Hansard Transcript 1988-Dec-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Farnan: Recently I met with Brad Grimwood, president of the Cambridge Fire Fighters Association, and Paul Cutting, chairman of the safety committee of the Cambridge Fire Fighters.

Their concern is that firefighters in Ontario are wearing fire-protective clothing that is dangerously substandard. Patrick De Fazio, chairman of the safety committee of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, has made this government aware that protective clothing currently in use has caused severe burns to firefighters. It has resulted in firefighters going down at the scene of an emergency from severe heat exhaustion. It has also contributed to the death of firefighters in this province by way of heart attack.

The Canadian General Standards Board has completed a standard on fire-protective clothing, referred to as CAN/CGSB 155.1M88. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) is in receipt of this Canadian standard and will be held accountable for any delay in implementing these recommended standards.

In order to protect our firefighters, I urge the Minister of Labour to ensure that these new safety standards with regard to fire-protective clothing are made mandatory. It is imperative that this government move as quickly as possible to bring about the type of protection required for our firefighters in this province.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. McCague: I rise today to urge the government to provide some answers to the people of this province about shopping hours during the holiday season. Last week, one of my constituents phoned the office of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) to get some clarification on whether it was legal or illegal to open a store on Boxing Day. However, officials in that office were unable to give a yes or no answer. He was told to call again. After several calls, he is still unclear as to what is or is not within the law, and it seems to me he is not alone. Press reports today say that merchants across the province have no idea whether or not they will be breaking the law if they do open their doors on Boxing Day.

This government owes it to the business people of this province to give them clear direction about the law as it pertains to Boxing Day. They must make a decision now to avoid the chaos that will occur if this government continues to sit on the fence. If, in its wisdom, the government does decide that Boxing Day is a holiday, it is my hope that it will enforce the law fairly and without exception.

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. McGuigan: Some media editors and all of my constituents who have contacted me on this issue are of the opinion that the Lord’s Prayer cannot be used in school opening exercises. The Ontario Court of Appeal did not bar the Lord’s Prayer, nor did the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) in his letter of advice to school boards. The minister said that the Lord’s Prayer may be included but that no prayer should be given a position of primacy. Perhaps the word “may” has created some confusion.

Common sense would suggest that in the predominantly Christian community, such as one finds in most of the small towns in rural Ontario, the Lord’s Prayer would be included and, to meet with the spirit of the court ruling, readings and prayers from other religions representative of the student population would also be included on a rotational basis. There would be recognition of the multifaith, multicultural tradition of Ontario, and no prayer would be given primacy where more than one religion is demanded.

The court decision recognizes the religious diversity that exists among students and their families. Surely we should also recognize that there are communities in Ontario that do not have as wide a religious base as is the case in our major cities. I believe the court decision can be interpreted by men and women of goodwill to serve all the communities and individuals of Ontario.

I call upon the minister and directors of education to be creative and sensitive on this issue.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) miserably failed the province yesterday when they failed to respond to the Thomson report’s proposals for a simpler, fairer social assistance system and more effective programs for helping the poor to become independent, self-supporting persons.

Social assistance rates equal to 1975 and minimum wages of less value than a decade past are a sure formula to keep the poor poorer and the welfare recipient on welfare. Yet there is not one sign that even the simpler proposals of the first stage of reforms proposed by Thomson will get to first base, such as eliminating the 120-hour limit on paid employment for sole-support parents on family benefits, increasing basic earnings exemptions and lowering the tax-back rate -- only a few of the steps the minister could now be taking to encourage the transition to work.

The excuse that the government cannot afford the interim social assistance increases proposed by Thomson is patently false and a gigantic copout. The provincial cost for the balance of this fiscal year would be $50 million. The government even now has an accumulation in unspent accounts of $184.8 million in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development and technology fund budgets alone. By failing to act now, the government is signalling that it will not act later.

What a gigantic hoax this whole enterprise has become. What an unprincipled fraud by the minister and the government. What a cruel betrayal of the most vulnerable of Ontario’s citizens.

[Later]

Mr. Dietsch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would appreciate if you would review the statement that was just made by the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) to see whether the language used was parliamentary language.

Mr. Speaker: I will.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Cousens: Today I held a press conference at the provincial courthouse in Richmond Hill. For over one year, staff, members of the judiciary and the public have endured intolerable conditions at this courthouse, with little sympathy, if any, from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). On any one day, carbon dioxide levels have exceeded safe levels to the point where staff and participants in proceedings suffer from headaches, discomfort and nausea. All of this is the result of extremely poor ventilation.

To add insult to injury, the people in this building are prevented from adjusting the thermostats and therefore are subject to working in unseasonably cold temperatures. The landlord has sealed off the thermostats with a notice saying, “Don’t touch or you will pay for the whole system.” It is not uncommon for court proceedings to adjourn every hour because of these conditions. This situation is unacceptable and belittles the process of due administration of justice. The Attorney General is aware of this situation, and yet corrective action has not been taken.

My actions this morning were meant to highlight this ridiculous situation and, furthermore, to impress upon the Attorney General that these conditions make a mockery of our judicial system. These people are cold. They cannot breathe without suffering injurious effects. This situation is disgraceful. We have a smoke-free environment, we have equal pay and yet basic working conditions do not exist in the Richmond Hill small claims court.

1340

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Black: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier’s special adviser on drug abuse prevention, I am pleased to rise in the chamber today to bring a good-news story to your attention and to the attention of the members of this House.

This morning, representatives of the Metropolitan Toronto Young Men’s Christian Association held a press conference at which they announced a new drug/substance abuse counselling service to the young people of downtown Toronto. The concept of this program was developed under 10 different agencies that have come together here in Metro Toronto to serve the needs of the age group between 16 and 24.

The goal of the program is threefold: First, it is designed to assist youth in identifying and decreasing their abuse of alcohol and other substances; second, it is designed to assist other human services providers and related professionals to work more effectively with their clients; third, it is designed to facilitate the development of new programs and to provide input to direct service providers.

As a result of this new program, outreach workers will be going out on to the streets of Metro Toronto and trying to assist those young people who have problems with drug abuse. I want to commend the Metropolitan Toronto YMCA for its efforts, as well as those of the other 10 agencies that were involved in this very worthwhile procedure.

