Hansard Transcripts 1982-Oct-22 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: This has to do with a continuation of a point that was raised yesterday by my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), and spoken to by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), regarding another ruling of the chairman of the justice committee that we received yesterday. I bring it to your attention knowing full well you do not intend to make any formal comments in this House until Thursday of next week.

I ask you to look at the ruling of the chairman on a procedural motion I put to the committee yesterday, asking that the committee request the new chairperson of the Ontario Status of Women Council to appear before it. The chairman of the committee ruled the motion out of order and widened his ruling yesterday from what I understand it was earlier -- when he suggested that ministers of the crown could not be invited before the committee during its public hearings -- to include officials of boards, agencies and commissions of this government.

Once again, it seems to me we are setting some very dangerous precedents if we allow such a narrow interpretation of the reference to the committee by this House. Without belabouring the point, I simply ask you to look at the rulings that were made yesterday, as they have taken us another step along the way of denying the rights of the committee to order its own business.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. The matter you have raised is hardly a point of order, but it was raised yesterday by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and others. At that time I indicated I would be making a report to the House on Tuesday next. I will take your point under consideration as well.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Foulds: I have a different point of order, if I may raise it with you, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that rule 81(d), which has to do with written questions, states, "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days unless he indicates that he requires more time because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Notice Paper," etc.

I would like to bring to your attention that, as a result of an oral question I asked on October 1 regarding the study of provincially administered prices the ministry used when implementing the prices section of Bill 179, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) said: "I hope the honourable member realizes that we always instruct our staff to be as helpful as they can when he phones for questions. We do not run a closed shop. The very fact that he has this information shows that. If a piece of a paper is not attached to a compendium, and there are many that could be, we make information available as fast as we can should the member want to have access to it."

As a result of that, I tabled question 499 on October 4. It was a very simple question. It asked, "Will the ministry table all studies of administered prices in Ontario used by the Treasury officials in preparing the government's price review program?" Let me add that the Treasury officials had indicated to our research staff that such a study had been done.

Yesterday I noticed the House leader tabled this answer from the Treasurer: "The decision to restrain administered prices was made primarily on the basis that the Ontario government should make a concerted effort to restrain price or fee increases in order to set an example of restraint, rather than on conclusions from detailed statistical analyses or of demonstrated excesses.

"Some studies were undertaken using publicly available information from Statistics Canada but they were by no means comprehensive and were not intended for public release. In general, these reports show the average of prices in the administered sector rising by more than the average of other 'free market' prices over the past six months."

I suggest that is not an answer to my written question which asked that the studies done should be tabled. Therefore, will you please have the minister answer the question properly according to the rules of the House and table the documents, or state clearly that he declines to be open and frank with the people of Ontario and that he declines to answer the question or table the documents?

Mr. Speaker: From the information you have supplied, the minister obviously did supply an answer that you obviously do not agree is an answer. You are seeking more detailed -- is that not right? I am sorry.

Mr. Foulds: If I may explain, my question was very straightforward. It was, "Will the minister table the studies?"

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I remember.

Mr. Foulds: He has declined to do that. Therefore, in my view he has not answered the question. According to the rules, he must either answer the question or state that he declines to answer the question.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: I guess that is the very point. It is a matter of opinion whether he has answered the question. Technically, from what you have told me, he has supplied an answer. Having said that, I am sure he and his officials will take note of what has been said and that he will respond accordingly. But it is beyond my authority to do what you have asked me to do.

Mr. Foulds: I have one last thought. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the procedure of tabling a document in this House is a procedure over which you do have jurisdiction. It is a procedure that is common in parliamentary processes. The minister has not tabled such a document. If he does not wish to do so, all I wish him to do is to say that he declines to do that, to abide by the technical wording and procedures outlined in the House rules, particularly rule 81(d). It will be up to the House and the people of Ontario to make a judgement on the Treasurer at that point.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, could I offer a comment on this point of order? First of all, I think your first observation was the proper one. Obviously this is a matter of a difference of opinion between the member and the Treasurer in the answer that he has given. The member may think it is a very simple answer but I listened to it and I think the Treasurer will explain to him that it is the proper answer for his question. But he will have to ask the Treasurer. We cannot answer that. I would submit that this is the sort of thing that goes on in question period.

I would also like to say that my friend is quite right when he says it is a tradition to ask for tabling of documents in a Parliament or Legislature such as this, but that kind of tabling, to the best of my knowledge, is done by motion of the House. That is not the kind of tabling that is referred to in these 600-odd questions. Reports are asked for. The minister is asked if reports are to be made available, and he will then answer as to whether there are reports and if they are to be made available. But it is quite different from an official motion to table documents in this House, I would submit.

Mr. Speaker: Again, I will say what I said in the first instance, that an answer has been supplied. There is a difference of opinion about whether it is a correct answer and, as I said earlier, it is beyond my authority to adjudicate or make a judgement on who is right and who is wrong. I would suggest the member pursue it further with the Treasurer.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister is no doubt aware of the history of the suggested increases in hydro rates over the last little while. Ontario Hydro originally came forward with 13.9 per cent, and the Ontario Energy Board came back, after review, and suggested that perhaps 8.8 per cent would be adequate in the circumstances.

The minister is also aware that yesterday Mr. Macaulay, the chairman of Hydro, made a speech in which he outlined some of his suggestions for ways Hydro may generate some extra revenue this year; on one side by some $75 million in proposed inventory cuts and on the revenue side by some sales to Niagara Mohawk Power, as well as to the state of Vermont; all of which would generate about an additional four per cent in revenue -- some through savings, some through extra revenue -- which would allow Hydro, in our judgement, to cut its rate down to the five per cent level.

Since we are coming up to that magic time when Hydro will be announcing their rate, is the minister going to insist that they conform with the government's restraint guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have felt over a period of time we had emphasized that we had already communicated to the chairman of Ontario Hydro that the inflation restraint legislation at present before the House would apply to Hydro, so that it would take that into account as it gave consideration to the 1983 rate structure. Indeed, I have reason to believe that Hydro is at present going through that process and before long will be coming to some determination as to what that rate should be.

The Hydro board, by virtue of the legislation, has to notify the minister some eight months ahead of time. That is referred to the Ontario Energy Board and this matter has all been the subject of public review. The OEB has come down with its recommendation; we have commented on that, and we have also commented with respect to the inflation restraint program.

The final decision with respect to the establishment of the 1983 bulk rate rests with Ontario Hydro, taking all those factors, and the comments, advice and recommendations that are set out in the report of the OEB, into account.

Mr. Peterson: I am very familiar with the procedure by which the rates are set, but I am also aware that a number of the previous suggestions with respect to the rates were made prior to the government's restraint program. I also recognize that the government has the ultimate control, or should have, over Hydro. As a government it can exercise that, and Hydro should conform with the guideline in order to give credibility to the general restraint program of the government.

I am asking the minister responsible, given the fact that there are lots of ways to find that money so they will not be put under severe financial difficulty this year, to use his authority to make sure they conform to the government guideline of five per cent. Will he use his authority to do that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The members know that by the legislation and by the traditions that have developed over the years, the Hydro board is charged with the responsibility of providing electricity to the electrical customers of this province at the lowest price feasible consistent with good, sound financial management. That is the whole principle of power at cost.

We have a very competent board in place which has the advantage of reviewing all of these matters. They are talking in terms of new export contracts, of efficiencies with respect to operation as to when they would come into force and when they would realize some of the benefits. The Hydro board is in the best position to judge. There is no question that with respect to their compensation package they must conform to this legislation. They have been so advised.

There are a number of other matters over which they have no control, which will have to be passed through, and the honourable member understands that. Even in the federal restraint program, the whole area of energy was exempt. We have corresponded to the extent that we should to draw attention to government policy in this whole area of inflation restraint, and I feel confident that the Hydro board will take that into account in making its final determination.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the minister indicated that Hydro was subject to the government's inflation restraint program. Could he tell me which government inflation restraint program Hydro is subject to? Is it the 13.9 per cent program of Hydro; the 8.8 per cent program of the Ontario Energy Board; the five per cent program the government has slapped on wages; or a zero per cent program? Which of the government's many restraint programs, including its restraint program on the doctors, is Hydro subject to?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is a very fair person and I am sure he is not trying to put words in my mouth. He knows that within the last 10 days or so he raised a question in this House with respect to the application of the current legislation, Bill 179. He has a copy of my letter to the chairman of Hydro. I am talking in terms of the application of that legislation in so far as it affects the compensation, that is the wages and salaries paid by Hydro. That applies, and the balance of the factors that are taken into account in determining rates have to be analysed on the basis of controllable and uncontrollable dimensions of those.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is aware, in spite of the fact he has never publicly admitted it, that the Ontario Energy Board does not review all of the aspects of Hydro, indeed all of its management. The system expansion is not reviewed and some 50 per cent of the cost component is not reviewed. They have asked for wider powers to look at the things the government has not allowed them to look at, or failing that is not prepared to look at itself.

10:20 a.m.

I remind my friend I can come up with billions of dollars worth of waste at that organization that has never been adequately reviewed. At the Lennox plant, they wasted $489 million; Hearn, a $166-million write-off mothball. Petrosar contracts are costing the consumers of this province $63 million for deliveries paid for but not taken. Heavy water C plant, $69 million; heavy water D plant, $416 million; Wesleyville, $460 million. God knows how much the uranium contracts are costing this province; we can only make estimates.

There are billions of dollars worth of waste and the Ontario Energy Board is not looking at that. I am asking the minister to use his authority as the one ultimately responsible to make sure this never happens again. If he was tighter on the dollars, like McKeough was some years ago, we would never have got into some of the problems we are in today with Hydro.

Mr. Foulds: McKeough for Ontario Liberal leader.

Mr. Kerrio: I thought you were the gang that needs a leader.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I thought it was "Nixon Now".

I repeat once again that the revenue requirements of the public utility for the year 1983 as they ultimately reflect themselves in rates have been thoroughly reviewed by the Ontario Energy Board and the OEB has made some recommendations. We have indicated to Hydro the application of the compensation package.

The estimates of the Ministry of Energy are being thoroughly reviewed at the moment. I have not noticed the presence of the Leader of the Opposition at those estimates, although he has been well represented by the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).

Perhaps I should draw attention to the fact that next Tuesday evening at 8 o'clock sharp, the chairman of Hydro and some of the officers of Hydro will be there. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition might like to drop down and chat with the officials of Hydro who will be there at 8 o'clock next Tuesday evening in the committee room that has been set aside for that purpose.

Mr. Peterson: For your information I am going to be there, because the minister may want to ask about the silly speech the chairman of Hydro gave yesterday. I will read from page 9 of his speech.

Mr. Speaker: New question please.

Mr. Peterson: This is Mr. Macaulay to the Empire Club, "The main question is, 'Not how come, but what now?" That is the question from the chairman of Hydro. I will quote more. He says, "If plants" --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is that your second question?

Mr. Peterson: This is a new question.

Mr. Speaker: All right, new question.

HYDRO EXPANSION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will refer the Minister of Energy to the record and then perhaps get his response to it.

Mr. Speaker: Don't read a speech, though.

Mr. Peterson: In his speech, Mr. Macaulay said the following: "If plants which have been built are going to be paid for and not used near their optimum capacity, then the unit cost of electricity tends to rise. That is what I call wasting generating capacity. Just like wasting energy, it costs money."

What he is doing is blaming the consumers of Ontario for not using enough energy rather than blaming himself for building too much capacity in the system, and saying we are paying more because people are not wasting more. In essence, that is what he is saying.

