to its commitment of $22 million.

I heard some interjections from the Treasurer that this should be taken up in estimates. On the other hand, the Treasurer also says: “I’m the Treasurer. She can’t spend what she does not have and I’m the man who’s responsible.” So where is the $22 million or $23 million going to come from?

Let me suggest this to the Treasurer: He got $2 billion in excess money that he did not budget for over the last five years and he blew it all. He frittered it all away, and $22 million for Windsor was not his priority.

Second, in 1984 the former government promised a new hospital for North Bay. When this government took office in 1985, it cancelled the hospital for North Bay.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Harris: They cancelled it in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989-90. I will tell members opposite that while I might have screamed at the time, surely they could have taken that money and built Windsor’s chronic care hospital since they obviously do not intend to fund Nipissing’s hospital and the one that was promised in 1984.

I leave the government with this --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Harris: -- $2 billion in excess money cumula