I should add that funding for this has come from the Ministry of Health.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COURT SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Scott: When Mr. Justice Thomas Zuber presented his report on our court system, he made more than 150 recommendations that he felt would, if implemented, lead to a better justice system in Ontario. Many of his recommendations had a common focus. His proposals called for better management of our court system by all those independent players involved: the bench, the private bar, the crown attorneys and the court administrators.

One of his key recommendations, perhaps the key recommendation, called for a decentralization of management to the regional level. In this way he suggested that the justice system could become more responsive to local needs and conditions.

I am pleased to advise the House today that my ministry is proceeding to implement this central recommendation. Both the courts administration division and the crown attorney system within the ministry will be involved in this regionalization initiative. The key decision-makers will move from Toronto closer to the people affected by their decisions.

I do not believe it is possible to overemphasize the importance of this move. In my view and I think in Mr. Justice Zuber’s view, regionalization is a critical underpinning for the reform initiatives which must take place in the future.

We are, however, making one significant modification to Mr. Justice Zuber’s recommendation. In his report he suggested the ministry establish seven regions. The people of northern Ontario made clear to me on a number of visits that they had a problem with this proposal. Many individuals and groups told me that one large northern region would not be practical. The government has taken this concern to heart, so I am pleased to announce that there will be two northern regions created: one for northwestern Ontario and one for northeastern Ontario.

Regional court administrators and regional directors of crown attorneys will be located in regional centres in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Hamilton, London, Newmarket, Ottawa, Brampton and Toronto. These centres were chosen after careful consideration of a large number of factors, including case loads and geographic accessibility.

I know from my extensive consultations around the province that a major concern about regionalization of the courts administration division was that it would lead to the abolition of court sittings in some parts of the province. I want to make it clear that this will not occur. Regionalization will provide better service, not less service. For example, courts will continue to sit in those municipalities where they now sit. That will not change as a result of regionalization.

While regionalization is new for the courts administration division of the ministry, it is a refinement for the crown attorney system. This refinement will provide regional directors of crown attorneys with increased administrative support, thus allowing them to better manage the system within their region.

With regionalization, I believe my ministry will be in a position to become fully involved in the sort of joint management activity that Mr. Justice Zuber recommended. By being located in the region and by being available we will be able to work closely with the independent judiciary, the local bar and the public on improving the administration of justice in their respective areas.

This is an important first step on the road to court reform. Our goal remains to improve our court system so that it is efficient, accessible, comprehensible and affordable for the public. With the help of the other independent players involved in the administration of justice, I believe we will ultimately succeed in that endeavour.

RESPONSES

COURT SYSTEM

Mr. B. Rae: I want first of all to say to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that it has taken him a very long time after the publication of Mr. Justice Zuber’s report. Indeed, it is common parlance among lawyers across the province that they cannot understand what the Attorney General’s problem is with respect to the implementation of the report.

His statement is that the regionalization concept is “the key recommendation.” He added editorially to the text. It says “one of his key recommendations,” and he says it is “the key.” We know now that the reason the Attorney General is calling it the key recommendation is because he is not prepared to do anything about any of the other recommendations. Therefore, he has to kind of take one out and say, “Look what I have done.”

Of course, regionalization is an important step in terms of making the administration of justice in this province more efficient, but I can tell the Attorney General, quite sincerely and quite personally, that delays and inefficiencies and problems in the administration of justice, while they may not be the most politically sexy issues going, are extremely important to people who are the victims of crime and to the litigants who are waiting for months and indeed years for a solution to their problems. It is increasingly the case that the costs of legal services are exorbitant, are a ripoff and are in some cases a total barrier to real participation by the public in our justice system, issues which were addressed by Mr. Justice Zuber.

I hoped that, in addition to what he did today, the Attorney General would address some of those issues as well as the very touchy and difficult but important question of the administration of the courts themselves and making the administration of those courts more efficient and more accessible and more understandable to the citizens of this province. We have taken what I think is referred to on the streets as a small banana step in the implementation of the Zuber report, but nothing more than that.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to echo many of the sentiments that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) put forward.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: The cost of legal services for people from other regions of the province far exceeds the cost of legal services for people who live close to the centre of Toronto. Therefore, we are anxious not only to see the Attorney General take this step, but also to see him implement many of the other recommendations of the Zuber report and have an opportunity to discuss those in the open and listen to all sides of the argument with regard to those very important recommendations.

I would also echo the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks with regard to this being a significant step. I might take issue with the Attorney General that this is a significant step, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt that this is a start. When he heckled the Leader of the Opposition and said, “Just wait,” I hope, I say to the Attorney General, that we do not have to wait too much longer.

Mr Speaker: That completes ministerial statements and responses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

[Applause]

Mr. B. Rae: On this day of all days, I appreciate that applause, but my subject for questions is not here. I understood the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was to be here today and I shall stand down my questions until he arrives.

Mr. Speaker: Both questions? The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: I have much the same dilemma. My question is, as well, for the Premier. I will stand down my question. Perhaps my colleague can take the second question.

OPTOMETRISTS’ FEES

Mr. Eves: My question is to the Minister of Health. At noon today, I am sure she is aware, some 400 optometrists from across the province rallied in front of the Legislature to protest her refusal to give optometrists equal pay for equal work with ophthalmologists.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health, in view of the fact that a government-appointed mediator in recent negotiations between the ministry and optometrists concluded that parity was a compelling issue and recommended that optometrists receive the same fee for the same work, why she has ignored Professor Rayner’s recommendation. Why does she refuse optometrists equal pay for work of equal value?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have said on numerous occasions in this House when there are negotiations ongoing between health professionals who negotiate directly with the ministry, I think it is inappropriate to have these discussions either in this House or on the steps of Queen’s Park.

I want to tell the member that I believe that negotiations will continue and that I have agreed to meet with representatives of the optometrists following a request for a meeting.

Mr. Eves: The minister knows the optometrists have had a request for a meeting with her in to her ministry for over 15 months. It was not until yesterday, presumably when she or the grand Pooh-Bahs in her ministry read an article in the Globe and Mail that the optometrists would be here today, that her ministry contacted the optometrists and said, “Well, perhaps we can arrange a meeting after all.”