If Mr. Macaulay's thesis is correct, why is the minister now going ahead to spend $10.2 billion for Darlington? Admittedly $500 million has been spent but there is still $9.7 billion remaining to be spent. The last unit which is scheduled to come into service in 1990 will not be needed until 1997 or 1998 at the earliest. If we calculate those expenditures out on a day-by-day basis we are wasting $3.4 million every day by building that plant now. There is a place where the minister can save money and exercise his responsibility; why does he not do that now?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be repeated, as we have already indicated in this House on several occasions, that one of the great strengths in this province is its electrical capacity. Indeed, it may be very wise and appear to be very clever on the member's part to be hindsighting decisions which require a great deal of lead time. As we read the chairman's speech, he is very open and frank to admit that long periods are needed in order to put certain plants into operation.

There are factors that could influence some of those things over a 10, 12 or 15-year period. But let us take advantage of our strength, let us build on it. Let us have some confidence with respect to economic growth. Let us see the very strong position we are in in this province with respect to off-oil, and electricity is one of the options that can be considered with respect to that.

Indeed, I would think there would be some wisdom -- because the Leader of the Opposition is the man who stands in this House wanting to hang crape all the time with respect to the future economically -- that we have this particular plus in our favour and that we can build on it, and in fact take advantage of the leadership which Ontario Hydro and others have shown over the years.

Mr. Peterson: The minister's answer is that we have made serious mistakes, but he is going to take this lemon and now make lemonade out of it. He is not going to cut his losses as a reasonable person would in the circumstances; indeed, he is going to go on and perpetuate the errors rather than clearly face them.

Why will the minister not agree with the Ontario Energy Board and at least allow it to look into the adequacy and effectiveness of the control of capital costs in Hydro? Why will the minister not let it look at system expansion? Obviously, his look and Hydro board's look at system expansion have been wrong.

I would remind the minister that we on this side of the House have been very consistent with respect to his uranium contracts. If he had followed our advice he would not be in the trouble he is today on them; as well as on the system expansion some years ago. He will recall some of the speeches I made as Energy critic. What I am saying is we were right, he was wrong. Why does he not take our advice now at least and cut his losses on some of these wasteful expenditures he is making?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Under the circumstances I think the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that the Power Corporation Act is very clear with respect to the assignment of responsibilities. It seems to me -- though I cannot put my finger right to the page -- that yesterday, when the chairman of Hydro was addressing the Empire Club, he made some reference to the very thorough review that was being undertaken by that organization so far as its capital requirements were concerned.

They are very sensitive to the economic situation in which we find ourselves. I would remind members of the strength which is ours with respect to our capacity in this whole energy form. I would think we should rely on the members of the board of that particular public utility to come to some sensible, realistic and pragmatic decisions with respect to these matters.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain at this time, in rational terms, the need for Darlington when we have Pickering B and Bruce B coming on stream before Darlington, with an additional 4,000 megawatts of power that we do not need? Can he explain and justify to the people of Ontario the escalating costs of Darlington? They have paralleled almost exactly the escalating reserves in the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund which, before the present election campaign, stood at almost $11 billion, about the price we are paying for one nuclear station that we do not need.

Can the minister explain how he is going to justify to every man, woman and child in Ontario that it is costing each one of those people $1,125 to build Darlington?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, would the honourable deputy leader of the third party consider this for just a moment. The Hydro board has a number of matters to take into account with respect to meeting its obligations. I repeat, there is a considerable amount of lead time needed with respect to planning. I also throw into the equation the fact that there is some thermal generation they really are going to have to consider whether or not they want to carry on with. Some of these plants are 30 if not almost 40 years old. I am thinking of the environmental considerations related to the use of coal. The members of the third party certainly have been very prominent in raising those environmental concerns and the Hydro board would have to take this factor into account.

So there comes this great responsibility to find the balance in order to meet the requirements and also to have this ability to look into the future and to make these decisions. Therefore, one has to read all these factors, make sure they are all put into the model, consider what the balance would be with the various types of generation and then come to some conclusions with respect to need. This is part of the planning process which is going on at Hydro all the time.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, in view of the numbers that our leader has just given the minister in relation to expenditures of Ontario Hydro that have put us some $14 billion in debt and caused every user of Ontario Hydro to have 40 per cent of his payments go to service the cost of Ontario Hydro's borrowings, and in view of the fact that the minister now has allowed the mandate of Ontario Hydro to include alternative forms of energy and conservation, and then to have the chairman suggest it is the fault of the user --

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kerrio: -- will the minister examine the mandate of Ontario Hydro and get them back so they are competitive and providing power at a reasonable price for the people of Ontario and not hydro at cost, which has gone all out of sight?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What are their rates compared to Niagara Mohawk's?

Mr. Kerrio: What about Quebec? That's hydraulic power at its best.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have just one observation with respect to the preamble. I do not read anywhere in the speech of the chairman of Ontario Hydro to the Empire Club yesterday where he blames the user for the problems that Hydro is experiencing.

Mr. Kerrio: Certainly he does.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Will the member give me the page and line? Will he give me the page where he blames the user?

Mr. Peterson: I'll read it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I am --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: My friend the member for Niagara Falls is the one who made the statement. Let him show me in the speech where he blames the user.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur; a new question.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I will defer my first question to my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie).

Mr. Kerrio: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The question was very direct; the minister asked whether I could tell him where this was in my leader's speech. I just wanted to clarify --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: May I clarify it?

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I had recognized you to ask a supplementary. The minister was answering that supplementary. You are not to respond to his question, and neither is he to ask you a question.

STELCO LAYOFFS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier of Ontario. Is the Premier aware of the further tragic news this morning from Stelco's Hilton works, where there has been the announcement of a further 650 layoffs, bringing to 3,700 the number now laid off from that one plant alone?

is the Premier also aware of the further news that the entire plant will shut down for the last two weeks of December, including most maintenance -- nothing but the basic furnace operations will be maintained -- and that Stelco has refused to give any assurance to the union that those workers will be called back following the two-week layoff at the end of December?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the exact numbers or the duration, but I am aware of the further extension. I point out to the honourable member, as we have discussed in this House, that the steel industry, the nickel industry and the automotive sector are areas which in terms of government initiatives at the provincial level are very difficult to contemplate.

I have expressed the concern of this government on a number of occasions with respect to the steel industry -- it is not confined to Stelco, it applies also to Dofasco and Algoma Steel -- where because of the market situation, both here in Canada and to a very great extent in the United States, the steel industry is facing some serious difficulties.

Late last evening I was watching some of the concerns being expressed by the US steel industry, where their situation is even more difficult than ours in this country. That provides no comfort whatsoever except to try to explain to the member that while I am sure he will have supplementaries -- he is going to ask what the government is going to do about Stelco, Dofasco and Algoma -- I will be very frank with him: I cannot think of any really relevant provincial initiative that is going to give impetus to the steel market.

I cannot give the member the figures at Stelco as they relate to the auto sector, say, but of course part of the production is geared in that direction. The auto sector is still soft and is still in difficulty, particularly in the United States where, according to my rough calculations, 80 per cent of our auto production goes.

Yes, I am aware of it, we are concerned about it and it is serious. But I shall be very frank with the member: it is not a matter over which this government has any real measure of control.

Mr. Mackenzie: Does the Premier also realize that as a result of the earlier layoffs at Stelco, as of about the first week of December more than 1,100 of the workers in the first wave of layoffs in that plant will lose all recall rights and become permanently unemployed? Has he taken a look at the effects of that on the welfare load and the problems of people in the community?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have not looked at that in a particular sense, but we are aware of it, not only as it relates to workers from Stelco but to other workers in this province. The government is not only aware but has communicated these concerns to the government of Canada. The whole question of when Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits run out, etc., is a matter of growing concern to all of us. That has been brought to the attention of the federal government.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the Premier relating to the steel industry problems in the United States. I am concerned about Stelco operations in Welland. There is a spinoff to the area with high unemployment, particularly at the Stelco operations in the pipe mill. Is the Premier aware of the statements made by top persons in the industry's field at Stelco indicating there was dumping of pipe from other countries? I think one of the countries was Korea; it was from places like that. What steps is the government taking to make sure there is no dumping of steel products in Ontario or Canada? It is being done in the United States and no doubt it is being done here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There was an indication yesterday relating to the US steel industry, and that would have some impact here, that the policy of the administration there was to reduce the imports into the United States from western Europe. That was done by agreement. The US steel industry was suggesting dumping. I cannot give the history of it. Whether it was actually established in terms of imports into the United States, I cannot comment.

We have heard over a period years that "dumping" has been taking place. Whether this has been proved or whether this is speculation or rumour, I cannot communicate to the member. We have always made it clear to the government of Canada that we expected them to monitor this very carefully, not only in connection with steel but with other commodities if they were, to use the legal definition, being imported into this country at less than a fair market rate.

I assure the member we are constantly reminding the government of Canada of their responsibilities. We ran into a situation about two and a half years ago in British Columbia where a nation in the Far East was reported to have been dumping steel into BC. I think that situation was rectified. I can assure the member that we will, to the extent we have the capacity, keep this matter very much in front of us but most important, we will keep it in front of the government of Canada which controls that situation.

Mr. Haggerty: Reagan signed the documents yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Mr. Mackenzie: I say to the Premier in all seriousness, that surely he cannot get away with telling us in this House that there is just nothing this government can do. The steel industry, along with the automobile industry, is probably the cornerstone of the industrial manufacturing base in Ontario. Surely he is talking to the federal people and with the steel companies now to ascertain the amount of dumping or foreign subsidization of imported steel which is going on. Surely we can do something about many of the issues we have raised here. One small item was raised by my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) about the import last year of $47 million of wrenches. A very few years ago we used to produce most of these in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Mackenzie: Surely the Premier can do something in terms of steam turbines or the various products we are no longer building in this province. Surely there is some validity to a self-sufficiency program in the basic industrial sector. Can he do these kinds of things? Is he looking at them or is he going to continue to tell us he has no leeway to do anything when we are hit with a real tragedy in Ontario?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will not be provocative on this important issue, but I point out to the honourable member, and I say this very respectfully, there is a tremendous contradiction between the supplementary question and the observations made by the member's acting leader. Here they are, as a party, encouraging the government of Ontario to cancel Darlington when we all know that part of it may be built in advance and that one of the raw materials, one of the manufactured materials going into Darlington, happens to be steel.

Let the member tell the House how he reconciles his last question with what the acting leader of his party said.

Mr. Mackenzie: There is a very easy answer to the specific question but I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. How long is the Premier of the province going to get away with standing up and playing games in his answers to serious questions? He did not deal with the specific question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: He tried to play a game.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, before I ask a question I would like, as a point of privilege, to point out that if this government put $11 billion into the manufacturing sector of the province that would produce a hell of a lot more jobs than building a nuclear generating station.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who do you think is building Darlington? It is the manufacturing sector.

HOSPITAL CHARGES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier a question if I can calm him down a bit? How can he justify, and what does he do to justify his government's program to allow hospitals, including chronic care facilities, to charge for so-called extra or incidental services? As a result of this, the elderly patients in West Park Hospital in York South are charged $14 a month to have their nails clipped when they are unable to do so themselves?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I realize the honourable member is trying to introduce some matters in the York South by-election into question period in the House. I do not quarrel with that. I will endeavour to get that information for him from the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and report to him on Monday.

Mr. Foulds: In the absence of the Minister of Health, does the Premier not think as a matter of principle that an elderly patient who, for health reasons, is unable to clip his or her own nails has a right to have his or her nails cut, not as a privilege or for an extra fee, but simply as a matter of health care and personal hygiene? For elderly people, it can often make the difference as to whether or not they can actually walk.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is not going to get me in any way not supporting proper treatment or care, whether it is for an elderly person or somebody the member's age. What does the member want me to answer? Certainly, I am in favour of that.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, if it is such a simple matter for the Premier, can he explain to us why it is the practice in nursing homes not to have podiatric care provided to residents as a matter of regular service, but is provided as an add-on service for which people are charged ridiculous amounts? If it is so simple, why does he not speak to the Minister of Health to make sure podiatric care is available as a matter of course to each and every resident covered under our medicare program?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there are degrees of care. I am not familiar with and am not an expert in this field as the member obviously is, but I would suggest that perhaps there are degrees of care. I would be delighted to take this up with the Minister of Health and, knowing his talents and abilities, I am sure he will convince the member on Monday or Tuesday when he is here as to the validity of the present government policy.