As a matter of fact, when the New Democratic Party Health critic and I were outside addressing the optometrists at noon hour, the minister was standing in front of the main steps downstairs, coming upstairs. She did not have the time to walk 12 steps to talk to the optometrists.

The minister knows that the optometrists suspended negotiations on November 17 and notified her of that fact in writing. Will she now explain why her ministry gave a substantial increase to ophthalmologists, who basically offer the same diagnostic services as optometrists, but has threatened to reduce optometrists’ fees by 4.3 per cent?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Some of the information in the member’s statement is not accurate, which is not any news in this House. I can tell him that a meeting was requested. I agreed that I would be pleased to meet with representatives of the optometrists. That meeting, as far as I know, has been scheduled for December 20.

Mr. Eves: On the basis for fees paid to optometrists and ophthalmologists, parity has been a fact in this province since 1974. Professor Rayner listened very attentively to the reasons being offered by the ministry for not offering them equal pay and did not accept them. Neither do I, and neither do most fairminded people, I would suggest, in Ontario.

They provide exactly the same diagnostic services, and therefore they should receive the same fee. As Professor Rayner said, it is a matter of simple fairness. Why will the minister not treat the optometrists fairly?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important that members of this House know and acknowledge that we all want to make sure that those who are providing services in health care in Ontario are fairly compensated for the services they perform. That is the principle of basic negotiations that I always operate under.

We know there are many factors which the ministry in its negotiations with various groups takes into consideration. I would tell this member again that negotiations are ongoing. I think it is important to allow those negotiations to continue. I believe that through negotiations many of these issues can be resolved.

Mr. Speaker: I am wondering if we would revert to the original question from the Leader of the Opposition now.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I want to return to the questions we were asking the Premier yesterday about the Liberal Party’s plans on insurance.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That means please be silent.

Mr. B. Rae: My question -- I did not hear an answer to it yesterday and I want to ask it very directly to the Premier -- is this: When he announced on September 7, 1987, three days before the election of September 10, that he had a specific plan to reduce insurance rates, was he at that time telling the truth to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We went through this yesterday and I think I answered it very fully. A bill passed through this House. It is in independent hands, and I think my honourable friend knows our approach to that; we also know his approach. I think the judgements were made on that matter.

Mr. B. Rae: Surely it is noteworthy that when you ask the Premier of the province whether he was telling the truth on a given day, he cannot even answer yes, let alone no. He cannot give us an answer one way or the other.

It is a very simple question. When he made that statement to the people of this province, was he or was he not telling the truth to the electors of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The truth is over here.

Mr. B. Rae: Since the Premier is not prepared to tell us about his own integrity, perhaps he would care to tell us about the integrity of this process whereby the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board has hired William M. Mercer Ltd., which is owned by Marsh and McLennan Cos. Inc., which is, according to Moody’s, considered to be the leading insurance brokerage firm in the world.

As an interesting aside about what kind of corporate operators Marsh and McLennan are, Dun and Bradstreet’s Who Owns Whom lists a number of South African subsidiaries. Another holding of Marsh and McLennan Cos. Inc. is Marsh and McLennan Ltd., located in First Canadian Place in Toronto, the same address as William M. Mercer Ltd. When one of my staff members phoned Marsh and McLennan’s Toronto office and asked whether he could buy a personal automobile insurance policy from them, he was told that he could and he was put through to an insurance agent.

The government of Ontario has been relying on William M. Mercer Ltd. for its advice for the Ministry of Financial Institutions. The auto insurance board has relied almost exclusively on William M. Mercer in dealing with the question of classification and now, in dealing with the question of what the rate increase should be, as well as hearing evidence from it on the question of what profitability should be.

Just what kind of integrity does the Premier’s process have when it is the people who are being regulated who are proposing the very increases that they are sticking to consumers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say with great respect to my honourable friend that I understand his belief in conspiracy theories, but it is misplaced in these particular circumstances. It is an independent board that will get independent advice from the member and from whomever else it chooses.

My honourable friend believes there is a capitalistic conspiracy to destroy his --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt. I must remind all our visitors they are most welcome, but they are not to participate or demonstrate in any way. I just remind them of that.

NATIONAL SALES TAX

Mr. B. Rae: I want to ask the Treasurer a question about the national sales tax. It is suggested in the document that is being discussed and proposed by the Honourable Michael H. Wilson, the Progressive Conservative Minister of Finance --

Mr. Brandt: A fine man.

Mr. B. Rae: Now wait for it --

Mr. Brandt: Oh, I know there is something coming.

Mr. B. Rae: -- because on lot levies, he makes this government look like a piker.

Section 11, on real estate, proposes that a new multistage sales tax will apply to the sale or rental of real estate for commercial use and to the sale of new residential buildings.

The example given on page 117 of this Progressive Conservative document states as follows: “The tax will apply to the sale by developer X of the new home” when it is purchased by individual A. “A will not be entitled to claim any input credit in respect of the purchase price. The resale of the home by A will not be subject to tax.”

1400

The election is now over. The Treasurer has to decide what the position of the government of Ontario is going to be with respect to this national sales tax, which if applied to the sale of new homes would cost new purchasers not a couple of thousand dollars, not a few thousand dollars but tens of thousands of dollars on the price of a new home. What is the position of the government of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Members will know that the province of Ontario charges an eight per cent tax on almost everything that goes into the home in the first place. They are also aware that we have a land transfer tax that some people think is inordinately high. I, of course, think it is just about right.

So as far as we are concerned in the province, our sales tax is applied to almost every commodity building material that is presently going into a new home or a repair. The Leader of the Opposition may object to that, but naturally our revenue of about $7.5 billion from sales tax in general is allocated to a wide variety of programs which most of those members support.

Mr. B. Rae: I do not think I heard an answer.

This is a new, multistage sales tax which will apply all the way through the piece and in addition will apply to the price of the final sale to the new purchaser. If you take an average price of $240,000 and add whatever the national sales tax is -- there have been figures ranging from 14 per cent to 17 per cent -- you get some idea of the $35,000 or $40,000 that is involved in a sales tax paid by the purchaser of a new home.