LESLIE STREET SPIT

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Would he confirm what we have been advised, that a special memorandum has been circulated around the Ministry of Natural Resources, and to this minister as well, indicating the proper owner of the Leslie Street spit area is actually the Ministry of Natural Resources?

Would he also agree, if that is the case, that the Ministry of Natural Resources must obtain a certificate or permit under section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act for any disposition of waste that occurs there?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if any such memorandum exists, it has certainly not passed before my eyes.

Mr. Elston: Would the minister confirm or deny whether the Ministry of Natural Resources is the owner of that area? Can he also confirm that there is a move afoot to have the spit area transferred, in one manner or another, perhaps by way of lease, from the ownership of the Ministry of Natural Resources to the ownership of the Toronto Harbour Commission to try to avoid the ramifications of Ontario jurisdiction over the environment?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I cannot confirm that. The only thing I do recall is that there may be a very small portion of the spit that is thought to be outside the jurisdiction of the Toronto Harbour Commission by just a few feet. I cannot confirm that in specifics. I certainly cannot confirm or deny the existence of any such document. The member might be well advised to direct the question to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope). I am sure if such a document existed, it would have been brought to our attention.

Mr. Chariton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Ministry of the Environment on the same subject, the Leslie Street spit. Unfortunately, last week the minister missed my point when he attempted to answer my question by describing the program proposed by his ministry for the Leslie Street spit. I did not particularly need a description of the program. I have seen all the material his ministry sent out to me.

It is clear from the lake-fill quality study that this program is not even capable of screening out half of the contaminated fill coming to the Leslie Street spit. Examples of sites where the degree of contamination was rated as high and which are not designated control areas are: Bloor and Jarvis, Warden and Eglinton, Dundas and Spadina, and even the Queen's Park site. In view of the poor water quality that exists in Toronto harbour, is the minister prepared to either stop the filling on the spit or to ensure that all fill that goes to the spit is tested?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, without having to go through the full description of the program once again for the honourable member, if he recalls my response last week, in fact, I did understand his question. I pointed out that the program at present in place is a prototype. We will monitor the operation of the program and the effectiveness of it over the next few months and it may very well be expanded not only within Metropolitan Toronto but also in other parts of the province. I am not prepared to make any determination on that until I can be certain of the effectiveness of it. I would also point out that I do not agree with the member's rather facile dismissal of the effectiveness of the screening.

I would suggest it might be to the member's advantage to sit down with someone from my staff who was involved in the designing of the program so that his understanding might be expanded somewhat. He might then be in a better position to make that kind of assessment, rather than, as some of his background people are wont to do, making facile dismissals, which do not serve the public because they are not based on full information.

Mr. Charlton: Lake Ontario has been recognized by the International Joint Commission as having more serious toxic problems than the rest of the Great Lakes system. The IJC considers that the Toronto harbour is one of the trouble spots in the lake and has mentioned the harbour repeatedly in its annual reports, continually pointing out that there is no noticeable improvement in the harbour.

At the very least, is the minister prepared to make the spit, and the landfilling that is going on in the spit, part of the environmental assessment that is going on in relation to dredging? The spit is, supposedly, designed to contain the dumping of dredged material.

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I could, legally, if I wanted to.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, in the report made to us on the Leslie Street spit, I wonder why the minister did not include the results of analysis for pesticides? Why, to this point, has he not provided me with an answer to my question on the Order Paper dealing with the tabling of the results of that particular analysis?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The answer to the latter part of the question is that the answer is in preparation. I believe I signed the answer this morning and presumably it will be available to the member very shortly.

It is rather silly of the member to put some 45 questions on the Order Paper, as he has done recently, and then make it his question period exercise during the time which is allotted to stand and say, "Why do I not have an answer yet?" That is rather silly.

I might suggest that the answers to the 45 or so questions he now has on the Order Paper could be speeded up if his party would allocate some of its research resources to my ministry so that, under the restraint program, we could allocate the staff time that is going to be necessary.

The other alternative is that the answer he gets may not be the answer he wants. Although I would like to provide him with full information, that kind of nonsensical approach is not going to be very productive.

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that each member has the right and privilege to put questions on the Order Paper. It is not up to the minister to question that during question period.

Mr. Eakins: Give your staff some work to do.

Mr. Speaker: It is, indeed, the right of every member to put a question on the Order Paper. The minister is answering a question.

Ms. Copps: He is not answering the question. He is commenting on --

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of answering the question when the point of order was raised. In response to the point of order, I would suggest to the honourable member that she recall what I said. I was not questioning the right of a member to ask questions.

Ms. Copps: The minister called it silly. He said it was silly.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the rules that denies a minister the opportunity to comment upon questions placed on the Order Paper, or on the way in which they have been placed there. If I think that is nonsensical, I will say it is nonsensical --

Ms. Copps: You are making a speech --

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and, my lady, you will not stop me.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, this is not the answer to the question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, carrying on with the answer to the question directed by the critic: I would simply point out that the information he requested in the question on the Order Paper is being provided to him. That information is available. There has been no attempt not to provide it.

The point of the scan that was done was, primarily, to look for any evidence of polychlorinated byphenyl contamination. That full information has been available in our office to anyone who requested it. The member has requested it and it is on its way to him.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we proceed, I think we will make one thing exceptionally clear. From time to time the members in the House suggest that I take direction from other members. I have made it very clear that I do not. Yet, those people who raise that question from time to time are, perhaps, the very ones who are suggesting that I should follow their advice and I am not going to do that either.

Ms. Copps: It is fair play.

BURLINGTON SKYWAY

Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the decline in demand for steel in the present economic situation, and because of the important role that steel and its production play in the economy of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, will the minister explain why, in preparing tender specifications for the twinning of the Burlington Skyway, his ministry is not requiring that steel be used to the maximum extent possible in the construction of the bridge?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the design or type of construction of that major project, a considerable amount of steel will be used. Our ministry calculates and examines carefully every bridge that we build. In a period of years, we build perhaps several hundred and we use many different technologies for the bridges.

The smaller bridges are normally designed for one technology. It may be for steel, for precast concrete, for ordinary reinforced concrete or for prestressed concrete beams. A number of the bridges built in the past years, not only by ourselves but by municipalities, have been designed for more than one technology. For instance, it gives the bidders an option to bid on either concrete or steel. It is our plan to tender the Burlington Skyway job next year on the optional basis that will take advantage of all the technologies and get us the most competitive price.

As an example, the last large bridge the ministry tendered was the Belleville bridge or the Norris Whitney bridge which is just now being completed. It was tendered on that basis: both steel and concrete. In that case, the steel structure was the winner and I believe it was some $1.3 million less than using concrete. In other words, there was about a 10 per cent saving, a 10 per cent differential between steel and concrete with steel being the winner.

On the other hand, there is another major project which is not one of ours but is one we have been closely connected with because of funding. It is the Burlington Street project in the city of Hamilton, which is a regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth contract. That contract was tendered the same way with the two options, one for concrete and one for steel. In that case, the concrete won out over steel.

I was looking over the project last weekend as a matter of fact and it is somewhat interesting that it runs right by the front door of Hamilton's major steel industries. I am told the price differential there was much greater. I believe the contract amount for the concrete structure was roughly $28.5 million and the low alternative bid for steel construction was $33.5 million, a $5 million differential in that project. I guess that is getting pretty close to a 20 per cent saving by using concrete. I think that proves both my own officials and the municipal officials dealing with these large contracts get the best value for the dollar by making the alternatives available.

We have to understand that both the steel industry and the concrete industry are local industries that like to have some opportunity to share the market.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the minister has a great deal of latitude as to the medium from which he can build a bridge, and in the past the only criterion really was cost. Given that one medium or the other could meet the load-carrying capacity of the span and all those things, does he not think there might be another area he might have to look into now, that is what particular medium would create the most jobs and have most Canadian or Ontario content? That is another dimension he did not refer to in his answer.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, that is quite possible. We could look into that. From my own experience of some 30 years in the construction industry, I would tend to think that as far as jobs are concerned, actual man-hours of work, the concrete structure would provide the most man-hours of work.

I am saying that just off the cuff, from my own experience. Forming and building a concrete structure and placing reinforcing steel is always much more labour-intensive than the structural area. I might be wrong on that. I cannot say, but I think the member is more or less agreeing with me.

11 a.m.

CHARITABLE TAX EXEMPTIONS

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Revenue: On a UNICEF mail order form for Children of the World plates, those decorative plates that hang on walls, one must compute an additional seven per cent Ontario sales tax charge, based on the amount of the plates, plus handling and postage.

One can understand that by selling a commercial product UNICEF Canada is competing with other companies selling a similar product for a profit and so must add the seven per cent sales tax, but given that on the mail order form it is stated that the selling price of each plate includes a contribution to benefit the United Nations children's fund, how can the minister justify taxing a charitable donation?

Furthermore, how can the minister justify what amounts to a maximum of $1.75 in provincial tax on federal postage and handling?

Mr. Ruston: A dollar is a dollar.

Mr. Kerrio: Any way we can get it.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We need the money, that is for sure.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, regarding the portion of the proceeds that goes to a very excellent charitable organization for very excellent purposes, the honourable member who posed the question has acknowledged the problem is that, in the context of breaking this out, one would find that the organization passing on a portion of the proceeds would be getting full tax credit. It would be extremely difficult administratively, as well as then making individual decisions on other proposals that could come forth from organizations that purport to be or are giving part of the proceeds from whatever to very needy and worthwhile organizations. What I am saying is that it would be impossible to make it fair and equitable.

As to the second part of the question, the inclusion for tax purposes of the costs of any handling, delivery, postage, shipping, etc., is not unusual. That is exactly the case with every commodity that is purchased at the retail level. One of the differences with mail order is that quite often the costs of handling, shipping and/or postage are specifically identified separately. When one buys something in a retail store, one is paying for all those things but at a retail price that includes them before it is posted.

There is nothing inconsistent about that approach. It is completely consistent with the thought behind the retail sales tax, which is the amount that is paid for the commodity by the consumer at the consumer level. That includes things that are bought by mail order. One does not take ownership of the goods until they are received. When they are received, handling and postage charges are included.

Mr. Van Horne: The easy answer to the observation made about breaking out costs is to give them an exemption and let all the money go to the needy children of the world so that they may have the basic necessities of life. That is the easy solution.

With regard to the little boxes we will all see next week with Halloween coming -- the boxes that are carried through many communities by the young people on Halloween, in which moneys are gathered to go to UNICEF -- can the minister assure us that he is not going to tax the receipts from this particular venture or from other similar things, for example the sales by Boy Scouts on Apple Day? Is he going to tax items such as these too? Assuming that the minister might respond no, I would offer this, through one of the pages taking it over, so he might make a small contribution to replace some of the money the government is stealing through his silly seven per cent tax on these people.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Quite obviously my answer is no, we are not taxing it. There are many opportunities within the very fair and reasonable and responsible Retail Sales Tax Act to recognize charitable and other similar institutions and the good works they do and the good works that come about because of their proceeds. To try to twist and distort that the way the member has done is above and beyond him, and I am very surprised that it comes from him.

GAS PRICE INCREASES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I want to ask it within the context of his enforced wage restraint program.

Does this week's increase in gasoline prices, which makes them now 20 per cent higher than they were in December 1981, shake his indifference to the excessive increases in energy prices and the way they are clobbering the consumers, the farmers and many other segments of our society?

Specifically, does the minister consider it appropriate for the refineries to raise the amount they receive for refining a litre of gasoline by 52 per cent over the level they were at in December 1981?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the honourable member was serious when he indicated some indifference to these matters on my part, because he knows that is not true.

But I do have to tell him that we have been in the midst of a gas war in this province and there are some adjustments taking place. We have been in touch with the combines investigation branch of the federal government to see if they have any views on whether or not there might be any contravention of that legislation. It is the view of their officials that there is not. Naturally, we are going to continue to observe the pattern of prices in the gasoline industry, following this rather lengthy price war, to see what the final evolution of the picture is.

With respect to the matter the member raised regarding refinery prices, I will have to take that as notice, review it and find out the facts, because sometimes he and I have different information available to us. I do not want to question whether his information is right or wrong, but sometimes we tend to disagree on some things. If he does not mind, I prefer to take that as notice and to review the facts.

Mr. Swart: We have confirmed the facts. The minister will find out again that we are right in the figures we have put before this House.

The minister will realize that I phrased my question in such a way that it had nothing to do with the recent price war which we have had. It related the prices of last December and the increases that have been made specifically by the refinery and incidentally as a result of the ad valorem tax.

The minister mentioned that he had taken this up with the combines investigation branch. I want to ask him whether he is prepared to use the power that he has over retail prices, specifically when this is a matter under his jurisdiction and not under the federal jurisdiction, as it has nothing to do with wholesale prices, to roll back those prices and that unreasonable increase of 52 per cent by the refineries. That is the specific question. Is he going to get involved?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I said, I took the question as notice with respect to the information the member provided. He knows the price restraint program of the government applies to administered prices within this government's control.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, on the same thought as the member for Welland-Thorold --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Buddies, are you?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Haggerty: I do not know; I thought the minister was in bed with him at one time. What happened to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel)? Is he his friend any longer? He forgets the days as Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Haggerty: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If you want to have a private conversation, you can carry it on outside.

Mr. Haggerty: Some two years ago I brought to the attention of the responsible ministries, and particularly the Ministry of Energy, the unfair marketing practices that are being continued in marketing gasoline in the Fort Erie area, where there has been a gas war, if we can call it that, for the past two or three years. Is the minister aware that the gasoline outlets in that area are permitting a 40 per cent exchange on the American doctor?

An hon. member: Doctor or dollar?

Mr. Haggerty: I mean dollar -- I am speaking to the doctor over there, once he gets his scalpel out.

Is the minister aware that the practice of dumping gasoline down there has been going on for at least two years? The Americans are getting the benefit at the expense of the Canadian consumers. Is it an unfair business practice? Is there a combine in the oil industry that should be investigated now?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any information that would indicate there is, but I will take that question as notice and provide the honourable member with the information he has asked for.

11:10 a.m.

INFORMATION FOR NEW MOTHERS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is no doubt aware that October is Breast-Feeding Month in Ontario and that an international conference will be held, starting today, at the city hall in Toronto. One of the major topics for discussion is the distribution of commercial literature, in contravention of the World Health Organization code, to new mothers across Ontario.

I wonder whether the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations can comment on the kind of information that is available on a commercial basis to new mothers across Ontario and, indeed, is distributed in our hospitals. I am sending over to the minister a copy of one of the misleading pieces of information given to new mothers.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, obviously all I can do is look at the information provided by the honourable member and comment on it at some later date.

Ms. Copps: The minister and his government should be aware that in hospitals across Ontario new mothers are receiving information that is not only misleading but also inaccurate and potentially dangerous to the health of their babies. At the same time, this government refuses to fully endorse the WHO code with respect to the distribution of commercial materials in hospitals. My question to the minister is, who is running this province, anyway, the government or the drug lobbies?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I can support the member's view that the government is running it and running it well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, although the minister may think this is somewhat frivolous, I am sure he is aware of the studies that have been done by the World Health Organization and the United Nations and the congressional hearings under Senator Kennedy with respect to Nestlé's operations, among others, regarding their effects on indigenous peoples specifically and the conclusions that they reached.

Is the minister prepared to ensure that these kinds of commercial operations do not continue in our public hospitals but, rather, that mothers receive the kind of information they require about breast-feeding?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, these really are questions which should be addressed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman). I will have discussions with him on this matter.

Mr. Ruston: I have some questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think it is the other people's turn.

Mr. Riddell: They didn't stand up.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EQUAL PAY

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In the House last March, the minister rejected the principle of equal pay for work of equal value as a method of overcoming the 51 per cent wage gap between the earnings of men and women on the grounds that it is "impractical and unenforceable."

I want to ask the minister whether he has read the article by Judy Steed in the Globe and Mail of last Monday on the subject of equal pay for work of equal value. In that article she refers to the work of an American economist, Dr. David Thomsen, who is vice-president of William Mercer Ltd., which advises corporations and governments on equal opportunity programs. Lynne Sullivan, a consultant in the Toronto office of William Mercer Ltd., is quoted in the article as saying:

"We have acquired a bias-free job evaluation design from Dr. Thomsen and there is no problem about comparing different kinds of jobs. What is unique about our system is that we can show where sex-based discrimination -- "

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Bryden: I am just completing this quote, Mr. Speaker.

"What is unique about our system is that we can show where sex-based discrimination enters the job evaluation system, and we can change the weighting of factors."

In the light of this development, does the minister still think that equal pay for work of equal value is impractical and unenforceable?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question, perhaps I could just refer to a statement made by the honourable member to the effect that, if I heard her correctly, the wage differential is 51 per cent. I believe it is higher than that.

As far as the article in the Globe and Mail is concerned, yes, I am aware of it. In fact, I was interviewed by that journalist in respect to the article. At the time that the journalist came in to see me, she told me about this method of measurement that had been developed by William Mercer Ltd. I have instructed my staff to get a copy of that document and to analyse it, and we are planning an early discussion and review of the method that has been developed by William Mercer Ltd.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Ms. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wish to correct the information of the minister regarding the wage gap being only 51 per cent; he says it is higher. The 51 per cent figure is the latest one, for 1981, from Statistics Canada. The minister is out of date if he is saying the figure is higher for women.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that in the standing committee on resources development, the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development be taken immediately following the estimates of the Ministry of Energy.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitution be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Wrye for Mr. Epp.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased and honoured to put before you the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services for the year 1982-83.

Our priorities are again concentrated on several important areas. Improving service is our main goal. We are continuing to give priorities, therefore, to making it easier for people to reach the government.

Creating employment opportunities in the private sector is a very important challenge for us. Making the best use of our limited resources to meet the ever-increasing demands for service is another. To meet these challenges, we are searching for better ways to improve our efficiency so that we can better serve the people of Ontario directly and indirectly through our ministries, agencies, boards and commissions.

On April 26, 1982, I advised the Legislature of a reorganization of the Ministry of Government Services. This reorganization is aimed at improving our most important product, which is service. As you know, Mr. Speaker, delivery of good services depends entirely on the commitment and dedication of the people who provide this service.

11:20 p.m.

As a farmer, businessman and politician, I know the importance of making use of all the people skills available to us. That is why we are placing an increased emphasis on human resources planning and development this year.

Mr. Kerrio: Volunteers?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Not quite.

We recognize that productivity depends just as much on recognition of people skills and opportunities for their development as it does on providing them with the physical resources for the job.

As minister, I feel we must identify and provide every opportunity for private sector job creation in Ontario through Ministry of Government Services program initiatives. I am pleased to report that during the last fiscal year, in the accommodation services of my ministry alone, we generated 10,000 jobs in the private sector through various projects across the province. In this fiscal year, 1982-83, more than 14,500 new jobs will be created in the private sector. It is our sincere hope that these expenditures in capital, repairs and alterations will offer a much-needed economic stimulus throughout the province.

I also wish to point out the very significant contribution made under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program in this area. The additional $7.9 million allocated to my ministry by BILD will provide a further 1,500 jobs in the province this year. Our acceleration in the areas of capital construction, repairs and alterations will be seen from Thunder Bay to Prescott and from Haileybury to Toronto. Virtually every corner of this province will receive the benefits of this very productive and effective program.

I also point out that our policy of buying Canadian is in direct support of the Canadian industry's efforts to produce Canadian systems, processes and products. We, of course, will continue to apply Ontario's preference for Canadian content in all our purchasing decisions. The 10 per cent preference given Canadian firms will continue to ensure that Ontario and Canada receive the maximum benefit from the expenditure of public funds in the private sector.

Members will recall that earlier this month I shared with the House a new initiative regarding the procurement of Canadian-made electrical and mechanical equipment. The person responsible for this is on stream, and we are looking for a lot of progressive things happening in our ministry, along with the Ministry of Industry and Trade, in the next few months to create jobs in the private sector.

I am sure the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) will be very happy with that. Perhaps his firm could even bid on some of these.

The Ministry of Industry and Trade now is providing special staff to work hand in hand with the Ministry of Government Services to encourage Canadian companies to examine these manufacturing opportunities, resulting in further jobs throughout the private sector.

In the design of buildings and renovations, my ministry is increasingly using local architects, consulting engineers and other members of the local labour force. This approach allows the government to distribute tax dollars far more effectively and appropriately across Ontario.

We are also taking action to ensure that government buildings are available to all citizens. In the 1981-82 fiscal year, we spent $450,000 on facilities for the handicapped. A further $500,000 will be set aside this year for that program.

Leasing and leasehold improvements add further economic stability to all areas of this province. Our projected $67 million of expenditure in this regard will allow us an opportunity to ensure the survival of existing local jobs.

While construction is generating employment across Ontario, my ministry is taking further major initiatives in the area of accommodation. Through a series of cost-cutting efforts, we are now maintaining more buildings with fewer staff. Our objective in 1982-83 will be to continue with this type of progressive management and to strive for further effective cost-reduction programs.

I want to make special mention of one of the most important projects in the Ministry of Government Services; that is, increasing access to government by the people.

Members will recall a new mandate for the Ministry of Government Services. This mandate called for us to continue to improve public access to government, to improve service delivery to the public and to take a leadership role in the whole area of information technology so that new technology could be felt in government and benefit the citizens of Ontario.

Early this year, I advised the Legislature of an agreement with the federal government which will benefit all citizens of the province. Through this agreement, my ministry will expand its general inquiry service to assist those who are seeking federal services in Ontario. As a result, direction and service will be provided to more than 8.5 million people. I should say this is through Zenith Ontario and Zenith Canada and it seems to be working quite satisfactorily.

The provincial government now conducts an estimated 85 per cent of all its business by telephone. We estimate that more than 100 million telephone calls each year are handled by provincial government offices throughout this province. New computerized technology will help us immensely in dealing with this type of demand in the future.

My ministry is dedicated to analysing and implementing electronic aids to government access through state-of-the-art computer services such as the Revised Statutes of Ontario, now available in computerized form to many public libraries, lawyers and others.

We are a progressive-thinking ministry prepared to move forward in a constantly changing society. We intend to be leaders in the development of information technology. I am very proud of our achievements to date, but I am also aware of our constant challenge to maintain this leadership role in improving service for the benefit of the people of this province.

I also wish to compliment other ministries for their co-operation in making such progress for, although we have the leadership responsibility in these areas, it is only through a common understanding of objectives and a close working relationship that we can move ahead as a government.

Our efforts also have been directed to the internal needs of government. Major computerized energy management and control systems have been introduced in the Newmarket courthouse and the Sudbury consolidated government building. These systems also will be introduced in Kingston, St. Catharines and Oshawa to reduce energy consumption and to save operating costs on such items as cooling, heating, electric power, lighting and maintenance.

If I may take a moment to illustrate the type of energy savings we are talking about, I want to look at figures for the Ministry of Revenue building in Oshawa.