The Treasurer is involved in these discussions very directly. I think the people of this province, where we have the greatest housing crisis in Canada right now in terms of affordability, are entitled to a clear answer from him. Is the Treasurer in favour of this new approach at the federal level, which will include the provincial government, or is he opposed to it? Which is it?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member will know that -- how many members are there in the House of Commons? -- 295 people have just been recently elected who are going to pass judgement on the policies of the government of Canada. If the government of Canada decides to implement a new sales tax, that is its business.

I tried to make it easier for the honourable member by saying that the province already taxes everything in the home. I wish we did not have to. If we went into some agreement with the government of Canada, our tax would be the same. The tax they levy is their responsibility, democratically; the member should understand that.

Mr. B. Rae: What I also understand is that this new national sales tax will include the Treasurer; he is involved in it, his government will benefit from it and he will be a beneficiary of a new tax on the sale of a new home. The Treasurer is shaking his head. He knows that is the case. We are talking about an integrated national sales tax which includes the provincial government.

Is the Treasurer prepared to stop these discussions and tell the federal government that he will have nothing to do with this kind of tax, or is he going to go along with it? That is the question.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There are several questions there. The answer to the first one is no, I am not going to tell them to stop. It is their business. They have to pay their bills. Whether or not we participate in the future is a decision that is a long way off. I am not dealing with anybody directly on whether we will do that or not.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier and it relates to automobile insurance. Yesterday the Premier was quoted as having said that over a five-year period, the rates that would be brought in by the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board would be lower than rates that would be brought in without that particular board.

On September 7, 1987, the Premier was quoted as having said, “The point is if you aspire to govern, you’ve got to be credible and base things you say on accurate information, not just wishes and theories.”

Since I join with the Premier in not wanting to deal with wishes and theories as they relate to auto insurance rates, could he indicate what information or factual reports he based his statement on that five years under the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board would be cheaper than five years without the board? Could he share that with the House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The whole object of having the board is to build an independent database. The member will recall the context in which these discussions took place, the very high increases in insurance. There was a suggestion by some that there was not enough capacity. Others were pulling out of the market. There was great pressure through liability claims and a number of other things. We brought in, as I said, a multistage program attacking a variety of different problems and we think it is going to seriously address this issue.

What the member will see in the hands of the auto insurance board -- and he will want to go and make submissions; I gather his theory now is to raise the price quite dramatically, but do it over seven years. We do not accept that, and I do not think the auto insurance board accepts that. They will, for the first time, have an independent database on which to make these decisions and to regulate this in the public interest. I do not think there is anything the matter with that.

Mr. Brandt: I can tell the Premier that I do not accept the fact that he has any factual database upon which to base his prediction that five years under the auto insurance board will be cheaper than five years without it. I also do not accept his statement of September 7 that in fact he had a plan, which he has yet to disclose, to lower rates.

In light of the fact that we have a so-called independent report prepared by Mercer with respect to the proposed increases, a report paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario -- the firm that wrote the report obviously was paid by the taxpayers of Ontario -- will the Premier indicate why this firm will not respond to questions from either the research department of our party or certain reporters as to how it arrived at its conclusions that there must be a 35 per cent to 40 per cent increase in insurance in this province in order to provide a reasonable return on investment to insurance companies? Why is Mercer put under a gag order? That is the question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They were retained by an independent board, not by us. They are having public hearings on this matter. That document is not government policy. Does the member understand that it is not government policy? As a former minister of the crown, he understands that there are a variety of reports around government on a variety of subjects from a variety of different points of view. It does not mean it is government policy.

I know my honourable friend has some problem with that and I invite him to make a submission to the auto insurance board -- he is perfectly entitled to express his point of view or to attack the credibility of that document -- as many others will do, so that it can determine the real facts in this matter. I am sure they would value his contributions.

Mr. Brandt: With respect, we have been pursuing the matter of auto insurance for the last few days as a result of this rather unusual report that came forward asking for a tremendous and totally unexpected increase in auto rates in this province.

We are concerned as well about what the future plans of his government are as they relate to auto insurance. The Premier has stated on many occasions that it is not the expectation on his part that he would bring in a government auto insurance plan in Ontario. Is he prepared today to state, without any equivocation whatever, that his government is not prepared to bring in government-operated auto insurance in Ontario prior to the next provincial election?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just so we understand, the minister responsible was asked the question “Do you rule it out?” and he said he does not rule out anything. It is part of a look we are taking at tort reform, no-fault insurance, the liability side of the question and the auto repair side of the question.

We are constantly trying to build a system that serves the consumers well. Obviously we look at the examples in other provinces -- the problems of startup, the problems of rates, the political manipulation, all of that kind of thing -- and we think our approach is comprehensive and addresses the problem in a real way. If the member is asking me to rule out in perpetuity all other options, I am not prepared to do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

OPTOMETRISTS’ FEES

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Health, if I might intrude on the conversation between her and the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy). My question as well concerns fairness for optometrists. In sort of an answer to my counterpart in the third party, the minister stated somewhat piously that a basic principle of her government was fair compensation for health professionals.

Given that it is clear that the optometrists provide basically the same service as the ophthalmologists in this connection, and given that in 75 per cent of the communities of this province only optometrists provide vision care, would the minister not agree that it would be fair and in keeping with those basis principles to provide the same remuneration for the same service by the two kinds of health professionals?

1410

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: If the member and the critic for the third party would like, I would agree that in fact it is inappropriate to conduct negotiations either in this House or on the front steps of Queen’s Park. As I mentioned to the critic for the third party, I have agreed to meet with representatives of the optometrists, and I understand the meeting has been scheduled for December 20.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to make it possible for members to ask questions.

Mr. Reville: I am not terribly surprised that the minister will pretend that she has nothing to do with this negotiation. That is a fairly standard tactic of a government that does not want to be fair to people with whom it is negotiating.

I am quite surprised by the taunting of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who suggests that somehow I may be associated with the Ontario Medical Association. That gives rise to a supplementary. Many of the optometrists believe that they have been separated out from the OMA for the simple purpose of having the government squash them and their demands. Is that correct?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the member has raised a point which is very important for everyone to understand, and that is that optometrists are not members of the OMA. They are not physicians, and therefore they are not part of that negotiating and bargaining process. Optometrists are negotiating directly with the Ministry of Health. For the first time there has been a third party involved in those negotiations. The negotiations have been ongoing, and I am --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: -- planning and hopeful that, through the negotiating process, many of the complex issues which are under discussion can be resolved.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Harris: In the absence of the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), let me save some time and go straight to the Treasurer anyway. The Treasurer may also want to reflect.

Yesterday when I was discussing this issue with the Minister of Housing, I indicated that, after having lost the sales tax battle and then losing the land transfer tax battle, if she lost this battle, she should resign. She is not here today.

Mr. Speaker: And your question would be?

Mr. Harris: I do not know if that is indicative of what happened in cabinet today or not.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Harris: Will the Treasurer confirm that he intends to shift even more of the burden of the costs of health care and education to the municipalities by introducing enabling legislation to permit the municipalities to impose lot levies to cover everything from schools to hospitals to libraries to parks, thereby putting more of the onus for those services on to the backs of new home buyers in this province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer will not confirm. This is exactly what he, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Housing have been discussing with the development industry, that they want to shift that burden of payment to the municipalities by allowing all the soft services, as well as the hard services that are now covered, to be covered by lot levies.

I suggest to the Treasurer that if municipalities have to get their funding for schools and health care through lot levies, it will mean a wide variation in the level of service from one municipality to the other. With an affordable housing crisis the like of which we have never seen before, the Treasurer now appears to want to hit the new home buyer even harder. The people who can least afford any additional cost are being told they will have to dig deeper, something I find disgraceful.

The Treasurer knows that, as it now stands, lot levies vary widely from one municipality to another. The industry and many others have been after him to bring some consistency to this issue, to recognize that they are too high already. How can the Treasurer now talk about allowing them to be hiked even higher and to vary even more widely from municipality to municipality by allowing the lot levy to be --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have not been talking about it; the member has been talking about it.

We are very much concerned about providing sufficient money to the municipalities and the school boards to accommodate the rapid rate of growth that many communities are experiencing. The honourable Minister of Housing said very properly that the government, including myself and my colleagues, is considering a wide variety of alternatives. When we have a policy or a paper that might elicit discussion, the member will be among the first to know the specific contents. Otherwise, he is talking about it; I am not talking about it.

TRADE WITH EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Last spring I asked him about Ontario’s preparations for the 1992 establishment of an integrated European market. I understand that since then his ministry has done a study on the possible impact of this very significant event for Ontario businesses. May I ask the minister whether this study has now been completed and, if so, whether he can inform this House and the people of Ontario on the highlights of this report?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure members know that in 1992 the European Community is going to become one economic bloc, and at that time there are going to be incredible opportunities for a market that will exceed 300 million people.

We have done a study to see what the awareness is of Ontario businessmen and, sadly, it is very low. The average businessman has no concern for or knowledge of what is happening, and just those who are now dealing with the European Community are aware of it.

We are going to convene a major conference after the beginning of the year to indicate to the industry in Ontario what the opportunities are, what the ramifications of this new economic bloc are going to be and what can be done to penetrate what will be a major market in the world.

Mr. Daigeler: I thank the minister for the information, and I do hope that many of the Ontario business people will take advantage of the study that was done by his ministry, because I think there are some very interesting details and information included in the study.

I must say that I am somewhat concerned that, with free trade soon becoming a reality, many Ontario businesses will be centring exclusively on the United States market. I am wondering whether, even within his own ministry, the obviously limited resources the ministry has will be centred on trying to enter the US market.

In the minister’s view, does he think his own ministry will have enough resources to focus on the opportunities in Europe, and does he think he will be able to assist Ontario business leaders to look not only at the US but also at the European market?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: At the present time, as I am sure the member knows as a result of the free trade debate, 90 per cent of the trade of Ontario is with the United States, only four per cent is with Europe and four per cent is with the Pacific Rim. When you consider that there are going to be over 300 million customers in the new economic union, it is a wonderful opportunity, and we are taking advantage of that.

We have already had six trade missions go to Europe this year. We will be amplifying that. We have offices, as I am sure the member knows, in London, Paris and Frankfurt. We have an excellent relationship with the state of Baden Wurttemberg in Germany, and we will be concentrating our efforts to make sure that we expand our trading relationship in that area.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question to the Minister of Northern Development. I wish to follow with the minister a sequence of events regarding the northern Ontario heritage fund.

The minister will no doubt recall that in May 1987, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) made an announcement concerning $30 million in allocation to diversify and enhance the economic situation in the north, and some six months afterward, in the speech from the throne, a layer of bureaucracy was created, with an advisory committee to oversee the disbursement of these funds.

We are now a year and a half into the process and we are supposed to draw, as northerners, consolation from the born again, which is the reintroduction of the northern Ontario heritage fund. We never saw the first $30 million. It is now about 18 months after the first announcement. Can the minister tell the House today what exciting projects and what amount relating to this project he has approved so far?

1420

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je tiens à remercier le député de Lac Nipigon de sa question.

Premièrement, je dois lui rappeler que le Fonds a été mis en place au mois de juin, ce n’était pas il y a un an et demi. Je pense que, des fois, sa mémoire lui fait défaut, je ne sais pas.

Mais une chose que je dois lui dire, c’est que la première assemblée a eu lieu au mois de juillet de cette année, et depuis ce temps-là, les membres de la commission se sont rencontrés quatre fois. De là, ils ont formé quatre comités qui ont étudié les termes de référence. Ces comités-là sont: l‘assistance aux petites industries, l‘assistance aux villes qui n’ont qu’une seule industrie et l’assistance aux petites entreprises. En plus, dans un autre volet, nous avons l’appui au développement de la technologie.

Interjection.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je parle des comités, là.

Il y a aussi l’assistance aux projets spéciaux. Pour finir, on a au moins six ou sept demandes devant nous. La commission est à les revoir, et à la prochaine assemblée, le 19 décembre, on devrait avoir des résultats.

Mr. Pouliot: The minister is quite right. His record is immaculate; he has done absolutely nothing.

By way of a supplementary question, I would like to remind the minister that it took very little time, on the other hand, to fund $30 million of provincial taxpayers’ money for a playpen, the SkyDome. It took two weeks in the approval process, and yet the minister has had a full year and a half to do what is right for the people of northern Ontario. Dozens of proposals have crossed his desk.