It was just a short time ago that the industry standard for energy consumption -- and this is very important -- in a building the size of the Oshawa project was 45 to 70 kilowatt hours per square foot per year. Projected energy consumption in Oshawa with all the innovative design features will be about nine kilowatt hours per square foot per year. That represents a saving of $298,000 a year at today's prices.

11:30 a.m.

I am sure my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) is delighted by this, to say nothing of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the people of Ontario. People are visiting us from south of the border to look at what we are able to do with our energy consumption, as well as visiting with the architect in Oshawa, who has been asked by many foreign countries how we are doing it.

Just as a matter of interest to the members, we have done this at a cost that is as low as or lower than the cost of an ordinary building a few years ago, so that our costs have not risen to make this saving.

On energy conservation, I am pleased to inform members that by the end of March 1982 we had reduced our usage by 25 per cent from when we commenced keeping detailed records in 1975-76. This means a saving to this government of $27 million since we initiated this program. In very simple terms, we have saved the energy required to heat and light 54,000 homes. This translates to a city the size of Ottawa. I was really surprised by that. We expect to reduce our energy consumption by an additional two per cent this year and a further two per cent next year.

This year we will be providing leadership and co-ordination in the development of up-to-date computer services for the Ministry of Health in Kingston. We are constantly developing new ideas and exploring new opportunities to improve our services to our client ministries in all of their endeavours.

Revenues from computer services supplied to the client ministries in 1983 are estimated to increase 22 per cent. Today, computers operate at a fraction of the cost per transaction of even a few years ago. As an example, if a particular computer service cost $100 in the fiscal year 1974-75, that would cost $78 today. There have been no inflation adjustments in these figures, so we see that even with the very significant increases in inflation since 1975, our price has actually been reduced for a vastly superior service.

Cost of staff has followed an opposite trend, of course, but the moderate increases in staff we have added to provide computer services show a remarkable increase in productivity. I expect this trend to continue with further cost savings and increased productivity.

New and innovative ideas in our mailing operation will see a saving of about $1 million in this fiscal year. The Ministry of Government Services operates the second largest post office in the country. With 60 million outgoing pieces and 15 million incoming pieces of mail each year, we had to find methods of cutting costs and improving service. We have been able to do this and we will initiate a service that will allow members of the public to drop government correspondence off at any government office throughout the province for rapid, no-cost delivery.

This courtesy service is just another example of our commitment to doing more with less -- $1 million less in this area alone.

I might just turn to a few of the projects which will be receiving our attention during the life of these estimates.

A complete plan has been undertaken to improve the services and facilities in this historic Legislative Building. We will be bringing that forward soon.

We will be heating more of the Queen's Park buildings, including this Legislature, with cost- saving steam heat from the Toronto District Heating Corp.

An information bank for telephone inquiries will place all the services provided by this government at the fingertips of the telephone receptionist for delivery to the public.

Relocation of a major computer centre in Kingston for the effective processing of Ontario health insurance plan claims will be faster and more economical, and will offer improved efficiency to the people of Ontario.

We are in the final stages of preparing working drawings for the new $50-million Ottawa courthouse and construction is expected to start in the spring of 1983.

The building of a $2.8-million addition to the Ridgetown College of Agricultural Technology is now under way. The addition will contain classrooms, laboratories, offices, storage space and auxiliary facilities. I say to the member from that area that I have seen photos of it and have had reports on it. It is really coming along fast. I think it is even ahead of schedule. I am sure all the people in that area who use it will be very happy with it.

My parliamentary assistant the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson), and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) are opening our new French agricultural college. My parliamentary assistant is taking my place so I can be here for the estimates. I am sure the people in that area will be pleased with it and we will get into phase two right away.

Mr. Haggerty: I am sure the local member was advised of the opening of that.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I see he is not here today. I am sure that is where he is. I think he was invited. We do that.

We have recently completed reconstruction and opened the Hills Lake Provincial Fish Hatchery near Englehart. The Hills Lake hatchery is the Ministry of Natural Resources' major brood stock station in Ontario. It supplies lake trout and brook trout eggs to nine provincial government fish hatcheries and stocks lakes in a number of northern and northeastern Ontario districts. I might say we opened that with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and others a few weeks ago and it will be the most modern one in North America.

There are others and we will continue to show high management standards in the spending of the taxpayers' dollars now and in the future.

Our new management style is one of providing leadership in the development of policies and in the delivery of services. We believe management is most effective when the managers are accountable for their expenditures.

Therefore, in the provision of accommodation we are developing a system whereby the client ministries will be aware of and accountable for accommodation costs, just as they are now accountable for their own direct operating costs. Much work will need to be done before such a system can be implemented. However, we have made an excellent start with the development of an up-to-date space inventory system which will allow ministries to analyse their use of space and to adopt the most cost-efficient accommodation to meet their needs.

In addition, a long-range plan is being developed to rationalize provincial government accommodation throughout Metro Toronto. Through the consolidation of the ministry's head offices which are now dispersed, increased efficiency and service will be assured.

11:40 a.m.

This will ultimately result in a greater utilization of government owned properties and a saving will accrue through the termination of expensive lease costs in the downtown core area. Members will be interested to learn that greater responsibilities are being delegated to our accommodation field offices to permit them to service their clients more effectively. This is just one example of the many ways we are making changes within the ministry to improve our ability to provide better service.

In closing, allow me to say it has been a distinct pleasure to serve the people of Ontario for this past year in the Ministry of Government Services. It has also been a very real pleasure to appear once again to present the estimates of my ministry. I look forward to hearing the comments of the honourable members, considering any new ideas presented and discussing in detail our expenditures for 1982-83. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. To refresh everyone's memory, we are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services and we had the opening statement of the minister. Now, the member for Waterloo North -- sorry, Erie.

Mr. Haggerty: How long have you been in the chair?

Mr. Chairman: Obviously not long enough.

Mr. Philip: It doesn't make any difference. A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the minister for his opening comments. I thought last year's opening statement was a little bit better than the one this year. I thought I should start off with my comments in response to the minister.

In last year's statement by the minister, page 2 talked about the government's sustained commitment to conduct its affairs as efficiently and economically as possible through fiscal restraint and the prudent management of the money the people of Ontario entrust to this government. It also illustrates the internal economies his officials have been able to effect.

My colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) and I were elected to this House 15 years ago --

Mr. Chairman: What is the date?

Mr. Haggerty: It was 1967.

Mr. Chairman: No, no, I mean the day.

Mr. Haggerty: It was October 17.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, it has already passed. Congratulations.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, it has already passed, that is correct. I thought I would make reference to the election in 1967.

Mr. Chairman: Is this on the estimates? Are we allowed to deviate from the estimates?

Mr. Haggerty: It is definitely on the estimates. I refer back to some of the prudent Treasurers of Ontario, namely the Honourable Charles MacNaughton and the Honourable James Allan. Mr. Allan was a very dear friend of mine. During the election, Mr. MacNaughton said he had news that the government was going to become a comparison shopper. It would set up a central agency to control all buying, keep a watch on the market and get better deals.

The Treasury board did a study for 2½ years and this was going to come forward. Mr. MacNaughton said: "Queen's Park, like all governments, has to ration its expenditures and control its budget in the same way families and individuals do." I am glad that the minister, as a farmer, has some background in the agricultural sector. He knows that pennies count today if one is to survive. I am sure we agree with that.

I think of the expenditures of the province today in relation to what this ministry can do to provide further constraint policies and better services to the communities of Ontario. I refer to the research that was done by the legislative library research service here at Queen's Park, an excellent report on government advertising presented to the standing committee on public accounts.

It is alarming to look at the figures from one election to another. In 1979, the expenditure for running selective ads in newspapers, on radio and television, putting out some good messages to the public of Ontario, was $17.9 million. It is interesting to note that for the last election in 1981 it climbed to well over $40 million. Much of that was unnecessary.

We will be talking about what we can do today in the area of employment. An announcement was made yesterday by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) saying he has come up with $53 million for a program of improvements and new initiatives to find additional work for those --

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Can I interrupt?

Mr. Chairman: Absolutely, please interrupt, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: It is just a correction. If my honourable friend looks at the list of ministries that were advertising, the Ministry of Government Services did not spend any of its money on advertising. I want to correct the record. We did not spend any of whatever figure the member gave.

Mr. Haggerty: That is correct. What I am trying to convey to the minister is that he has a responsibility in this area. The province should be under one purchasing agent and that can be handled by his ministry. In the private sector, if we want to go out and buy something, a tool or a car, we put tenders out and there is one purchasing agent who buys it. A large company with 10 or 12 different subsidiaries in the province purchases everything through one purchasing agent.

That is the intent Charles MacNaughton tried to convey in the election of 1967, that the government should be moving in this area. If you had control of this, I am sure with your Scottish background you would have some say in the matter of where this money was being spent, and the question of overlapping services.

The former Minister of Industry and Tourism, now the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), had a little pamphlet listing all the different government agencies there are -- and I do not have to tell you how many cabinet ministers there are -- and, for example, the Ministry of the Environment buys alarm systems, chemicals and paints, automobiles, furniture, fuels and petroleum.

In that area alone, if you had one purchasing agent buying for the province, sending out tenders, think of the money that could be saved. You would not have to go through all the red tape and be embarrassed by the statement about overlapping of ads in the report from the library research services on government expenditures. I am sure that applies to other areas of purchasing by the province.

Last year my colleague tried to bring this to the attention of the minister. This is an area you should be looking at. A central purchasing agency run by your ministry would have tighter controls on matters, so that you are not buying something that will not even be used. Anybody who has been elected to local government, municipal government or regional government can find out just by looking at the estimates that, year after year, at the end of the year there is a certain amount of capital still remaining that has not been spent. All of a sudden there is a big splurge to go out and spend that, whether they need to or not.

That is what has happened. That is why government has got into difficulties in expenditures. The minister can do more in this area if he is given that authority. The decision will have to come from the cabinet, but just look at the 10-year record of the Davis government in policy management. They have failed us considerably when we look at the waste in government expenditure. They do not understand the word "prudence." Charles MacNaughton and James Allan did understand that word, but this government has failed in that area.

They pursue the policy of putting their self- interest ahead of that of the public. That research report indicates this is what is taking place; that there is a waste of government expenditure in areas which should be controlled by one agency.

11:50 a.m.

I am sure the minister is aware of the C. D. Howe Research Institute. It is a private, nonpolitical, nonprofit organization, founded in January 1973 to undertake research into Canadian economic policy issues, with the emphasis on fiscal, monetary and national trade policy. He may find interesting some of the excerpts from the institution's publication, Accountability and Control: the Government Expenditure Process.

"The expenditure process of any government is both the backbone around which much of the government operates and its nervous system which sends out messages about what is important to government and what actions are to be taken.

"Parliamentary government is, in essence, a 'personal' system of government. Responsibility is vested in, and exercised by, an individual. This is necessary if there is to be an accounting for the use of power. Accountability is not, however, always clearly defined, because a minister's individual and collective roles have resulted in a system of deliberately overlapping responsibilities.

"This growth in government spending has been attributed to a number of factors. One of these was a number of decisions made in 1960 that sought to enlarge the scope and significance of government involvement in redistributive social policies. These decisions resulted in increases in the level of spending of such programs as family allowances and old age pensions and the initiation of new programs such as the Canada pension plan and guaranteed income supplement and universal medical and hospitalization schemes.

"During the 1960s and the early 1970s, attention was focused upon the programs that governments elected to fund, but in recent years this focus has shifted towards the level and growth of government expenditures as a whole and towards the economic implications of this growth. For example, recent debate has emphasized the impact of government spending on the rate of inflation, the effectiveness of government spending in meeting the objectives that people believe characterize a certain policy, and the possibilities for more efficient means of meeting these objectives. Perhaps the most consistent concern has been the feeling that government spending is simply 'out of control.'