Will the minister make a commitment that during this fiscal year he will spend the full $30 million to enhance the quality of life in northwestern Ontario, and even in northern Ontario as a whole, clear and simple? Does the minister have the commitment to do it? What is lacking here is not my memory but the commitment on the minister’s part.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je ne sais pas si c’est moi qui me sens en brosse ou bien lui.

En tout cas, je dois lui rappeler qu’il me semble que chaque fois qu’il me demande quelque chose, je me rends à son bureau. S’il me demande de rencontrer certains de ces électeurs, je suis là. Alors, de me dire que je ne fais rien, je ne crois pas que ce soit approprié.

Je dois lui rappeler que le Fonds, comme c’est là, a accumulé au moins un million de dollars d’intérêts. Je lui rappelle encore qu’on travaille sur des projets. J’ai annoncé la semaine passée qu’on allait mettre de l’argent de côté pour Temagami; on travaille avec Ignace et avec Ear Falls. Alors, me dire à moi que je n’ai rien fait, je ne sais pas où il a pris cette phrase-là. Peut-être qu’il a un nouveau dictionnaire que je ne connais pas. En tout cas, je vais le rencontrer demain, puis on reparlera de ça.

HOME CARE

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. Will the minister publicly state that the Red Cross home care program deficit should be funded, and will she publicly lobby Ontario’s Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for the funds?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: As the member knows, as we have been discussing during estimates the last few days, there are significant challenges with the homemaker program. The operational review is under way. It is an issue that is of importance to everyone in this government. It is an issue I am working on very closely with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and, yes indeed, the Treasurer.

Mrs. Cunningham: We are talking here about community-based services for seniors, a priority, we are told, of her government. The minister’s mandate is to act as an advocate for the senior citizens of this province, not as an apologist for the Liberal government’s Treasurer or the Minister of Health.

Once again, will the minister assume the responsibility that comes with her job by stating her support for the Red Cross program publicly and by lobbying Ontario’s Treasurer for the funds which are required so that Ontario’s seniors will continue to benefit from this program?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: The integrated homemaker program is a program that is of importance to the seniors of this province. We are working to provide home support programs to assist seniors to remain in their own homes, which is where they clearly want to be. That is why this government has put the millions of dollars in increases that we have put into this program over the last three years.

I continue to meet with groups of seniors. I continue to meet with the care providers, including the Red Cross, to get from them their points of view in order that I may bring those forward effectively to the cabinet table, which I do on a regular basis.

USE OF PESTICIDES

Mr. MacDonald: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last year the minister announced that his ministry would establish a program called Food Systems 2002, aimed at reducing pesticides used by farmers by 50 per cent. Could the minister tell the House what steps are being taken to accomplish this goal?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I appreciate the honourable member’s interest in this matter, as he does represent a good agricultural part of Ontario. I am pleased to report that the 15-year Food Systems 2002 program is up and running. The intent of this program is to provide farmers with tools to reduce pesticide use.

Up to $10 million over four years has been allocated to this program, with about $800,000 a year being devoted to research and to biological alternatives to pesticides, integrated pest control, improved pesticide application technology and pesticide efficiency. I must say that about 24 projects have been approved to this point in time.

As well, we have hired four pest management specialists across the province to work with farm groups and farmers directly to incorporate research results into practical farm applications. Really, the effort on our part is to ensure that farmers will be able to use alternatives to pesticides, such as genetic resistance, biologic control agents --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, this is very important.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that, but I thought you should leave some information in case there was a supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: I do have a supplementary. Even when we are able to fully utilize the advances the minister has described, farmers will continue to use some pesticides. What steps are being taken to reduce the risks that the improper use of pesticides can pose, not only to the environment but to farmers themselves?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I agree that it is important to make sure that farmers are properly trained in the use of pesticides and application equipment. To that end, we are preparing to establish a course for about 10,000 farmers next year. This course will upgrade their knowledge about safe handling and storage of pesticides.

I would say that farmers themselves are at the most risk in the use of these pesticides, so this education component of our Food Systems 2002 program will train them in proper application techniques for the person who is actually applying this chemical.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions. It also tends to deal with the government’s credibility and integrity on promises that it has made in the past. The minister will remember very clearly that his predecessor, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), made a promise on June 23, 1987, in this Legislature when dealing with the Pension Benefits Act. He said, “A new section” of the act “will be added to the bill to reinforce the government’s commitment to inflation protection for pensions.”

As a result of that amendment to the legislation, the Friedland report was commissioned and reported back, and still, nearly two years, going on two years from the time this amendment took place in the legislation, we have no inflation protection for pensions and pensioners across this province.

When is this government going to act to protect our pensioners and to start providing inflation protection for future retirees?

1430

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to thank the member for the question. I can tell the honourable gentlemen that we have taken the Friedland report. In fact, I have met with Mr. Friedland, and as well with another member of the group, to get their views with respect to a number of pieces of information that have come to my attention through our consultation.

I have made a commitment to the business community and to others, pensioners and otherwise, to consult with them further with respect to the questions that surround the issues of indexing, including the question of whether or not it be prospective only or whether it be retrospective in nature. They are very serious questions we have to consider with respect to how the whole area is resolved, and I have undertaken a very thorough investigation of all the options that are available to us with respect to all of the Friedland report’s recommendations.

That having been said, we are moving forward, and I can note for the honourable gentleman that there has been progress and that there continues to be progress as we meet with various groups who are interested, not only in the way things are today but in the way they will be on the Ontario scene in years to come. I can tell the honourable gentleman as well that one of our biggest concerns is --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That seems like a fairly reasonable answer. Supplementary.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am tempted not to, but I will.

If I could sum up what the minister has said, he said it is being held up because he is consulting with the business community and to hell with the pensioners of this province. That is exactly what he said.

I would like to ask the minister, why is it pensioners have to wait while he consults with corporations across this province, and he has not even come to grips with the fact of whether or not he is going to make this inflation protection retroactive? He has not even made that basic decision yet. When is he actually going to report and make some decisions with respect to this matter?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As is normal with the member for Windsor-Riverside, he does tend not to put the entire case in front of the public. I said very clearly that the business people were among the groups with whom I was consulting, but that I was also consulting all people who had interests in this particular area. I want to make that very clear because those people opposite sometimes leave the impression that we do not talk to the entire world. In fact, when we do not consult widely enough, they accuse us of not being open and consultative. I am talking to the people who are interested in this issue from all parts of the province.