"In democratic government, ultimate authority and responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of a spending proposal rest with the elected members of the Legislature. How real is the power in modern government?

"The principal objectives of a government expenditure process might be seen as providing cabinet with the means of directing the total pattern of government expenditures towards the overall goals or priorities of ministers" -- sometimes we have to question the priorities of the ministers -- "ensuring that the allocation of resources to specific programs reflects these priorities" -- I do not have to tell the minister about Suncor and the $650-million cost that will eventually run to over $1 billion -- "enabling a review of the performance and future prospects of the economy, to ascertain whether emerging expenditure policies will be consistent with the economic aims of the government."

I do not have to speak about that in relating the prudence of the former Treasurer to that of the present Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), whose forecasting the last three or four years has been outrageous. It is as bad as that for Ontario Hydro. We do not know in what direction this government is actually heading.

To continue with the objectives: "providing for the evaluation of existing policies and programs to determine which are ineffective or of low priority and should be deleted."

The C. D. Howe Institute's report makes some suggestions for improvements which would clarify what governments view as priorities and how to deal with these priorities.

"These improvements are based on the following principles:

"A key to improved accountability is a better informed and more aware public which has the opportunity to participate in the formation of fairly broad national" -- and provincial -- "priorities.

"Government itself, in a democratic society, must take responsibility for the priorities it decides to pursue and how it will pursue them.

"While any selection of priorities by the cabinet must, of necessity, be subject to change, the set of priorities that obtain at any one time should be coherent. However, the application of those priorities may present numerous unresolved conflicts calling for continuous, but what may be at times only partly successful, efforts at co-ordination." I hope the minister's comments this morning do not lead us in the latter direction.

"If a system of control is to be effective, activities must be planned as clearly as possible. . . Ultimate control and accountability for the expenditures of government must be exercised by the Legislature." I suppose that is one of the reasons the minister is here before us this morning, to go through that normal exercise.

I was interested in the minister's statement in the House this spring when he said: "The government of Ontario has been providing toll-free service to all Ontarians for the past two years. At the request of the federal government, and in keeping with our continued effort to bring the government closer to the people, we have entered into a joint agreement to provide information access to federal programs for the more than eight million citizens in the province."

That does raise some questions. I think it is well that we do have an open-door policy to the government here. I hope it is a lot better than the one some of the members now have with the government. I raise the question particularly as it relates to the constituency offices of all the members in the Legislature. For example, if we are going to put in a toll-free telephone system so that any person in Ontario can call a government agency, it is well and good. Then again, I also think we must have the same treatment for members who do not, in many cases, have a direct line to Queen's Park from their constituency office.

In my riding, for instance, I do not have a government tie-line, or wide area telephone service line, to Fort Erie. I can get it through the Welland exchange, which gives me Port Colborne and parts of Wainfleet.

There are similar cases. Consider the difficulty the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) would have in reaching persons who live in Wellandport, an area that has very few ties through an exchange in the Bell system. They pay one of the highest telephone bills in Ontario because every time they pick up the phone it is a long-distance call.

It would be a saving to the government to tie in the WATS line to Fort Erie, because every time I have to make a call to Fort Erie from Queen's Park it is a long-distance call. If I have to make a call to Queen's Park from the constituency office in Fort Erie it is a long-distance call. The total cost adds up to a large amount of money over a year. I suggest to the minister that for a cost of perhaps $300 he could have the WATS line tied into those communities so that better service can be provided through the members' constituency offices. We are being overloaded today with calls, and without a toll-free line it is difficult to cope with them all.

The minister said there are 100 million telephone calls. It is difficult to get through to the Ministry of Revenue about the property tax rebate program. When the government says, "Call us and we will give you the answers," the public strongly resent that they can never get through to that line. However, members have access to certain government agencies and can expedite such inquiries and obtain information much faster than the public can.

I suggest that when the minister looks at toll-free access on a province-wide basis, he also looks at the cost of this program. How many additional staff are required to operate the toll-free telephone lines? For, while he is centralizing a service, he is taking something away from members' constituency offices which could more readily deal with constituents' inquiries and problems.

I bring that to the attention of the minister in connection with the communication system that he wants in order to convey to the public that they have access to government agencies, because it is something I have difficulty with. There are many ways in which he could improve members' constituency office service at less cost than that of some of the recommendations and proposals he has put forward this morning. The government should be assisting the members, perhaps, more than hiring additional staff over here to provide services that are not going to be matched by the constituency offices.

12 noon

The minister asked for other suggestions as to how the communications situation in Ontario with other ministers' agencies could be improved. A year or two ago I addressed a question to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) in relation to the memorandum of agreement with Ontario Hydro. If the Minister of Energy cannot produce that, perhaps the minister can get a copy of that memorandum of agreement. We could then have a better understanding of the operations of Ontario Hydro and better communications so the members of the Legislature would be well aware of the intent of Ontario Hydro and that memorandum.

I suppose there are other areas one could discuss. I think I have covered the main points I wanted to raise with the minister. I have some other questions but I want to get into the other debate.

The theme and thrust of the minister's comments in his statement this morning were the job creation program. I mentioned that his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services has additional funding of some $53 million and he is proposing here to create an additional 1,500 jobs. It is too bad the government did not have a co-operative strategy program to assist the many unemployed persons instead of having each ministry going off on its own little scheme of creating so many jobs.

This ministry could be more effective in the sense of co-ordinating a program so we would have one minister responsible for creating jobs in Ontario. It may take a little glory away from one or two of the ministers. But in a time of crisis such as this there should be a more co-operative pitch by all the ministries, with one co-ordinating ministry. Then jobs would come forward.

A few years ago, my colleague the member for Essex North introduced a special debate in the House on the employment situation back in the 1970s when we had serious unemployment. He suggested a winter works program. There are going to be a number of people unemployed in the province who will be looking for some employment this winter.

I do not have any qualms with the suggestion by the Minister of Community and Social Services as to his program but if it is put under that ministry, it is like saying it is a form of welfare and many people do not want that. They want to work. If that $53 million is combined with other programs, a program could be put together that would be effective and would create employment at least to get them through this hard, tough winter. You will get something in return. The winter works program a few years ago was very effective in this area.

In my community and the other areas down there, the municipalities had projects that had to be looked after. They went out and cleaned out drains and cut the brush to improve some corners on country roads. We got rid of the trees with Dutch elm disease. There are many areas where the program could be improved.

I hope other members and the speaker who follows me will come up with some other ideas to give some assistance. We are willing to co-operate and to work with the ministry on any issue to create jobs for the winter months. We have a problem there. I am sure the dedication and sincere thinking of the minister means he wants something done in this area, but I think he can do a lot more. I think his is the agency, the government arm that can be used as an avenue to come up with a good program through a co-ordinated effort to provide some relief for those persons who unfortunately are laid off work.

It is going to get tougher and tougher. Every time I pick up the newspaper or listen to a radio program from the Niagara Peninsula, I find that more industries are cutting back and there are more layoffs. It is going to be a tragedy if something is not done now to have some form of winter works program.

Maybe we will have to hold a special emergency debate later on. Let us hope we do not have to take that route. Let us hope the minister will come out with a program. There is funding. I know we have talked about prudence, but there is a time to set that aside when there is an emergency, and in the case of so many persons being unemployed, the government has to come back and do it.

The minister mentioned some programs for upgrading and renovating some of the government buildings and some of the proposed buildings they have back in the wings some place. He should bring them forward now instead of waiting until two years down the road. He should get these architects and engineers and get the building going. This is what he has to do. It is the government's responsibility in this area to come forward with a work program now; not a welfare program, but a work program that will create jobs now, not three or four years down the road.

Those are my comments. I appreciate the statements of the minister. I am willing to assist him at any time.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by saying that of all the ministers I have had an opportunity to deal with, this minister has been the most co-operative, probably the most open, the most receptive to suggestions from members on the other side of the House. In some ways, he reminds me of Jim Auld. I cannot think of a better compliment to anyone in the House than that. He has that kind of flexibility and sensitivity which is not always common among politicians and he has been open, as have his staff.

Mr. Chairman: As a result, you are going to terminate your comments.

Mr. Philip: No, I still have a few comments to make, some of them complimenting the minister even more on some of his programs and some of the ideas he has accepted.

I am surprised the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) did not personally thank the minister for this, but one of the great accomplishments of this minister -- I admit it was a New Democratic Party request for action and he responded very well -- was when we had a problem on this side of the House in the chamber music room with the seat on the john. The minister did respond and he got us a new toilet seat. That has greatly added to the comfort of all the opposition members. I realize that he did not include it in the throne speech and boast about it but I know that he should be proud that he has at least made our days more comfortable.

When the member for Erie brought up the problem of advertising, I may have misunderstood what the minister said. Did I understand him to say that his ministry did not spend money on advertising? My recollection -- I do have some figures here -- is that in 1981 it was $593,198 combined for Government Services on advertising.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: We do spend money on advertising tenders but that is the only kind of advertising we do. We advertise that we are calling tenders for a job or for hiring staff or to let the public know. Those are the only areas. I do not think the honourable member would want us to cut back in those areas. We want to let everyone know what we are doing but we do not advertise on other programs. Just to correct the record, for those sorts of things we advertise and will have to continue to spend on advertising, if one wants to consider that advertising.

Mr. Philip: So the figure of over half a million dollars would be advertising for tenders. I realize that is expensive.

The other day I was in a liquor store where there were bookmarks and, if I am not mistaken, those bookmarks had the Ministry of Government Services name on them. Is that not a form of advertising and is that not his ministry that is doing that?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I will answer that for the member.

Mr. Philip: In that instance, it was a small liquor store in a very small town. They had 6,000 of these bookmarks and I doubt if they have 6,000 customers in a year in that store.

12:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: What was the town?

Mr. Philip: The town was Havelock. It is not very far from the minister's riding. It may very well be in his riding.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: No, it is not. It is in the Speaker's riding.

Mr. Philip: There is a very good liquor store and they do attract more customers, perhaps, than some stores that are less well managed and have less stock. Nevertheless, for a town of that size it sounded like an awful lot of bookmarks. There may well be more drinkers than there are readers and, therefore, I wondered about 6,000 bookmarks.

The minister has commented in response to the member for Erie about the telephone system. One of the things I find is a constant irritant is that, while people in my area -- I have heard this comment from other members -- know the name of their member, and they may even know what party he represents, they are not yet familiar with the idea that they look him up in the blue pages of the phone book. Those blue pages have been a nuisance.

While we are talking about that, in my particular case, and I know I asked the minister to look into it and to deal with the proper authorities, I happen to have the individual problem that I have a riding that has the same name as the borough. Therefore, when people call and say they want to speak to their MPP or their member of the Legislature, the switchboard asks where they live, and they say "Etobicoke." There are four ridings in Etobicoke. Mine happens to have the name "Etobicoke," and I also cover a part of North York.

I end up with calls for the member for York West (Mr. Leluk) or the member for Humber (Mr. Kells), or any of the other members concerned. It takes up a certain amount of staff time. I do not know whether the answer is that the government should change the name of the riding and call it "Northwest Metro" perhaps. Then it would not pose a problem any more, and it has been a problem. In any case, the blue pages are not understood, and that may be something the minister may want to look into.

The Liberal Party has asked about the problem of the deficit on various occasions, but its remedy seems to be to sell off assets. It is the only party I know of that wants to sell a stock when it is down. I certainly would not trust my very limited stock portfolio to the Liberal Party. It would sell my stocks off when they were at an all-time low, which is its policy on Suncor.

I wonder what the position of the ministry is. I admit the ministry gets directions from other ministers as to what to do with the various properties. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) may tell this minister, as he has done in the past, to sell off the Bergamont project. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the only man I have ever known who could buy a whole apartment building and, 15 years later, sell it for less money than he paid for it. Can the minister give us an update as to what the thrust is as to liquidation of government assets? Are we selling off large amounts of assets? How much are they? What is being sold at the present time? Is he aware of any plans for selling off more assets?