That having been said, there are very interesting and difficult questions that we have to resolve to assist people to progress suitably where they will have protection, the type of protection that was indicated when the bill was put through. We are doing that.

He says it is two years. I can tell the honourable gentleman that the group that formed the Friedland task force met and wrestled with several of these questions, and it took them some time. We are now going through and examining each one of their recommendations in turn.

Now, it may be that he has a little bit more time, since he probably was able to assist Mr. White in writing a letter to their national party or whatever. Maybe he wants to get on with something else. But I can tell him that the work on this side of the government does not stop.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are continuing to do the work and we will complete the task --

Mr. Speaker: Order; new question.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. The Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday turned down his attempt to appeal the October 20 decision of the Ontario Supreme Court, a decision that authorized the Ontario Highway Transport Board to issue extra provincial truck and bus licences in this province.

As he knows, the decision affects the compatibility of Bill 88, the Truck Transportation Act, and the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act, which regulates the public interest test for new entrants. The federal legislation has been on the books since January 1 of this year and has been the topic of discussion with his ministry since 1984. Bill 88 recently completed clause-by-clause review, at which time his ministry had ample opportunity to change the wording to make it compatible with the federal legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Wiseman: I ask the minister, how can he blame the federal government for the public interest test fiasco when he himself is the author of the legislation that created this mess in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am not quite sure I heard a question in the member’s dialogue, but I did hear him say we were blaming the federal government for something. We were not blaming the federal government; we were appealing a court decision with respect to a legal matter. We were not blaming the federal government as the member suggests.

Mr. Wiseman: We see long lineups to get into our hospitals, our universities and public housing, and now we see long lineups to get a licence to operate in this province.

The federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act is consensus legislation reached between the provinces and the federal government. It took three years of exhausting consultation before the federal government and the provinces could come to some terms. The minister was told by the federal government at the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada meeting in Halifax in September that it would not compromise its legislation in order to accommodate the minister with Bill 88, yet the minister still rammed the bill through clause-by-clause.

Will the minister revoke Bill 88? If not, will he accept full responsibility for the chaos this legislation is sure to cause?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: That was a much longer statement than the member made while he sat in on the committee hearings.

I suggest that this minister and this government did not ram anything through. We spent the summer in public hearings across the province. We spent three weeks in clause-by-clause. The member had ample opportunity, and in fact he did not appear for the last day of hearings, at which time he could have placed the amendment he is referring to.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. McClelland: I have a question to the Treasurer. The Treasurer, I am sure, will be among the first to acknowledge the importance small business has in the vitality of the economy of our province. Significant pressure felt by small business is related to cash flow. Most small businesses that sell their products on a net 30-day basis consider themselves fortunate to receive payment for goods and services within that 30-day period.

My question to the Treasurer is, what is the provincial policy with respect to sales tax collection? When is it due and what is our policy with respect to the collection of those taxes for goods and services sold on a given day?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: As Treasurer, I consider that the money, when collected, becomes public money, but that it does not have to be returned to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) until the 23rd of the month following its collection.

Mr. Brandt: Or.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Period. We think that is reasonable.

Mr. McClelland: If a particular company is experiencing particular difficulty with respect to accounts receivable at a critical time in its development, is it the policy of our government to exercise some discretion with respect to the enforcement of collection, having regard to all the circumstances of a particular company?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The actual nuances of the application of the policy are the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Revenue, but essentially, if there is some thought that the money in the cigar box or the till or the bank is the property of the tax collector, that is the vendor, then that can lead to some substantial problems.

If that money is considered simply a little cash into which the vendor can dip for his immediate responsibilities, then unfortunately the taxpayers in general and the Treasury of the province are liable to find they are writing off even more bad debts than we are now, and we do not like to do that.

1440

AIR TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation with regard to serious problems that travellers are facing when trying to travel within Ontario as a result of the serious flight delays and cancellations that we are facing at Pearson International Airport. I refer in particular to the fact that the policy rule 302, that is being applied at that airport is clearly discriminatory against residents in Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham). I remind all members this is question period. All members would like to ask questions, if other members will allow it. The member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To repeat, my question is to the Minister of Transportation with regard to the serious flight delays and cancellations that have been faced by travellers within Ontario and the fact that rule 302, which is being applied at Pearson International Airport, is discriminatory, particularly against travellers within Ontario, and is causing real hardship, particularly in regions such as northern Ontario where air transport is the main means of transport to the major centres in southern Ontario.

Has the minister approached the federal minister or the Department of Transport with respect to Ontario’s concerns in this matter? What in fact can the minister tell us is going to happen in order to ensure that we have a reliable transportation system in terms of air transport here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am sure the member, and most members on both sides of the House, would be aware of our very active and progressive interest in developing regional air transport in this province. We have done that very successfully in many towns and cities across the province within our jurisdiction.

However, there are 28 federally operated airports in this province, and of course Pearson is first among those. However, being well aware and well ahead of the recent publicity with respect to the difficulties being experienced, I indeed spoke to the Honourable Benoît Bouchard, the federal Minister of Transport, in Halifax to bring to his attention then, not in the last few days, our concerns with respect to the difficulties at Pearson.

Since then, we are awaiting momentarily some indication of a meeting that may take place today or tomorrow, which we have also asked for, and other steps we can take that we think might be appropriate.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I guess what we would like to know is what, specifically, the minister is planning to do, given the fact that the current rule that is being applied at Pearson implies flights are being cancelled or delayed on an interminable basis, flights not only in the region that is within easy driving distance from Toronto but also to airports in Sudbury, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and as far as Timmins. Those flights are being delayed and put off indefinitely.

The winter is coming. The minister knows he has an inadequate highway system in terms of connections to northern Ontario. The most reliable source of transportation has been air transportation through Pearson International Airport. I would like to know specifically what the minister’s proposal is in order to ensure we do have reliable transportation this winter, for the residents of northern Ontario in particular.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: First, I reject the member’s notion that we have an inadequate highway system in this province. It is utter nonsense and he knows it.