This year, we have been told about the 200th anniversary of Ontario. As someone who has not only written articles on history but, indeed, has taught history at a university level -- or comparative studies, which is fairly close -- I will not get into an argument as to whether it is the 200th anniversary or not. I think it is a fabricated date, one designed to help politically just before an election. Indeed, Dr. Desmond Morton and other historians have pointed that out in numerous articles, not only in the learned journals, but also in the newspapers.

I would be interested to know, with this fabricated 200th anniversary we are coming up with, what are the plans for the parliament buildings? Are there plans for major renovations? What are we likely to experience? In the planning, are the minister and the Speaker looking at the problem we are having about space, particularly in view of the amount of space in this building which is taken up by the Premier's staff and by people who answer directly to the Premier (Mr. Davis)?

The minister talked about computerization. I can see that he has some talented staff who are trying to co-ordinate information. However, with the co-ordination there is also the problem of security of information. In a democratic society, I think it is important that information concerning government and its expenditures be made as open as possible. But information concerning the personal lives and actions of individuals in that society, in other words, the citizen's right to privacy, should be protected.

I can recall a debate we had with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) some years ago about a system he had set up for dealing with health records. Finally, he agreed with us and said we had to build into the act a protection that said the ministry is responsible if these private health records -- of truck drivers in this case -- were to get into the hands of insurance companies or possible employers who might misuse them.

The standing committee on public accounts dealt at some length with the whole problem of the integration of computers, with great assistance from the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), who is very knowledgeable in the computer field. At that time we saw a certain amount of duplication, but I think the concern of a lot of the members was the interlocking of the computers: what the policy was concerning access; what are the interlocks; what information is available; what safeguards we have against private information of individual citizens, particularly any hearsay or medical evidence, getting into the hands of insurance companies or others who might misuse it.

While talking about the public accounts committee, which is an area I am particularly interested in, perhaps because of my business background, I would be interested in hearing more about the internal auditing system of this ministry. The government is following this route and should be complimented on that.

The annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, states that "the group participated in ongoing development of several new systems," referring to auditing systems. I would like to explore with the minister some of those systems and what application he thinks they may have to other ministries. Perhaps he can give us some examples, not for the sake of our using the information against them but as examples of where the internal auditing system actually caught problems before they became too large.

It is greatly to the advantage of a government to find its own mistakes. Often the internal auditing system does that. It is to the credit of a government that it can say: "We are three months into this and here is a mistake. We have to stop this program and perhaps go back to the drawing boards." That is a lot better than getting three years down the road and finding that a lot of money has been squandered.

There is something else that I am concerned about and the Minister of Government Services may have some insight and some advice to give. He is really the person who is the corporate leader, the chairman of the board, so to speak, of the government.

My colleagues in the New Democratic Party, and also some in the Liberal Party, have particular concerns about the whole problem of the control and accountability of those agencies which are not directly related to government service but are in the hands of either crown corporations, quasi-judicial bodies or other groups. Therefore, they are not directly answerable to the Legislature or, in many cases, to the public accounts committee, which is already terribly overworked. It will be interesting to hear the minister's views on that and see what proposals, if any, he may be prepared to make to the government.

12:20 p.m.

It is one thing for the government to operate efficiently, but if a crown corporation out there is operating inefficiently, it can blow an awful lot more money than this minister or this ministry may ever think of wasting.

We are also interested in the affirmative action program. I hope the minister will spend some time dealing with that. I know the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has some very specific questions she wants to ask on that. Perhaps the minister can give us an update and at the appropriate time the member for Beaches-Woodbine can question him further.

The minister talked about improving communications. Those of us who are members of the Legislature have very heavy weeks -- I put in, as I am sure the minister does, a 70- to 80-hour week -- and one problem area is communicating with our own constituents. One thing that has been particularly helpful is the media studio in this building.

Unfortunately, Rogers Cable has cut back on its services of taping MPPs' Queen's Park reports; it claims it is because of the federal and provincial tax changes. That is a nuisance to me. I have to go to the other side of the city to get a program taped, perhaps bring my guest and make all kinds of arrangements, instead of taking three quarters of an hour and taping a half-hour show down in the studio.

I am wondering if the minister has thought of meeting with the Speaker to see if some facilities might be made available. We could then at least tape our programs here, our reports to our constituents, and then bicycle them, as they say, or bring them ourselves to the particular cable company for broadcast in our local areas.

It would be very helpful to us. I am sure it would be particularly helpful to the government side because there are more members. Therefore, I would think they would be more affected even than we would be. This is the kind of thing I hope we can look at in a nonpartisan way simply as a service to members and a service of letting the community know what is going on.

While we are on this topic -- and I guess really I should more appropriately bring it up with the Speaker, but I know the minister is one person who would deal with the Speaker on this topic -- a few years ago when I was first elected I served on the Speaker's panel, a group of people made up of chairmen of committees and so forth, who met with the Speaker to discuss procedure and various other matters of interest to the smooth functioning of the House.

At that time, it was proposed that there be ongoing television coverage of the Legislature perhaps by the cable companies. I understand at least 80 per cent of all TV viewers in Ontario receive their television via cable. Some of the problems to come up at that time were those of the excessive lighting, the heat and also cost. But since that time, many of the technical problems, namely, the heat and the lights, have been perfected. There is a cool light system.

I really think it would be to the advantage of the public if we had the kind of programming that originally was proposed by Mr. Rogers of Rogers Cable. As I recall, what he had envisaged was the taping of not only the House in action but also the committees. Somebody may have a particular interest and may belong to a group that has a particular interest; they cannot all crowd into room 151 or committee room 2. They may have children. They may not have baby-sitters or they may be at work. If we were to have that kind of ongoing system, it would allow more access, more monitoring of government and of the opposition parties by the public and it would allow the cable companies to boast that they are providing an extensive community service.

I also think it would raise the level of debate in parliament. At that time, I remember Murray Gaunt and a couple of people saying; "People would grandstand." I do not believe that. They might grandstand for the first couple of times it happened, but after that they would forget the cameras were on and would just conduct business as usual because we cannot always perform at a high level. I think parliament has been done a disservice in some ways by taping question period only, which is done by the House of Commons.

The question period is an unreal kind of situation. If the public could see the committees in operation, if they could see the kind of day-to-day, bread-and-butter, hard-work sorts of things committees do, such as improving the legislation or coming to grips with very technical and complicated problems, it would raise the status of parliament and help stop the kinds of comments that I get, such as, "You guys all look like a bunch of goons shouting at one another." I do not know whether that is something which the minister has discussed with the Speaker but I never miss an opportunity to talk about it and I think that it should be costed. It might be a very small portion of the total budget.

One of the things the minister did, and for which I owe him some compliments, was to have the wheelchair ramp in front of the building installed. At the time I made a bet with one of the people from the media who said it was only a temporary ramp and that it would not stay up. His argument was that the historical societies would argue that it defaced the building. When I asked the minister for it, our argument was that it was the International Year of Disabled Persons. It was important, not only from the physical aspect, but also from a psychological point of view, that disabled people be able to enter their parliament building by the front door. The minister, to his credit, and I think despite the opposition of one or two of his cabinet colleagues, managed to fight that through and it was built.

I recall that he suggested there might be some extra stonework put around it so that it would blend more harmoniously with the architecture of the building. I do not know if that has been costed. I do not know whether architects have looked at it but it would be interesting to find an update on that because the ramp is still there. I do not think it is an eyesore but I do not think it is as attractive as perhaps it could be. There could be some stone facing or something similar that would make it look more a part of the building.

At the time, it was also argued it might be difficult for wheelchairs to navigate the angle at which it was put in. I would be interested to find out if the minister has had any compliments on it and if it is being extensively used. Unfortunately, because of my parking space, I enter this building by the back door and rarely go through the front lobby. But I would be interested to find out whether or not the ramp has been extensively used and whether the slant has proved successful and is navigable for most people.

I would like to say a word on a minor thing but it is something that hit me the other day when a constituent at one of the seniors' buildings said, "I always thought you were my friend." I said, "I always thought so too." He said, "How come you went to everybody else's anniversary, but not to mine?" I said, "If you had told me about it, I am sure I would have come to yours and I would have presented you with a plaque from the Premier."

He said: "The Premier mailed out a plaque and I did not get anything from you. But in the meanwhile you have gone to every anniversary of all of my friends in this West Acres Senior Citizens Recreation Centre."

It turned out that the reason the Premier mailed the plaque was that the anniversary was on a date after the call of the last election; it was February 26 or something and the election was called on February 2.

12:30 p.m.

I recognize that technically the Premier is still Premier until such time as there is a change of government and an MPP is not an MPP after the writ is issued, but there might be a way of at least informing the incumbent MPP that there is an anniversary so he can send a card or letter, or drop by, and not simply have the thing shipped out to the constituent by the Premier's office.

In this case he was very upset, because he knew me and my family. He said: "You seem to do everything for everybody else. But when it comes to a close friend, you forgot me." We had not forgotten. It was the procedure of sending out the plaques.

Just by coincidence, when that came up I looked up my file on plaques and came across the wording for the 1977 plaques. It is interesting that part of the wording uses the plural: "It is our hope that you will enjoy years to come in good health and much happiness." That was the 1977 anniversary, the Queen's Silver Jubilee.

I wonder whether it would not be more appropriate if the plaques presented were not written in the plural, since the plaque is presented by a member of the Legislature of whatever party and since it is signed by the Premier, who is the head of the government, because it is really the people of Ontario through their government and their representatives who are congratulating these people.

I do not know whether the minister has any influence over the wording used on these, but it seems to me it would be more appropriate. When I present the plaque, I do not present it just on behalf of the Premier. I do not present it on behalf of myself. I like to say I am presenting it as congratulations from the people of Ontario, who want to wish them all the best. I happen to be the spokesperson at that moment. It might be something worth looking into.

There are a number of items outstanding from the last estimates, I will go through some of them but, before I do that, I want to ask the minister some questions about the manual of administration. I became particularly conscious of it when, as the minister will know from reading the newspapers or perhaps from talking to members of his own party, there was a conflict between the Ombudsman and the select committee on the Ombudsman.

One of the parallel issues was the hiring of the Ombudsman's staff. In this case, he had hired two relatives. The previous Ombudsman had stated to the committee that he had accepted the manual of administration.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, I wish to correct the honourable member. The manual he is talking about does not come within my ministry. It is really a responsibility of the Management Board of Cabinet. I mention that just in case he is not aware of that.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Etobicoke is always very careful to stay on topic.

Mr. Philip: I am on topic, Mr. Chairman. I did not want to bring this up in a direct way with the minister but there has been a problem in the past, or it has been suggested there has, about the hiring of relatives in this ministry.

I did not want to make it personal. That is why I was trying to stay with the manual of administration, but I want to deal with it from the manual of administration point of view. As I see it, one of the faults in the manual of administration is that it is very contradictory. It says one may not hire one's wife. Pardon me if I sounded chauvinistic; it uses the word "spouse." But it does not mention any other close relative.

In other words, is there not an apparent conflict if, as the Ombudsman appears to have done, he hired his daughter? The evidence is he did do it. Is that not as much of a conflict as hiring a wife in his case, or a spouse in the case of a female minister or deputy minister or whoever? I really think we have to look at the whole area of conflict of interest and come up with acceptable guidelines.

I think the public generally felt that what was done by the Ombudsman was wrong. Some of the calls I received, some of the editorials in the newspapers, certainly supported the position I took, as did other members of the Ombudsman's committee from all three parties. I hope that is something the minister may want to give his views on. Again, I am not being punishing to the minister on that or trying to recycle an old issue.

Another issue that has appeared since we last met, about flights taken by the minister and his aides, was raised by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). I wonder whether the minister can tell us if, in this time of austerity, he is being more cautious about how many charter flights and private flights are made on government business.

The Premier certainly responded to the austerity program by scrapping the executive jet. I would have been happy if he had bought a STOL, because we have a lot of people unemployed at de Havilland and it would have been a far better airplane for him to fly around in than the jet. In any case, he may want to tell us about that.

One other item: As members of the Legislature, I am sure all of us have received a very beautiful little calendar on the McMichael Canadian Collection. I know it was sent out at taxpayers' expense to each of us. We priced it at the Eaton store on Yonge and Eglinton, and it costs $3.95. I believe it was the Ministry of Government Services that sent these out, and I would be interested to know how many people may have received them, not just members of the Legislature. How many were distributed free, and what was the total cost?

I realize it is a beautiful gift. It is something I certainly am pleased to receive. But when we are cutting people's wages down to five per cent, people who are working for very little money in many cases, at $13,000- or $14,000-a-year jobs, I wonder whether this is not a little exorbitant and whether the members could not have been asked to pay for what is a very beautiful calendar and book. I would be glad to pay $4 to have it in my collection. I would be interested in knowing how many people, besides members of the Legislature, may have received that.

Those are a few of the comments I have in dealing with some new issues. There are a number of other issues that were raised last year and that I think are still current and I hope we can get an update on. For example, has the ministry now agreed to have in government supply contracts a section that will show that preference is given to unionized companies and companies that have affirmative action programs? I hope we will also have an update on the decentralization plan and the effects it will have on employees and on those employees who may not be in a position to move to Kingston or other locations.

In previous estimates we have also dealt with the conduct of former ministers and deputy ministers in their dealings with the government agencies they have been on top of at one time. We have also dealt with the whole issue from a different point of view of conflict of interest, namely, the conflict of interest of a personnel person. That came up with Re-Mor. It also came up recently when, as our party's housing critic and the member in our caucus responsible for landlord and tenant rent review, I brought up the issue of conflict of interest of rent review officers.

I wonder whether the minister has some feelings or some recommendations from his staff concerning the need for conflict of interest guidelines regarding former ministers and former top people: deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and so forth.

12:40 p.m.

Another issue that came up in the past was the use of unlicensed carriers; in other words, operators who do not operate with a public commercial vehicle licence. I hope we will have some assurance that the government is not using unlicensed carriers -- carriers who are in violation of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications regulations -- for the carrying of any government freight.

Another issue that is a holdover from the past again, and the members may want to talk about it, is the management of the Legislative Building. Should it come directly under the Speaker, or what is the responsibility of the Ministry of Government Service vis-à-vis the Speaker, and what is the balance? I would be interested to know whether there have been meetings between this ministry and the new Speaker for this session and whether any changes are contemplated.

An issue raised by the member for Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) was the problem of obtaining French-language translations. He said the offices should be closer to the Legislature, and I wonder whether any action has been taken on that concern, which was also a concern of our party.

Having mentioned those few issues, I want to make a couple of comments on the minister's opening remarks.

First of all, the buy-Canadian policy is something we can agree with but, when we get right down to it, it is more than just the 10 per cent. Basically what we are dealing with is the attitude of the purchasing officers at the various levels of government. We can have a 10 per cent preference or a 20 per cent preference, but on the day-to-day things, as my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has pointed out, often something that appears to be Canadian may not be Canadian; it may be packaged Canadian.

I wonder what kind of education or direction the minister is giving to his purchasing officers to make sure that on a daily basis a priority is being given to Canadian-made products.

A lot has been said in the minister's opening address about new jobs being created. I would like to have more specifics, rather than simply the figures thrown out. We can all come up with figures to prove practically anything, but I would like a few more facts and a little bit more meat on that.

Those are some of the opening remarks I wanted to make, and perhaps we can deal with the minister's response. If it makes it easier for the minister, I am quite prepared to have him deal with the various questions I have asked under the appropriate votes and then we can have a dialogue on them. That might be a little bit easier unless he wants to make a closing statement. I am flexible, whichever is most convenient or the easiest for him.

The Deputy Chairman: Minister, what would you prefer?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to respond to some of these questions today while they are fresh in my mind and fresh in the minds of everyone. There are lots of questions here. If you will just bear with me a minute, I will try to go through them.

The first question from the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) concerned more buying in the Ministry of Government Services. I looked at his suggestion. I was asked that question in the House a couple of years ago, at which time the name of the Honourable Charles MacNaughton and his statement were referred to.

Sometimes when we reflect on what has happened in the past and apply it today, we find it is a little hard to go along with some of those statements. But in general they make sense and we will try to follow them. In my closing statement we asked for suggestions and we really meant it. We try to implement as many as we can where finances and other considerations permit.

The member for Erie also referred to telephone lines. As I mentioned, we have worked out an arrangement with the federal government, because we all know from our constituency offices that a lot of those making the calls do not know whether their problems are federal or provincial.

We worked out an agreement somewhat different from those of some of our sister provinces. Before we put this through, we asked the federal government to include in the blue pages the numbers of the 15 most-often-called ministries so that we would not be swamped with bread-and-butter calls.

By putting this through, we have helped to reduce a lot of the frustrating calls that my and others' constituents make. These Zenith calls come through toll-free. Previously they paid for the calls themselves and often placed two or three calls only to get the wrong person each time. Now we are able to point them in the right direction.

The member for Erie is shaking his head, but I really think we have improved a lot in that area and are continuing to improve. The word that comes back to me is that it seems to be working quite satisfactorily.

The member for Erie also asked about the cost. I would like to say that by referring these calls to the right ministries on the first try, we have eliminated a lot of unnecessary calls.

He also spoke about creating jobs. I would like to go back to the statement, which mentions that last year we created 10,000 jobs through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, capital projects, repairs and alterations and so on. This year we will have 14,500 jobs and, through BILD, another 1,500 new jobs.

As I mentioned in the House in my statement just the other day -- I believe I have made two statements on this -- the procurement officer from the Ministry of Industry and Trade is now in place in our ministry. I mentioned in my opening speech in the estimates a year ago that we could not buy 40 percent -- I believe that was the figure -- of our mechanical and electrical requirements in Canada. So we are trying to highlight that area.

We hope this procurement officer will attend trade conferences and so on and try to persuade the companies that have the capacity to build whatever we need so that in the future we can come here and say that we have reduced that 40 per cent. I would like to see it go to nil, but I do not think it will ever go that low. However, we can be optimistic and hope that it will come down a great deal. All of us in the House will agree that this will mean an awful lot of jobs.

One should keep in mind that we expend about $70 million on capital projects, repairs and alterations. That represents about 2.5 to three per cent of the total building that goes on in Canada. If we recognize that 40 per cent of the mechanical and electrical goods cannot be purchased in Canada, then there is a lot of money that can be put into Canadian jobs if we can encourage these companies to take up the ball and run with it. We are spending this money to highlight it for the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker),and with their expertise his people can encourage Canadian firms to go out and to build. I am hoping for great things in that area.

12:50 p.m.

As to the bookmarks as a form of advertising, I am trying to get a cost on that. I do not have it to date, though I am told it is very small. We made some changes in our bookstore and wanted to let people know where it was through the bookmarks, to highlight that the books are available and so on. Why the store the member mentioned had so many when there are not very many citizens to be served in that area, I do not know. I will try to get a cost for the member if he wants, but it is a very small amount.

As for the calls coming in from Etobicoke and the honourable member getting those for other members close by, we get some of that even in a rural riding, although sometimes to a lesser degree. People do not know just where the boundaries end, because sometimes the federal and provincial ridings differ; they do in my riding.

I did speak to the member one morning at breakfast about this. We will take his suggestion and see what we can do. We are as interested as all the members are in making sure the calls get to the right person so that the public can get the service they are looking for from the members.

As to the sale of surplus land, I will run through what happens. If a ministry puts up land as being surplus, we circulate that to all the other ministries first to see if there is a need we are not aware of. If there is not a need, then we go to the municipalities and give them a chance to purchase at market value.

If no municipality is interested and we have no long-range needs for it, then we put the land up for disposal in different ways. We can have a reserve bid and put it up that way, or we can have an auction with a reserve bid. We have done it in different ways, but that is basically what happens. Some of the land coming in lately has been below our reserve bid so we have not sold it, for some of the reasons the member mentioned, such as interest rates and so on.

The member asked about the 1984 celebrations and what we might be doing. They are in the preliminary stages. I have not had any input into them as yet. If what the member is worrying about is whether we would bring forth a program to implement changes, as mentioned in my statement, I am sure those changes would keep in mind that we would not want to mess around with our lovely Legislative Building at a time when we are celebrating our anniversary.

As to computer services and whether they are kept confidential, I can assure the members we do everything we can to make sure they are confidential. I think our record will show we have been quite successful at that and we will continue to do everything we can to keep those confidential.

On affirmative action, when I served on Management Board and the presentation was brought to Management Board we were the good guys. That presentation mentioned it as being one of the best ministries for recognizing and working with the affirmative action group. My staff has just told me that we have continued to improve.

Last year, 27 per cent of our staff were ladies. This year we are up to 32 per cent. The members can see that we are continuing to improve. I might say that, in the reorganization of our ministry, ladies are taking on a greater role of responsibility in our new programs and our reorganization.

In regard to cable television, the member knows we have had a discussion on this on one or two occasions. We would be pleased to look into this with the Speaker, but we do not have a lot of money; we do not have it in our budget. If the Speaker asks us to do it, we will certainly look at it. But for this year, unless things change, we do not have the funds to look at anything like that. I want to be honest and straightforward with the members. I am not promising something we cannot deliver because of our finances right now.

Cable TV in committee rooms comes under the Speaker. I realize it is hard for members to realize what comes under the Speaker and what comes under the Ministry of Government Services, but the committee rooms are under the direction of the Speaker. If the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy were to make a decision along that line, I am sure we would honour that and do what we could to implement the service.

As for the wheelchair ramp and whether we should put it in with stone, we do not have the money to do that at this time. I could have told the member that for a while we did not have the stone, but we have been able to get some stone now. We have the stone set aside for repairs to the building itself where needed but as we all know, living in an old stone house at home and knowing what it costs, we do not have the money to do that at this time.

As to how well the wheelchair ramp is used, I did check it out as the members did about a year and a half ago. It was well used then. I honestly have not had an update since that time, but I will try to get something. At a big function, which I think is the best indicator, it is used not only by people in wheelchairs, with canes and so on but also on some occasions by expectant mothers who find it easier to come up that way than to use the stairs. It is used for baby buggies as well.

As far as the plaques are concerned, I think everyone in the House will agree the plaques that go out from all of us as members are warmly received by all the recipients. It is a service that a few people do in our ministry.

It may be of interest that we put out more than 10,000 of these plaques a year. We do have the odd one that goes astray, as the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McEwen) knows. Where it says Perth Road, sometimes I get it because I live in Perth, but the member for Frontenac-Addington and I have a little discussion or I send it over to his office.

It is hard for the people if they are mailed out. If they are delivered, it is a different story. I do not say it was so in the case of the honourable member, but sometimes if a request comes into the Premier's office for him to present the scroll, then that happens.

I will just take a couple more minutes and then I will be finished.

Concerning the manual and the daughter, my feelings on the matter were put on the record last year. They have not changed. Anyone interested can read that.

Twenty-five per cent of my flight to Thunder Bay was used for party work and was paid for by the party. I did not use government aircraft. With schedules such as the one I had this week, which was like a dog's breakfast, I would not have been able to make it without commercial aircraft and my wife and everyone else driving -- and I was not going as far as Thunder Bay, which is almost from here to Florida. However, that has been paid.

Perhaps the member could ask me the other two questions on Monday afternoon when I will try to answer them.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

October 22, 1982