As I said earlier, we have had a meeting with the federal minister. He will be aware of our concerns. There are a number of options that are available. Some are not acceptable to some people because of noise levels, new runways and other things. There is limited jurisdiction in this province in what we can do to help operate a federal jurisdiction, a federal airport. There is some concern, however, that has been expressed that it may also involve a labour dispute with respect to some of the air traffic controllers perhaps working to rule.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Markham.

Mr. Cousens: It is too bad the Minister of Transportation is not accepting his responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker: Your question is to which minister?

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Cousens: My question is to the Attorney General. I held a press conference today at the small claims court in Richmond Hill. Staff and litigants have appealed to the Attorney General to correct the faulty ventilation system, as well as to permit them to adjust the thermostats in the building. These people, in the course of carrying out the administration of justice, are not only suffering illness from poor air circulation; they are also freezing.

As the chief law officer of this province and the one responsible for the courts, what is the minister doing to correct this unacceptable situation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am grateful to the honourable member for bringing this to my attention. I am going to take it up with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten).

Mr. Cousens: That answer would be good. In the minister’s letter of November 18 to someone who was asking about this, he said: “To ensure that the earlier conditions do not reoccur, the building’s control system will be modified. This work will be carried out shortly.” That is what the Attorney General said in his letter.

Since this response, further testing has been carried out by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Government Services. It has been found that the carbon dioxide levels have reached as high as 1,200 parts per million, which indicates a grossly inadequate air-handling system. Court proceedings have had to be recessed because people are cold and nauseous.

When is the minister going to stop dilly-dallying with the owner of this building, get his act together and put an end, ironically, to these injustices in the Richmond Hill courthouse?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I told the honourable member that we are going to look into it and do what we can to fix premises which we do not own and for which others have landlords’ responsibilities. We are going to do that. I mean to do it. I am not standing up here the way the member did, as minister, making a whole lot of promises I have no intentions of carrying out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is still question period.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. As the minister is aware, the Toronto Transit Commission has approved a fare increase averaging five per cent to start on January 1, but actually there will be a 6.5 per cent increase for Metropass users and a shocking 7.6 per cent increase for seniors’ Metropass users. Under the present cost-sharing formula, Toronto transit riders pay 68 per cent of the TTC operating costs. The provincial government pays only 16 per cent, while it picks up about 40 per cent of GO Transit costs.

Will the minister commit more provincial funds to end this discrimination among TTC and GO Transit operators and sit down with the TTC and Metropolitan Toronto council to work out a new and fairer cost-sharing formula before the January 1 fare increase goes into effect?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member will be aware that we meet on a very regular basis with officials from the Toronto Transit Commission and I meet on a very regular basis with members of Metro council. The fare increases the member is referring to have not yet been approved by Metro council.

When she talks about our 16 per cent sharing of the operating costs of the TTC, I suggest that is in the range of $80 million per year, which is no small amount of money. I think we have a very strong commitment to transit riders in Metropolitan Toronto on the TTC. We pay 75 per cent of their capital costs in addition to those previously mentioned figures. I think we are very dedicated and have demonstrated with our record our commitment to transit riders in Metropolitan Toronto.

Ms. Bryden: The minister has not changed the cost-sharing formula in about eight years, so those meetings must be pretty fruitless.

Yesterday, the minister gave a speech to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto on the topic of the economic and social cost of congestion. When he allows TTC fares to continue to escalate, is he not encouraging transit riders to return to their cars and add to the already serious traffic congestion in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It is a good question, but judging from the phenomenal increases in ridership both on GO Transit and on the TTC, I would suggest that the member’s assumption is incorrect.

1450

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Cousens: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I had a question this afternoon for the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on a very important matter that pertains to the health of people who are working in the courthouse in Richmond Hill. His comments, which I am afraid may not have been picked up by Hansard, were certainly picked up by me. He said, “It’s of no small interest.” I have to say that is wrong. This is of great importance.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: He said, “It’s no big deal.”

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat?

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, it is a big deal.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the member for Markham, as a former presiding officer, will from now on show more respect for the chair.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition that is of no small interest to the constituents of mine in Windsor-Riverside and also the constituents of the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan). I present this petition on behalf of both of us to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the parents of children attending St-Antoine school, Tecumseh, Ontario, petition the Ministry of Education” -- and I hope the minister is listening -- “of the province of Ontario for a new French-language elementary school to be built in our area due to the present overcrowding of our school and the predicted rapid growth of the student population.”

I present this on behalf of myself and the member for Essex-Kent and I hope the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) will listen to the 400 families who have signed this petition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am certain there are other members who would like to present petitions, if members could keep their private conversations down to nil.

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. Black: This petition is to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the undersigned, are opposed to the use of multifaith prayers and readings in Simcoe County Board of Education schools.”

It is signed by 300 people from Simcoe county, and I add my name to the petition.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition that has been signed by 400 residents of the city of Sault Ste. Marie. It reads as follows:

“To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Labour:

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

“That the minimum wage be increased from $4.75 per hour to $6 per hour over a period of two years.”

I suggest that this would also be of interest to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). I have endorsed this petition and I hope that the government will give serious consideration to it.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Cousens: I would like to give notice of dissatisfaction, under the standing orders of the House, with the answer given by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to my question.

Mr. Speaker: The member has given proper notice. I am certain he will present that to the table and I will announce it later on.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 160, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 66, An Act respecting Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations;

Bill 78, An Act respecting the Sale of Farm Implements;

Bill 139, An Act to amend the Grain Elevator Storage Act.

FARM PRODUCTS CONTAINERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved third reading of Bill 140, An Act to revise the Farm Products Containers Act.

Mr. Villeneuve: Recently there has been a situation in eastern Ontario where milk was contaminated by the containers the milk came in. I would like the minister to comment on that and what his ministry has done to look into that situation to prevent some of our very good milk, when it leaves the farm, from being contaminated by containers.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate in the debate? If not, the minister may wish to respond.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The testing of residues in products really is the jurisdiction of the federal government. We do not have any authority to do anything other than to impress upon the federal government that if containers are causing the problem, other containers made of another substance be used. But this again is something that does not really fall within our jurisdiction.

Motion agreed to.